20251021Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECEIVED
OCTOBER 21, 2025
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Gregory M. Adams, ISB No. 7454
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Rose Monahan, CA Bar No. 329861 (pro hac vice)
Sierra Club
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Sierra Club and Vote Solar
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR ITS
FIRST ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CASE NO. IPC-E-25-15
EXPORT CREDIT RATE FOR NON-
LEGACY ON-SITE GENERATION SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE
CUSTOMERS FROM DUNE 1, 2025 SOLAR'S PETITION FOR
THROUGH MAY 31, 2026, RECONSIDERATION
INCOMPLIANCE WITH ORDER NO. 36048
October 21, 2025

Table of Contents
I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
II. Standard of Review................................................................................................................ 2
III. The Commission Failed to Explain its Reasoning and Acted on an Ad Hoc Basis in Order
No. 36785............................................................................................................................... 3
IV. The Record Confirms that the Current ECR Calculation is Flawed and Produces
Unreasonable Results.............................................................................................................4
V. The Commission Should Direct Staff to Convene a Stakeholder Process to Improve the
ECR Methodology Before 2028. ........................................................................................... 7
VI. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 8
i

Gregory M. Adams, ISB No. 7454
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Rose Monahan, CA Bar No. 329861 (pro hac vice)
Sierra Club
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Sierra Club and Vote Solar
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR ITS
FIRST ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CASE NO. IPC-E-25-15
EXPORT CREDIT RATE FOR NON-
LEGACY ON-SITE GENERATION
CUSTOMERS FROM DUNE 1, 2025
THROUGH MAY 31, 2026,
INCOMPLIANCE WITH ORDER NO. 36048
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
L Introduction
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and Commission Rule of Procedure 331, IDAPA
31.01.01.331, Sierra Club and Vote Solar respectfully submit the following Petition for
Reconsideration of Order No. 36785. Sierra Club and Vote Solar appreciate the Commission's
careful consideration of the comments submitted and the directives included in Order No. 36785
to mitigate the adverse impacts to on-site generation customers from Idaho Power's initial
proposal to reduce the Export Credit Rates ("ECR")by up to 80 percent. However, and as
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

described below, the Order approved a flawed ECR method that requires ad hoc adjustments and
produces rates not supported by evidence in the record.
This Petition seeks only a limited modification to Order No. 36785—one that would
ensure the Commission's directives are durable by improving the ECR calculation itself through
a collaborative stakeholder process before the next ECR filing in 2028. To be clear, Sierra Club
and Vote Solar do not request that the Commission modify the approved ECR here,but instead
establish a process for improving the ECR before Idaho Power's next filing. Sierra Club and
Vote Solar request reconsideration by written briefs or comments, including this Petition.' This
Petition is being filed within 21 days of the final order's service date and is thus timely.
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626(1), any interested person may seek reconsideration on
any question previously determined. The Commission's rules require petitioners to "specify(a)
why the order or any issue decided in it is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law, and(b) the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
will offer if reconsideration is granted."Z
Commission orders are unlawful when the Commission acts "arbitrarily or on an ad hoc
basis"' or fails to "explain the reasoning employed to reach its conclusions . . . .".4 The
Commission's orders must further be "supported by substantial, competent evidence in the
record."5 That standard requires that evidence supporting an agency's decision must be
' IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03
a The nature and quantity of evidence or argument that Sierra Club and Vote Solar will offer if
reconsideration is granted is provided throughout this Petition. See also Sierra Club and Vote Solar's
Opening Comments.
s Wash. Water Power v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 101 Idaho 567, 575, 617 P.2d 1242, 1250(1980)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
'Rosebud Enters. v. State PUC, 128 Idaho 609, 618, 917 P.2d 766, 775 (1996)
5 Id.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2

"substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body
of evidence opposed to the [agency's] view."6
III. The Commission Failed to Explain its Reasoning and Acted on an Ad Hoc Basis in
Order No. 36785.
Sierra Club and Vote Solar appreciate the mitigation efforts adopted in Order No.
36785—limiting decreases to the energy component of the ECR to no more than 40% and
stabilizing the ECR until 20287—that will help to protect non-legacy on-site generation
customers from the dramatic ECR reduction that Idaho Power sought in this proceeding. By
adopting these measures, the Commission rightfully recognized that Idaho Power's proposal was
unjust and unreasonable and therefore required modification.
Order No. 36785, however, neither explains how the Commission came to adopt the
mitigation measures selected nor grapples with the underlying shortcomings with the ECR
calculation itself that required post-calculation modification by the Commission. For instance,
while Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a capping mechanism for the avoided
energy costs, Staff recommended a symmetrical 30% cap (either upward or downward).$ Idaho
Power objected to a capping mechanism in general, but indicated acceptance of a one-time 50%
limit for the 2025 ECR.9 The Commission did not explain why it selected the 40% capping
mechanism, applied only to decreases in the ECR.10 Similarly, the Commission did not explain
how it selected a three-year suspension of the ECR, a mitigation measure that was not proposed
by any party.
6 Idaho State Ins. Fund v. Hunnicutt, 110 Idaho 257,261, 715 P.2d 927, 931 (1985) (internal quotation
omitted).
Decision No. 36785 at 24.
8 Order No. 36785 at 6-7.
9 Id. at 20.
to Id. at 24.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

To be clear, Sierra Club and Vote Solar do not oppose the mitigation measures adopted,
but raise the ad hoc nature of these measures to highlight that they do not address the central
issue in this proceeding: namely, that the proposed ECR required adjustment because the
calculated rate—which the Commission found was completed"in conformance with the
Commission-approved annual ECR update methodology outlined in Order No. 36048"11-
produced unreasonable and unjust results for non-legacy on-site generation customers. Order No.
36785 does not confront the underlying reasons that the calculated rate required correction, and
absent a reevaluation of the ECR calculation methodology, the Commission risks in 2028 once
again adopting ad hoc modifications to the calculated ECR.
IV. The Record Confirms that the Current ECR Calculation is Flawed and Produces
Unreasonable Results.
The record evidence demonstrates that the current ECR calculation is flawed,produces
unreasonable results, and requires reconsideration. Sierra Club and Vote Solar identified several
shortcomings with the current ECR calculation, including how it values avoided generation
capacity cost using an Idaho Power calculation that cannot be reviewed by other parties,
undervalues avoided distribution and transmission costs, and relies on an unreasonably variable
proxy for avoided energy costs.12 Some of these issues were previously raised in Case No. IPC-
E-23-14, and Idaho Power's first ECR update application (the current docket)proved those
concerns to be valid.
For instance, the ELCC component of the avoided generation capacity cost remains
unverifiable, even by Staff. In Case No. IPC-E-23-14, Vote Solar identified unusual year-to-year
11 Id. at 24.
12 Sierra Club and Vote Solar identified other issues with the ECR calculation,including that it relies on
an unreasonable proxy to calculate integration costs. Sierra Club and Vote Solar maintain that these issues
persist. The issues presented here are meant to be illustrative and not comprehensive of all necessary
adjustments to the ECR calculation.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -4

variability in the calculation 13 and warned that neither Staff nor stakeholders could replicate
Idaho Power's ELCC calculation.14 In this proceeding, Idaho Power's filing demonstrated that
lack of stakeholder review is cause for concern, as the Company acknowledged a calculation
error in the ELCC used to calculate avoided generation capacity costs in the 2024 ECR. This
error could not have been known before approving the 2024 ECR—and thus the Commission
had no ability to avoid the calculation error in the first place—because the ELCC calculation
cannot be replicated by Staff or intervening parties. Indeed, the only reason that the error is
known is because Idaho Power voluntarily disclosed the mistake.
Sierra Club and Vote Solar demonstrated that the mistake amounted to an underpayment
of$209,215 in 2024 to on-site generation customers, or approximately$15 per customer,
although the erroneous payments continued until September 30, 2025.15 Idaho Power does not
dispute these figures, only asserting that they are not"significant."16 Regardless of whether the
ELCC calculation mistake was or was not significant(it was), the crucial point is that the
calculation error could not have been avoided in the 2024 ECR through Commission review.
Now that the error has been identified, the Commission is still unable to retroactively address the
issue and pay customers what they are owed due to the "filed rate" doctrine."With the same
ELCC calculation methodology used for the 2025 ECR, the Commission still cannot be sure that
" Specifically,the ELCC calculation varied from 14.9%in 2021 (corrected from 17.39%)to less than 4%
in 2024. Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Opening Comments at 13,Figure 1. The ELCC measures the
ability of on-site generation's exports to meet load.Accordingly, significant changes would only be
expected if(1)Idaho Power's high load hours changed significantly; or(2)the hours of solar exports
changed significantly.Neither of these have occurred.
is In the Matter of Idaho Power Company's Application for Authority to Implement Changes to the
Compensation Structure Applicable to Customer On-Site Generation Under Schedules 6, 8, and 84 and to
Establish an Export Credit Rate Methodology, Case No. IPC-E-23-14,Vote Solar's Comments Regarding
Changes to On-Site Generator's Compensation Structure and Export Credit Rate at 20 (Oct. 12, 2023).
15 Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Opening Comments at 13.
16 Idaho Power Reply Comments at 23.
"Idaho Code § 61-313.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5

it was calculated correctly and will not result in further underpayments to on-site generation
customers between 2025 and 2028.
The same transparency concerns arise in Idaho Power's treatment of avoided distribution
and transmission costs. In Order No. 36048, the Commission approved a methodology for
calculating avoided distribution and transmission costs. Considering that customer-sited
generation helps to make transmission capacity available and avoid near-term transmission
updates by contributing to a reduction in peak load,18 the value is certainly not zero. Yet, in its
2025 ECR application, Idaho Power proposed a $0 value for avoided transmission costs. In
response to questions about this lack of value for avoided transmission, Idaho Power simply
indicated that it had updated all values of the ECR in accordance with Order No. 36048.19 If the
ECR calculation results in zero value for avoided transmission costs, there is something amiss
with the calculation.
Finally, Sierra Club and Vote Solar as well as Staff identified volatility in the avoided
energy component of the ECR as cause for concern and one reason that the 2025 ECR
calculation produced such a dramatically different rate compared to the 2024 ECR.20 That
volatility is what led Staff to recommend limiting the decrease of the avoided energy component,
but not the avoided capacity component, which is, theoretically, less variable by design.21
Indeed, while the avoided energy value is based on market prices derived from one year of
historical data, the avoided capacity value is based on a five-year rolling average. Sierra Club
and Vote Solar had recommended using a longer rolling average for the avoided energy value,
more aligned with the avoided capacity value. This adjustment would help to reduce volatility
'g Sierra Club and Vote Solar Opening Comments at 19.
19 Idaho Power Reply Comments at 24.
21 Order No. 36785 at 6-7 (Staff s position); id. at 14(Sierra Club and Vote Solar's position).
21 But see, supra n. 13 (identifying unexplained variability in the ELCC calculation).
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6

inherent to the ECR calculation itself. Indeed, switching to a multi-year rolling average for the
avoided energy value may result in similar rates as the 40% limit that the Commission decided to
institute in this case,but would do so in a way that provides a longer-term permanent
improvement to the ECR calculation and not a short-term ad hoc fix.
Accordingly, without reevaluating the ECR calculation methodology, similar errors are
likely to arise in 2028 when Idaho Power files a new application.
V. The Commission Should Direct Staff to Convene a Stakeholder Process to Improve
the ECR Methodology Before 2028.
The Commission can proactively avoid future ECR disputes by addressing issues with the
calculation methodology over the next two and half years, while the current ECR remains in
effect. Specifically, Sierra Club and Vote Solar recommend that the Commission direct its Staff
to convene a stakeholder working group to assess modification to the ECR calculation.
Commission Staff, or Idaho Power if so delegated, should then submit to the Commission a
summary report of the working group's progress with any agreed upon changes to the ECR
calculation methodology for Commission review and approval. As part of the working group,
Idaho Power should share its calculation of ECRs for 2026 and 2027 under the current
methodology, which will provide the Commission with more information on how the current
ECR calculation would work in practice, if the ECR continued to be annually updated with no
changes. Stakeholders should also be able to seek information from Idaho Power through data
requests.
A stakeholder working group would provide a low-cost, efficient means for Staff, Idaho
Power, and interested parties to resolve technical issues with the ECR calculation before the next
filing. It would also give the Commission a clear, evidentiary record on potential
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -7

improvements—minimizing the risk of another disputed ECR application in 2028 resulting in
post-calculation adjustments.
Sierra Club and Vote Solar propose the following process and timeline, which would
allow sufficient time for meaningful engagement while ensuring that any revised methodology is
ready for consideration in early 2028:
1. By March 2026: Staff announces the ECR Working Group and invites participation from
interested stakeholders;
2. May 2026-May 2027: Staff convenes working group meetings at least quarterly(or more
frequently as needed)to review each component of the ECR methodology. Staff, or Idaho
Power if so delegated, should prepare written summaries after each meeting documenting
discussion topics, preliminary conclusions, and any areas of disagreement.
3. By August 2027: Staff, or Idaho Power if so delegated, submits to the Commission, in a
new docket, a final report summarizing the working group's progress, including(a) any
consensus recommendations; (b) a description of unresolved issues; and(c)proposed
updates to the ECR methodology. Stakeholders should have an opportunity within the
summary report to briefly state their positions and any recommendations to the
Commission.
4. Commission review: The Commission may review the report, take additional comment,
and determine whether any modifications should be adopted before Idaho Power's 2028
ECR application in the Staff initiated docket, described above.
This structure would ensure that the next ECR filing is built on a more accurate and
transparent methodology, saving time for the Commission, Staff, and all parties.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Sierra Club and Vote Solar respectfully request that the
Commission reconsider and modify Order No. 36785 to direct Staff to convene a stakeholder
working group to improve the ECR calculation methodology. This modest step would protect
customers, enhance transparency, and ensure that the ECR continues to reflect the true value of
customer-sited generation in Idaho.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: October 21, 2025
Rose Monahan(pro hac vice)
Attorney for Sierra Club and Vote Solar
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2Pt day of October, 2025, I delivered true and correct copies
of the foregoing SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION to the following persons via the method of service indicated below:
Electronic mail only(,see Order 35375)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Secretary
[e-mail]
Erika K. Melanson
[e-mail]
Idaho Power Company
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Donovan Walker
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Individual Intervenor
Kevin Dickey
[e-mail]
Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho ("CEO')
Kelsey Jae
[e-mail]
Individual Intervenor
Martha Bibb
[e-mail]
Individual Intervenor
Scott Pinizzotto
[e-mail]
Idahome Energy
Tyler Grange
[e-mail]
1

City of Boise
Jessica Harrison
Katie O'Neil
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Rose Monahan(pro hac vice)
Attorney for Sierra Club and Vote Solar
2