20251021Comments_3.pdf

From:Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3:08 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>; Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Comment-Case No. IPC-E-25-08 (SWIP-N Project)
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
10/21/2025
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Sent electronically to: [e-mail]
Re: Opposition to Idaho Power Company Application for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity(CPCN)for Ownership Interest in the Southwest Intertie
Project-North (SWIP-N)Transmission Line and Approval of Capacity Utilization (Case
No. IPC-E-25-08)
Dear Secretary Barrios-Sanchez,
Introduction
I submit this letter in opposition to Idaho Power Company's application for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity for the SWIP-N transmission line. My opposition is
grounded in concerns about Idaho's energy sovereignty, the misuse of our transmission
infrastructure to advance California's unstable energy policies, the long-term risks to
Idaho's citizens and ratepayers, and the lack of meaningful public participation on an issue
of statewide consequence.
Idaho's Energy Sovereignty
The proposed SWIP-N project does not strengthen Idaho's energy independence; it
undermines it. By linking Idaho's grid to California's energy market through the California
Independent System Operator and the Extended Day-Ahead Market, Idaho Power would
effectively place our state's energy future under the influence of a regulatory system that
has already proven unstable and politically driven. California's recurring blackouts,
dependence on imports, and steep rate volatility are not examples to follow. Idaho should
not be asked to absorb the consequences of policies that have failed elsewhere.
The SWIP-N project primarily serves as an export route for California's Integrated Resource
Plan, which mandates over one gigawatt of Idaho wind energy to be imported south.
1

Participation in this system transforms Idaho from an independent energy producer into a
supplier for another state's mandates. Our grid, our landscape, and our ratepayers would
be tied to the priorities of distant regulators and investors who do not answer to Idaho
voters.
Federal and Jurisdictional Concerns
Idaho Power's assertion that the project is"near shovel ready" is contradicted by its own
filings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company's September 5,
2025 submissions under Sections 203 and 205 identify outstanding Bureau of Land
Management permits, Notices to Proceed, and right-of-way amendments in Nevada. Until
those permits are complete, Idaho Power's application cannot lawfully satisfy the statutory
requirement of public convenience and necessity under Idaho Code § 61-526.
Because the Bureau of Land Management's environmental review is not final under the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission cannot make a
final determination on necessity. Any CPCN granted now would be premature and could
expose Idaho ratepayers to financial and legal liabilities if federal permits are delayed,
challenged, or denied.
If the Commission refuses to deny the application outright, I urge it to condition any
certificate on final, uncontested federal approvals and on confirmation that Idaho Power's
participation will not compromise Idaho's authority over its own energy policy or subject
Idaho consumers to California's regulatory reach.
Local Land Use and Procedural Deficiencies
The Jerome County special use permits that Idaho Power relies upon remain under appeal.
Under Idaho Code § 67-6519(5), no application may be reconsidered or approved when it is
substantially the same as a previous application that has been denied or remains
unresolved. This provision applies directly to Jerome County's handling of the SWIP-N
permits, which were incomplete and remain contested under the Local Land Use Planning
Act(LLUPA).
Additionally, Idaho Code §67-6508(h) requires that each county's comprehensive plan
include the general location of utility transmission corridors. Jerome and Twin Falls
Counties' plans do not identify the SWIP-N route, meaning the project is inconsistent with
Local.planning law. Until those plans are amended in accordance with LLUPA, the project
cannot meet Idaho's statutory requirements for land use compatibility.
There are also potential violations of Idaho's Open Meeting Law under Idaho Code § 74-204
if any county decision was revised, reinterpreted, or reopened without proper notice or a
2

recorded public vote.The Commission should not rely on local approvals that may be
Legally defective or procedurally void.
Ratepayer Risk and Double Funding
Idaho Power's involvement in the SWIP-N project would impose unnecessary risk on Idaho
consumers. The company's participation exposes Idahoans to stranded capacity costs if
the California Independent System Operator reduces or withdraws its participation. That
scenario would leave Idaho ratepayers paying for a line that primarily serves California's
market.
This constitutes an improper cross subsidy under Idaho Code § 61-328, which prohibits
utilities from using Idaho rate base assets to finance out-of-state ventures that do not
benefit Idaho consumers. Furthermore, LS Power and its affiliates have already received
approximately$331 million in federal funding through the Department of Energy's
Transmission Facilitation Program. Allowing Idaho Power to recover additional costs from
Idaho ratepayers would amount to double recovery, violating established Commission
precedent and the principle of just and reasonable rates.
Environmental and Cultural Impacts
The project also threatens Idaho's public lands, grazing culture, and historic landscapes.
Approval of the CPCN would invite expanded industrial scale renewable development
across Bureau of Land Management and state lands. This would convert traditional
multiple use areas used for grazing, recreation, and wildlife into single purpose energy
corridors.
The Bureau of Land Management's Monument Resource Management Plan, last updated in
1994, lacks modern visual resource protections required by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. Without updated inventories or management classes, Idaho's open
Landscapes are vulnerable to large scale industrial development.
The SWIP-N corridor also overlaps regions of historical and cultural significance, including
Lands near the Minidoka Relocation Center, where Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires consultation to avoid adverse impacts on heritage resources. No
such consultation has been completed.
Conclusion
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission's duty under Idaho Code §§ 61-301 through 61-502 is
to protect the public interest and ensure that all utility actions serve Idaho's citizens.This
project does not meet that standard. It undermines Idaho's energy sovereignty, relies on
incomplete local and federal authorizations, exposes ratepayers to unnecessary financial
and legal risk, and fails to demonstrate any measurable public necessity for Idaho.
3

I respectfully request that the Commission deny Idaho Power's CPCN application for the
SWIP-N line, or at a minimum, withhold any decision until all local appeals and federal
permits are resolved and full public hearings have been held in southern Idaho. Idaho must
remain in control of its own energy future, and that future should be determined by
Idahoans, not by California regulators or corporate interests.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
[e-mail]
208-316-9396
Jeff Pierson
713 East Avenue C
Jerome, ID 83338
p: 208-352-7427 1 c: 208-316-9396 1 f: 208-352-7427
email:[e-mail]
email:[e-mail]
[phone]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3:23 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>; Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supplemental Public Comment Regarding Federal Filings and Jurisdictional
Considerations—Case No. IPC-E-25-08 (Idaho Power Company, SWIP-North CPCN
Application)
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
10/21/2025
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Sent electronically to: secretary(aftuc.idaho.gov
4

Re: Supplemental Public Comment Regarding Federal Filings and Jurisdictional
Considerations—Case No. IPC-E-25-08(Idaho Power Company, SWIP-North CPCN
Application)
Dear Secretary Barrios-Sanchez,
I submit this additional public comment to ensure the Commission's record accurately
reflects the federal status and jurisdictional context of the Southwest Intertie Project North
(SWIP-N). Recent filings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) clarify
that Idaho Power's ownership interest and capacity rights remain contingent upon federal
approval and cannot yet be considered final.
Federal Proceedings and Ownership Status
On September 5, 2025, Great Basin Transmission, LLC, GBT Northbound, LLC, and Idaho
Powerjointly filed with FERC under Section 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act, seeking
authorization for the disposition and acquisition of jurisdictional transmission facilities
(Docket No. EC25-_-000).The filing describes LS Power's internal transfer of
approximately 22.8 percent of SWIP-N's ownership to GBT Northbound, LLC, and Idaho
Power's subsequent purchase of half that interest, equal to an 11.4 percent share or 250
megawatts of northbound capacity.
On the same date, the parties filed a related Section 205 application (Docket No. ER25-
3372-000) to establish the transmission tariff and cost-allocation framework governing
Idaho Power's participation. That filing confirms that the physical and operational control
of SWIP-N remains with LS Power's affiliates and is coordinated through interstate
market structures, including provisions referencing the California Independent System
Operator(CAISO).
Timing and Jurisdictional Implications
Both FERC filings occurred months after Idaho Power requested its Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from this Commission and after Commission Staff issued its
recommendation for approval. The federal applications seek approval of the very
ownership and operational arrangements now pending before the Commission. This
means the project's fundamental legal status is still unresolved at the federal level.
Under Idaho Code § 61-526, the Commission must determine whether the applicant has
demonstrated financial ability, good faith, and public need. Those findings cannot be made
with certainty while the applicant's ownership interest and cost-recovery authority depend
on pending FERC action. Proceeding before those approvals are finalized risks conflicting
determinations of authority and public convenience.
5

Federal Precedence and Energy Sovereignty
Because SWIP-N is an interstate high-voltage transmission line, its rates, ownership
transfers, and market operations fall under exclusive FERC jurisdiction. Idaho's review
should therefore be narrowly focused on state ratepayer impact and prudence. The FERC
filings demonstrate that Idaho Power's capacity entitlements and cost recovery are
intertwined with interstate arrangements controlled by LS Power and CAISO. Idaho
consumers should not be bound to pay for an asset whose operation and pricing are
directed by out-of-state entities.
Recommendation
I respectfully request that the Commission withhold any final order on Idaho Power's CPCN
application until:
1. The pending FERC Section 203 and 205 applications are approved and publicly
available in final form.
2. The Commission receives confirmation that Idaho Power's ownership and tariff
rights are unconditional and do not subject Idaho ratepayers to market exposure
governed by CAISO or other external regulators.
3. The Commission reopens public comment for a defined period after federal
approvals to allow for updated public review.
Idaho's determination of public convenience and necessity must rest on a complete and
verified record. That record presently depends on the outcome of federal proceedings still
in progress.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
[Contact Information]
Jeff Pierson
713 East Avenue C
Jerome, ID 83338
p: 208-352-7427 1 c: 208-316-9396 1 f: 208-352-7427
email:[e-mail]
email:[e-mail]
[phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6

From:Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3:25 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>; Jeff Pierson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Final Supplemental Public Comment on Idaho Power Company's Application for
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity(CPCN)-Southwest Intertie Project North
(SWIP-N), Case No. IPC-E-25-08
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
10/21/2025
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Sent electronically to: secretaryCa)puc.idaho.gov
Re: Supplemental Public Comment on Idaho Power Company's Application for
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity(CPCN)-Southwest Intertie Project
North (SWIP-N), Case No. IPC-E-25-08
Dear Secretary Barrios-Sanchez,
Purpose of Supplemental Comment
This comment supplements my earlier submission opposing Idaho Power Company's
request for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for participation in the SWIP-
N transmission line. Since my prior filing, new materials from Micron Technology, Inc. and
the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association (IIPA) have clarified key issues. These filings
highlight unresolved questions regarding public necessity, project benefit, and Idaho's
Long-term control over its own transmission system.
Micron's Role and Conflict of Interest
Micron Technology has petitioned to intervene as a "neutral" party. Yet its 500-megawatt
special contract with Idaho Power aligns directly with the 500-megawatt capacity interest
Idaho Power seeks to justify through SWIP-N. This connection creates a clear financial
incentive for Micron to support approval of the project. While Micron is entitled to advocate
for its industrial needs, the Commission should not treat its participation as disinterested
or representative of the broader public interest. Any project designed to facilitate private
industrial load should not be financed or justified under Idaho's public necessity standard.
7

Confirmation of Capacity Misrepresentation
The IIPA's expert analysis provides essential clarity. Although Idaho Power refers to 500
megawatts of transmission entitlement, modeling shows that only a small portion—
approximately 48 to 86 megawatts—would deliver firm, usable capacity to Idaho's grid. The
remainder depends on California market access through the California Independent
System Operator(CAISO). This disparity reveals that the project's claimed benefit to Idaho
ratepayers has been substantially overstated. The Commission must not approve a project
based on hypothetical or speculative capacity.
CAISO Dependency and Loss of Regulatory Control
IIPA's economic concerns also expose a deeper structural problem: Idaho's growing
dependence on California's regulatory framework. CAISO retains unilateral authorityto
alter tariffs, curtail transactions, or redefine participation rules. By entangling Idaho's
infrastructure with CAISO's market structure, Idaho Power would effectively place part of
our grid under another state's jurisdiction. Such an arrangement directly conflicts with
Idaho Code § 61-526, which requires that the Commission determine public necessity
based on Idaho's interests, not those of another state or regional market.
Private Benefit and Public Burden
The Commission should require Idaho Power to demonstrate that the SWIP-N project
provides measurable and equitable benefits to all ratepayers, not just to large industrial or
California-based participants. If the primary effect of this project is to create transmission
access for Micron's expansion or to export Idaho power to California, it fails the test of
public convenience and necessity. Idaho law does not permit regulated utilities to socialize
private expansion costs or speculative interstate ventures through the Idaho rate base.
Ratepayer Protection and Double Recovery
LS Power and its affiliates have already received more than $331 million in federal
Transmission Facilitation Program funding. Idaho Power's proposed investment would layer
state-regulated recovery on top of federal subsidy. Unless the Commission explicitly
prohibits rate recovery for any portion of the project funded through federal programs,
Idaho consumers will be subject to double recovery. Such an outcome would violate the
principle of just and reasonable rates under Idaho Code §§ 61-301 and 61-502.
Conclusion
The IIPA's filings confirm the economic risks I raised earlier, but the underlying issue is even
Larger: the SWIP-N project represents a transfer of Idaho's decision-making authority to
California's energy market. A project that primarily benefits private industry or foreign
regulatory systems cannot meet Idaho's public necessity standard.
8

I respectfully request that the Commission deny Idaho Power's CPCN application.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff A. Pierson
Jerome County, Idaho
ieff.a.pierson(a)gmaiLcom
Jeff Pierson
713 East Avenue C
Jerome, ID 83338
p: 208-352-7427 1 c: 208-316-9396 1 f: 208-352-7427
email: [e-mail]
email:[e-mail]
[phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9