20250826Answer to Motions.pdf

RECEIVED
August 26, 2025
Andrew P. Moratzka(pro hac vice pending) IDAHO PUBLIC
[e-mail] UTILITIES COMMISSION
STOEL RIVES LLP
33 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 612.373.8881
W. Christopher Pooser, ISB No. 5525
[e-mail]
Alaina Harrington, ISB No. 11879
[e-mail]
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208.3 89.9040
Attorneys for Idaho Forest Group LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION Case No. CIO-E-25-01
OF NORTHERN LIGHTS, INC. AND THE
CITY OF BONNERS FERRY FOR AN IDAHO FOREST GROUP LLC'S
ORDER APPROVING A SERVICE ANSWER TO MOTIONS
TERRITORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE APPLICANTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Rather than squarely address the facts that Northern Lights, Inc. ("NLI") and the City of
Bonners Ferry("CBF,"together with NLI,the"Applicants")submitted an application for approval
of a service territory agreement(the"Application")that was devoid of any reference to the directly
related proceeding pending before the Idaho Supreme Court,or that the contents of the Application
are vague and incomplete, Applicants chastise Idaho Forest Group LLC ("IFG") for submitting a
comment and petition to intervene twelve business days after the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") issued its news release regarding the Application in Applicants'
motion to deny IFG's intervention("Applicants' Motion"). Applicants' unnecessarily aggressive
1

position to deny IFG participation in this proceeding exposes their intention—push the Application
through without being transparent to the Commission and the general public to avoid reasonable
process and review. The Commission should not tolerate Applicants' litigation tactics and should
deny Applicants' Motion. Furthermore, Commission Staff s expedited motion to vacate comment
deadlines ("Staffs Motion") is a reasonable approach to facilitate further development of the
record on this important matter. Staffs Motion should therefore be granted. Pursuant to
Commission Rules of Procedure ("Rule") 57, IDAPA 31.01.01.057, IFG timely submits this
answer to Applicants' Motion and Staffs Motion and respectfully asserts it is entitled to full party
status as an intervenor.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The Commission Should Deny Applicants' Motion
As IFG previously noted, the Application was filed on June 13, 2025, roughly 44 years
after the Applicants entered into the Service Agreement Pursuant to Idaho Code 61-333 ("Section
61-333 Service Agreement") and roughly 25 years after the Idaho Legislature met and approved
revisions to the Idaho Electric Supplier Stabilization Act("ESSA"). The only conceivable reason
for Applicants to come forward with the Application now, after decades of time, is to attempt to
collaterally attack a pending appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court, in which the interaction of
the provisions in the ESSA are directly at issue. Yet, the Application has no reference to this
appeal or the underlying litigation. Instead, Applicants had the audacity to request modified
procedure under Rules 201-204, IDAPA 31.01.01.201-204, which the Commission presumably
granted,in large part,because it was unaware of the significant outstanding issues under the ESSA.
Alternatively, it is not clear that modified procedure would have been granted by the Commission
had it been fully apprised of the relevant facts. For this reason alone, any alleged constraints on
2

the timing for intervention should be disregarded by the Commission and Applicants' Motion
should be denied. Furthermore,the legal arguments set forth in Applicants' Motion are unavailing.
1. IFG's Petition is Timely
The central premise of Applicants' Motion is that IFG's petition to intervene, filed on
August 19, 2025 ("IFG's Petition"), a mere eighteen days—twelve business days—after receiving
published notice, was untimely. Citing Rule 73, Applicants contend that IFG's Petition should
have been filed on August 7, 2025, less than one week after the Commission issued its August 1,
2025 press release ("Press Release") on the Application. The Commission should reject
Applicants' narrow reading of the Rules.
To be sure, there is ambiguity in the rules as to whether IFG's Petition was in fact due on
August 7,2025,or August 21,2025, and that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of IFG. Under
IFG's reading, intervention is only due fourteen days before the deadline for initial comments "if
the case is being_processed by modified procedure under Rules 201-204." IDAPA 31.01.01.073
(emphasis added). But Rule 201 specifically provides that such modified procedure
determinations are preliminary. See e.g., IDAPA 31.01.01.201 ("The Commission may
preliminarily fin "); IDAPA 31.01.01.202 ("When the Commission finds that it may not be in
the public interest to hold a hearing in a matter...") (emphasis added). Arguably, the deadline
advocated by Applicants should only apply if the modified procedure has been firmly established.
Even if it was, notice to IFG, as an interested person given the underlying litigation and appeal,
was required. IDAPA 31.01.01.202.02 ("Copies of the notice of modified procedure will be
provided to all interested persons...") (emphasis added). Notice of Order No. 36695 was not
provided to IFG, which could have only discovered it after the Commission's Press Release.
Furthermore, Rule 202 specifically provides that "all interested persons will have at least twenty-
one (21) days from the date of the notice to file a written protest or comment." IDAPA
3

31.01.01.202.02 (emphasis added). Applicants are effectively arguing that IFG can protest and
comment, but not as a parry. This reading would be absurd. Rule 13 provides for a liberal
construction of the Rules to ensure consistency with the public interest. Specifically, it states that
"These rules will be liberally construed to secure just determination of all issues presented to the
Commission," and that the Commission "may permit deviation from these rules when it finds
compliance with them is impracticable...or not in the public interest." IDAPA 31.01.01.013.
IFG's Petition was not only filed within twenty-one days of notice through publication of the Press
Release, but it also diligently worked to advise the Commission of all the directly related legal
issues impacting the Application in a written comment, filed along with IFG's Petition. Consistent
with Rule 73, IFG met the "prior orders and notices in the proceeding." In light of the
circumstances outlined above and contained with IFG's Petition, the ambiguity in the Rules, and
IFG's timely comment(timeliness that the Applicants do not dispute),the public interest demands
IFG's Petition be considered timely.
2. IFG Has Satisfied the Substantive Requirements to Intervene
Applicants erroneously claim that IFG doesn't meet the required standard to intervene,
asserting that IFG lacks the direct and substantial interest required under Rule 72. Applicants'
Motion,pg. 4. Applicants' arguments fail for multiple reasons.
First, resolution of the issues on the pending Idaho Supreme Court appeal would, in fact,
impact the Commission's determination in this matter. As just one example of the potential
outcomes, if the Idaho Supreme Court determines that the Commission approval of a service
territory agreement under Idaho Code § 61-333 is a prerequisite to the limitations of Idaho Code
§ 61-333B applying (i.e., customers outside of CBF's municipal boundaries aren't lawfully
connected until the Commission acts on the application), then CBF may be in violation of the
provisions of the ESSA and IFG may not be obligated to take service from CBF.
4

Second, on a related note, if the Application is granted, this will impact CBF's arguments
on appeal. In fact, IFG assumes that is the intent. Although CBF previously argued the
Application was unnecessary in litigation pending in Boundary County District Court, it is now
arguing the contrary. Notably, there is nothing in the Applicants' Motion representing that CBF
wouldn't reference Commission approval in the pending appeal.
Third,Applicants' assertion that resolution of the Application won't impact IFG's rates or
service quality lacks merit. As noted in IFG's Petition,IFG has two potentially impacted facilities,
one presently being served by CBF and the other presently being served by NLI,both of which are
significant industrial customers for the relevant utility. If the Idaho Supreme Court, and ultimately
the Commission, determines that NLI should be serving both facilities, such determination could
have a positive impact on rates for IFG's mill located in Laclede, Idaho, and other NLI customers,
as there would be more energy sales over which to spread fixed costs.' The extent to which there
would be any such impacts is unknown at this time, given the lack of information. It is for this
reason that record development is critical on the items set forth on page 7 of IFG's comment —
namely, (1)the precise scope and geographical boundaries of the service territory NLI proposes to
cede to CBF; (2) a full listing of customers that are impacted by the Section 61-333 Service
Agreement and relief sought in the Application; (3) a detailed one-line diagram of the Applicants'
electric service systems in Boundary County, including facilities owned and operated by other
parties, including Bonneville Power Administration; (4) future planned investments of NLI and
CBF, respectively, to provide service and maintain reliability in Boundary County; and (5) all
other relevant information for the Commission to adequately reach its conclusion as to whether
the Application is in conformance with the provisions and purposes of the ESSA.
' Furthermore,IFG's mill located in Moyie Springs,Idaho,wouldn't have been responsible for the unlawful
5%general fund transfer fee imposed(and arguably still imposed)by CBF.
5

3. Granting IFG's Petition Would Not Unduly Broaden Issues in the
Application
Applicants' Motion does not assert that granting IFG's Petition would prejudice Applicants
or unduly broaden the issues pertaining to the Application. Nor could they. IFG's Petition was
filed before the commenting deadline initially established in Order No. 36695, along with as
substantive a comment as we feasible given the timeframe IFG was afforded in responding.
Applicants are in no way prejudiced by IFG's Petition filed within the comment deadline. And
with IFG's involvement, the Commission will be better able to review the Application and assess
whether, in light of all relevant facts, "the allocation of territories or consumers is in conformance
with the provisions and purposes of this act." Idaho Code § 61-333(l).
B. The Commission Should Grant Staff s Motion
The Commission issued its Order No. 36695 lacking the necessary information to
adequately determine that the public interest doesn't require a technical hearing. Had IFG
received actual or constructive notice of the Application buy the Applicants on or about the filing
date of June 13, 2025, it would have had the opportunity to submit an answer and comment within
twenty-one days, pursuant to Rules 57 and 203, objecting to the Applicants' request for modified
procedure and requesting a hearing. IDAPA 31.01.01.057 and .203. IFG was denied this
opportunity. Therefore,the Commission's preliminary determination that modified procedure was
appropriate in Order No. 36695 should be vacated, along with the existing deadlines, consistent
with the request in Staff s Motion.
6

III. CONCLUSION
The relief sought in the Application appears to be a collateral attack on a pending appeal
now before the Idaho Supreme Court, filed without sufficient information for the Commission to
conduct the analysis required under applicable law. Given the significant outstanding legal issues,
and based on the analysis above, IFG respectfully requests that the Commission deny Applicants'
Motion, grant Staff s Motion, and grant IFG's Petition with full party status.
DATED: August 26, 2025 STOEL RIVES LLP
By: /s/W. Christopher Pooser
W. Christopher Pooser
Andrew P. Moratzka
Attorneys for Idaho Forest Group LLC
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 26, 2025, I served a true and correct copy of the
IDAHO FOREST GROUP LLC'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS upon the following by electronic
mail only:
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Susan P. Weeks
James, Vernon, & Weeks, P.A.
1626 Lincoln Way
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83834
[e-mail]
Tyler R. Whitney
Cable Huston LLP
1455 SW Broadway, Ste 1500
Portland, OR 97201-3412
[e-mail]
/s/W. Christopher Pooser
W. Christopher Pooser
8