20250904Staff Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
September 04, 2025
CHRIS BURDIN IDAHO PUBLIC
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 9810
Street Address for Express Mail:
11331 W CHINDEN BVLD,BLDG 8, SUITE 201-A
BOISE, ID 83714
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSION STAFF'S ) CASE NO. GNR-E-25-01
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN )
OVERSIGHT PROCESS FOR THE ) STAFF'S REPLY
ACQUISITION OF LARGE SUPPLY-SIDE ) COMMENTS
ELECTRICAL RESOURCES )
Commission Staff("Staff'), by and through its Attorney of record, Chris Burdin, Deputy
Attorney General, hereby submits the following Reply Comments in response to Comments filed
by Avista Corporation, dba Avista Utilities ("Avista"), Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power"),
PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power ("RMP"), and the Northwest and Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition ("NIPPC"). The four intervenors, collectively called the Parties, submitted
Initial Comments on July 24, 2025, and NIPPC submitted Response Comments on August 21,
2025.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case was laid out in the Application, which Staff filed on March
31, 2025. Included with the Application was Attachment A to the Application("Attachment A"or
"Procedure"), titled "Procedure for Soliciting Large Supply-Side Resources." Attachment A was
Staff's initial proposal for the procedure that large electric utilities should follow when soliciting
for large supply-side resources.
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 1 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

In these Reply Comments, Staff responds to the comments and recommendations of the
Parties, and proposes minor adjustments to Attachment A.
REPLY COMMENTS
Staff appreciates the efforts of the Parties to review the proposal and provide meaningful
feedback. In general,the Parties each expressed support for the proposed procedure,but they also
proposed minor adjustments to it. Staff addresses each Party's comments below.
Avista
Avista proposes two modifications to Attachment A, each of which Staff addresses below.
Allow for jurisdictional differences in objectives
Avista proposes modifying Guiding Principle No.2, which presently reads: "The selection
process should avoid bias toward any other objectives, unless those objectives are clearly stated
and convincingly justified." Avista is mindful of its other jurisdiction, the state of Washington,
which is legally bound to pursue clean energy, even if it is not the least-cost and least-risk ("LC-
LR") resource. Accordingly, Avista recommends "modifying the principle to explicitly
acknowledge the potential for jurisdictional differences." Avista Comments at 1-2.
NIPPC, in its Response Comments, notes that this requested change "appears to be
unnecessary because nothing in Staff's proposed rules proscribes Avista with complying with
neighboring state's laws in its procurements." Response Comments at 9.
Staff agrees with NIPPC's observation. Furthermore, Staff believes that an explicit
exemption that pre-emptively allows utilities to pursue other state's objectives defeats one of the
primary purposes of this Application. As Staff stated,"because other states may not share the same
priorities as Idaho, Staff believes it is in the best interest of Idaho ratepayers to end the explicit
link to the OPUC process,to end the implicit dependence on other states, and to establish an Idaho
process that ensures Idaho priorities are maintained." Application at 4.
Staff believes the current text of Guiding Principle No. 2 is reasonable,because it allows a
utility to identify objectives that are not LC-LR, and present justification for why that objective
should be included. Therefore, Staff recommends no change to Principle No. 2 of Attachment A.
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 2 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

Provide flexibility in the Idaho timeline
Avista proposes modifying Procedure (1)(a), which states: "Prior to issuing the REP, the
Company must file an application with the Commission and obtain approval." The state of
Washington imposes a prescriptive filing timeline on Avista, and Avista therefore requests "that
the Commission provide flexibility in the Idaho timeline to mitigate potential conflicts...." Avista
Comments at 2.
NIPPC, in its Response Comments, notes that "Avista's concern is difficult to evaluate
because it provides no specific explanation of the procedural misalignment it envisions and makes
no proposal to edit Staff's proposed rules to address the issue." Response Comments at 9. NIPPC
also expresses openness to granting schedule flexibility, but not if the solution involves a
"wholesale waiver of the IPUC's RFP rules." Id.
Staff agrees with NIPPC that it is difficult to evaluate Avista's request without more
specific information about potential conflicts in schedule timelines.
Staff is also reluctant to support a pre-emptive waiver from the basic requirement, which
is to file and obtain approval for the Request for Proposal("RFP")package before issuing the RFP.
Staff believes that Avista should be able to manage the timelines of the two jurisdictions and plan
filings accordingly. Also, Procedure (1)(c) explicitly states that the company may request an
effective date for its application. Staff believes that these two factors—effective advance planning
and a constrained application review window — should be sufficient to avoid conflicts with
Washington. Therefore, Staff recommends no change to Procedure (1)(a) of Attachment A.
Idaho Power
Idaho Power proposed one modification to Attachment A, which Staff addresses below.
Add exclusion for customer-provided resources
Idaho Power proposes to modify Procedure (2)(c), which currently waives the RFP pre-
approval requirements "[fJor unsolicited economic-based opportunities outside the RFP process."
Idaho Power recommends that the guidelines be expanded to include "resources the Company
procures under contractual arrangements with a specific customer." Idaho Power Comments at 7.
Idaho Power provided the specific scenario of its Clean Energy Your Way ("CEYW") program,
through which"the customer may collaborate with Idaho Power to construct a dedicated renewable
energy resource to meet their specific sustainability or carbon reduction goals." Id.
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 3 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

NIPPC recommends that no exemption be added to the procedure. Instead,if the procedure
is left unchanged, it would effectively require Idaho Power to file"a petition for waiver of the REP
rules for a customer-specific resource so that the Commission may evaluate the unique
circumstances of the proposal." Response Comments at 7.
Staff supports expanding Procedure (2)(c) to accommodate Idaho Power's request. First,
the CEYW-type acquisitions are funded by the large customers, not by all ratepayers. Second,
these special contracts are submitted to the Commission for review so the terms can be examined
to ensure ratepayers are not inadvertently subsidizing the acquisition. Third, expanding Procedure
(2)(c) to include this scenario would not exempt the acquisition from review. It would bypass the
requirement to seek a separate RFP waiver, but it would still require the company to file an
application with the Commission.
Accordingly, Staff recommends adding "or large-customer-funded" into Attachment A so
Procedure (2)(c) will read, "For unsolicited economic-based or large-customer funded
opportunities outside the RFP process:"
RMP
RMP proposes three modifications to Attachment A, which Staff addresses below.
Remove the "rare situations"modifier
RMP proposes to modify Procedure (2)(a), which states: "In rare situations, the Company
may defer Commission pre-approval of its RFP in accordance with this waiver process." RMP
proposes to remove the"rare situations"modifier because the company believes that"the language
pertaining to the waiver process should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis...." RMP Comments
at 2.
NIPPC opposes this modification, emphasizing that waivers from the normal process
should be rare. Response Comments at 8.
Staff recommends changing the phrase from "rare situations" to "below situations." A
review of Parts(a), (b), and(c) of Procedure(2) shows that Part(a)merely establishes that waivers
are possible and then points to Part (b) and (c) for the specifics of each waiver type. Part (b)
waivers are for emergency situations, which has the effect of being rare. Part (c) waivers are for
unique opportunities that are largely outside the Company's control, and therefore the rareness of
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 4 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

them is moot. Staff believes the procedure will be clearer if the "rare" modifier in Part (a) is
removed, and the focus is directed to Parts (b) and(c).
Accordingly, Staff recommends replacing "In rare situations" with "In below situations"
for Procedure (2)(a).
Remove the"unsolicited"modifier
RMP proposes to modify Procedure (2)(c), which states: "For unsolicited economic-based
opportunities outside the RFP process..." RMP proposes to remove the "unsolicited" modifier
because the company believes there may be "economic-based opportunities that could stem from
bilateral outreach." RMP Comments at 3.
NIPPC opposes this modification in its response comments, emphasizing that this would
"significantly expand the waiver option and could erode the applicability of the Commission's
relatively modest RFP rules." Response Comments at 8.
Staff agrees with NIPPC's reasoning and recommends leaving the "unsolicited" modifier
in place. Staff believes that when a utility needs a new large resource, the most effective way to
determine the LC-LR resource is by competitively soliciting the requirement to all potential
sources. Furthermore, Staff believes the type of outreach described by the Company runs counter
to Guiding Principle No. 3 in Attachment A: "The RFP and selection process should ensure
competition, transparency, confidentiality, and fairness through all stages of the procurement
process." Attachment A should not open a path for the utilities to reach out to only one provider
for a new resource.
Include a cost-recovery mechanism for Independent Evaluator expenses
RMP proposes to include a cost-recovery mechanism in the Procedure for Independent
Evaluator("IE") expenses. RMP states that "when an IE is required, the associated costs may be
unrecoverable by the utility." RMP Comments at 3.
NIPPC takes no position on this issue. Response Comments at 8.
Staff believes that the issue of IE expenses doesn't need to be addressed in this Procedure.
First, the Procedure only states that the Commission may require an IE, not that it will require an
IE. Second, in the Application on pages 5-6, Staff states
Staff believes that the requirement to hire an IE adds delay and cost to the
acquisition process, so the use of an IE should be minimized. Staff recommends
that an IE not be automatically required but merely considered during the initial
RFP review. In most cases, other states will already require an IE, so Idaho can
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 5 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

leverage that IE' s oversight. In the rare case that another state does not require an
IE, and Idaho deems one necessary, the Commission can prescribe one as part of
its REP review.
Finally, Staff believes that in the unlikely scenario of the Company being required by the
Commission to obtain an IE,the Commission can identify the cost recovery method in conjunction
with that order.
Therefore, Staff recommends no change to Attachment A for this issue.
NIPPC
In both its Initial Comments and Response Comments, NIPPC expressed support for the
proposed procedures, but emphasized its concern that some of the most important acquisition
safeguards come from the rigorously defined oversight requirements imposed by Oregon and
Washington.
Staff believes that the proposed Idaho procedures strike an appropriate balance between
acquisition oversight and acquisition timeliness. Also, nothing in Idaho's proposed procedures
will affect the oversight policies of the other jurisdictions because other state commissions are not
bound by Idaho Commission orders or rules. Finally, Staff believes that the proposed initial RFP
review gives the Commission an opportunity to prescribe detailed oversight of the acquisition
process if the Commission believes it is warranted.
However, to help ensure that utilities establish a transparent RFP selection process, Staff
recommends two minor modifications to Attachment A. Staff recommends modifying Footnote
No.l to replace "typically" with "should", and to replace "the modeling assumptions" with "all
assumptions."
Attachment A
Staff has included a red-line version of Attachment A showing all the changes proposed
herein(Attachment A v2—Red-Line), and a clean version(Attachment A v2—Clean)
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 6 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

CONCLUSION
Staff acknowledges and appreciates the inputs from the Parties to improve the guidelines
and procedures outlined in Attachment A.
Staff respectfully requests the Commission issue an order that: (1) rescinds Order No.
32745 for Idaho Power to comply with Oregon RFP guidelines; (2) directs each Utility' to apply
for and receive Commission approval for each new RFP prior to issuing it for the acquisition of
large supply-side resources in accordance with the requirements outlined in Attachment A-Clean.
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of September 2025.
L 't 'A.—
Chris Burdin
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff. Matt Suess
I:\Utility\UMISC\COMMENTS\GNR-E-25-01 Staff Reply Comments.docx
'Excluding Atlanta Power Company/Greylock Energy Holdings,LLC.
STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS 7 SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

Procedure for Soliciting
Large Supply-Side Resources
This document establishes the Idaho Public Utility Commission's procedure for electric utilities to
solicit large supply-side resources.
Guiding Principles:
1. The solicitation should issue a Request for Proposal ("RFP") that maximizes competition
between bidders and is resource-agnostic, soliciting bids from all feasible resource types (e.g.
with respect to technology, fuel type, resource size, ownership arrangements, etc.), and with
sufficient lead time that allows all potential bidders to meet the date when resources are needed.
2. The RFP selection process should be designed to select least-cost least-risk resources that
satisfy the system need. The selection process should avoid bias toward any other objectives,
unless those objectives are clearly stated and convincingly justified.
3. The RFP and selection process should ensure competition, transparency, confidentiality, and
fairness through all stages of the procurement process. The process should be designed to
ensure:
a. communication with all those involved to promote understanding of the elements
of the process including procedures, timelines, requirements, and criteria for
selection;
b. processes that are open, competitive and accessible to all qualified
suppliers/contractors avoiding favoritism or discriminatory practices;
c. honesty and integrity in all interactions with suppliers/contractors and avoids any
form of unethical behavior;
d. conflicts of interest among utility personnel are mitigated and to ensure impartial
decision-making; and
e. adherence to legal and regulatory requirements.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Page 1 of 3
Attachment A v2-Red-Line
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

Procedure:
This procedure is applicable to any solicitation for electrical supply-side generating or storage
resources of 100 MW or greater for a duration of 10-years or more that will be subject to recovery
from Idaho ratepayers.
1. Standard Solicitation Process:
a. Prior to issuing the RFP, the Company must file an application with the Commission and
obtain approval. The application should include the UP,the RFP Selection Plan',the RFP
Announcement Plan 2, and other documents relevant to the solicitation.
b. The application should justify the need for new resources.
c. The Company may request an effective date for Commission approval.
d. As part of its decision, the Commission may require an Independent Evaluator to
participate in the subsequent RFP selection process.
2. Waiver Process:
a. In r-afe below situations, the Company may defer Commission pre-approval of its RFP in
accordance with this waiver process.
b. For emergency situations:
i. The Company may release its RFP immediately but should follow up with submission
of the RFP application at the earliest opportunity.
ii. This deferred application must include a robust explanation of the extenuating
circumstances.
c. For unsolicited economic-based or large-customer-funded opportunities outside of the RFP
process:
i. The Company should file an application for review and approval of the unique
economic opportunity, with clear justification of why the normal RFP process should
not apply.
1 The Selection Plan is the written process by which proposals will be evaluated to identify the final shortlist. This
43Tieally should includes scoring factors, disqualification criteria, cost assessment methods, the fnedeling all
assumptions for cost and reliability determinations, and the overall elimination process. It should define the process
for preparing, receiving, and evaluating internal benchmark bids. It also includes the solicitation schedule and
identifies the selecting official(s).
2 The Announcement Plan is how and when the RFP will be advertised to potential bidders.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Page 2 of 3
Attachment A v2-Red-Line
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

ii. It should also justify the need and/or the economic value of the opportunity.
3. Post-Selection Process:
a. If a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") is required, the Company
should file an application for Commission approval.
b. If a CPCN is not required, the Company may file an application for review of the final
resource selection and determination of decisional prudence.
c. Alternatively,the Company may wait until its next rate case before filing for prudence and
recovery.
d. In all cases,the application for prudence determination should include robust evidence that
the RFP process was followed fairly, and that the final resource selected was least-cost and
least-risk.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A Q-Red-Line
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

Procedure for Soliciting
Large Supply-Side Resources
This document establishes the Idaho Public Utility Commission's procedure for electric utilities to
solicit large supply-side resources.
Guiding Principles:
1. The solicitation should issue a Request for Proposal ("RFP") that maximizes competition
between bidders and is resource-agnostic, soliciting bids from all feasible resource types (e.g.
with respect to technology, fuel type, resource size, ownership arrangements, etc.), and with
sufficient lead time that allows all potential bidders to meet the date when resources are needed.
2. The RFP selection process should be designed to select least-cost least-risk resources that
satisfy the system need. The selection process should avoid bias toward any other objectives,
unless those objectives are clearly stated and convincingly justified.
3. The RFP and selection process should ensure competition, transparency, confidentiality, and
fairness through all stages of the procurement process. The process should be designed to
ensure:
a. communication with all those involved to promote understanding of the elements
of the process including procedures, timelines, requirements, and criteria for
selection;
b. processes that are open, competitive and accessible to all qualified
suppliers/contractors avoiding favoritism or discriminatory practices;
c. honesty and integrity in all interactions with suppliers/contractors and avoids any
form of unethical behavior;
d. conflicts of interest among utility personnel are mitigated and to ensure impartial
decision-making; and
e. adherence to legal and regulatory requirements.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Pagel of 3
Attachment A Q-Clean
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

Procedure:
This procedure is applicable to any solicitation for electrical supply-side generating or storage
resources of 100 MW or greater for a duration of 10-years or more that will be subject to recovery
from Idaho ratepayers.
1. Standard Solicitation Process:
a. Prior to issuing the REP, the Company must file an application with the Commission and
obtain approval. The application should include the REP,the RFP Selection Plan',the RFP
Announcement Plane, and other documents relevant to the solicitation.
b. The application should justify the need for new resources.
c. The Company may request an effective date for Commission approval.
d. As part of its decision, the Commission may require an Independent Evaluator to
participate in the subsequent RFP selection process.
2. Waiver Process:
a. In below situations, the Company may defer Commission pre-approval of its RFP in
accordance with this waiver process.
b. For emergency situations:
i. The Company may release its RFP immediately but should follow up with submission
of the RFP application at the earliest opportunity.
ii. This deferred application must include a robust explanation of the extenuating
circumstances.
c. For unsolicited economic-based or large-customer-funded opportunities outside of the RFP
process:
i. The Company should file an application for review and approval of the unique
economic opportunity, with clear justification of why the normal RFP process should
not apply.
' The Selection Plan is the written process by which proposals will be evaluated to identify the final shortlist. This
should include scoring factors, disqualification criteria, cost assessment methods, all assumptions for cost and
reliability determinations, and the overall elimination process. It should define the process for preparing,receiving,
and evaluating internal benchmark bids. It also includes the solicitation schedule and identifies the selecting
official(s).
z The Announcement Plan is how and when the RFP will be advertised to potential bidders.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Page 2 of 3
Attachment A v2-Clean
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

ii. It should also justify the need and/or the economic value of the opportunity.
3. Post-Selection Process:
a. If a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") is required, the Company
should file an application for Commission approval.
b. If a CPCN is not required, the Company may file an application for review of the final
resource selection and determination of decisional prudence.
c. Alternatively,the Company may wait until its next rate case before filing for prudence and
recovery.
d. In all cases,the application for prudence determination should include robust evidence that
the RFP process was followed fairly, and that the final resource selected was least-cost and
least-risk.
Case No. GNR-E-25-01 Attachment A to Application
Page 3 of 3
Attachment A v2-Clean
Case No.GNR-E-25-01
Staff Reply Comments
September 4,2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THISLYAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025,
SERVED THE FOREGOING STAFF'S REPLY COMMENTS, IN CASE NO. GNR-E-25-01,
BY &MAILING A COPY THEREOF, TO THE FOLLOWING:
Idaho Power Company: Rocky Mountain Power:
DONOVAN E WALKER JOE DALLAS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
PO BOX 70 825 NE MULTNOMAH, SUITE 2000
BOISE ID 83707 PORTLAND, OR 97232
E-MAIL: dwalkerAidahopower.com E-MAIL: josgph.daIlasga pacificorp.com.
docketsgidahopower.com
MARK ALDER
MATT LARKIN ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
IDAHO POWER COMPANY 1407 WN TEMPLE STE 330
PO BOX 70 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
BOISE ID 83707 E-MAIL: mark.alder(c�pacificorp.com
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
E-MAIL ONLY:
datarequest(a,pacificorp.com
Avista Utilities: ICIP:
DAVID MEYER Peter J. Richardson
SHAWN BONFIELD Richardson Adams,PLLC
AVISTA UTILITIES 515 N. 27th Street
PO BOX 3727 Boise, ID 83702
SPOKANE WA 99220 E-MAIL: petergrichardsonadams.com
E-MAIL: david.mgyer(&avistacorp.com
shawn.bonfieldgavistacorp.com
AvistaDocketsgavistacorp.com
NIPPC: MICRON.
Gregory M. Adams Austin Rueschhoff
Richardson Adams,PLLC Thorvald A.Nelson
515 N. 27' Street Austin W.Jensen
Boise, ID 83702 Kristine A.K. Roach
E-MAIL: g_reg(a richardsonadams.com Holland&Hart, LLP
555 17�'St., Ste. 3200
Irion Sanger Denver, CO 80202
Sanger Law,PC E-MAIL:
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd. darueschhoff2hollandhart.com
Portland, OR 97214 [e-mail]
E-MAIL: iriongsanger-law.com [e-mail]
karoach(&hollandhart.com
Spencer Gray aclee(&hollandhart.com
Executive Director,NIPPC
P.O.Box 504
Mercer Island,WA 98040
G� �o
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
PATRICIA JORDAN, SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE