20251024Comments_3.pdf

From: Paul Hancock<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, October 23, 2025 6:01 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Swift
Please approve swift. Power transmission a must. Thanks. Paul Sent from my iPhone
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Tyler Davis Jeffers <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 8:00 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: SWIP- North Intertie Letter of Support
Good morning,
Please see an attached letter of support for the SWIP North Intertie Project. I was unable to
attend a meeting in Twin Falls yesterday, but want to lend our full support to this
transmission project.
Thankyou,
Tyler Davis-Jeffers
Managing Partner
Summit Creek Development
(ofc) 208 471 4940
(cel) 208 720 8191
SUMMIT
' CREEK
DEVELOPMENT
1

Tyler Davis-Jeffers
Managing Partner-Summit Creek Development
240 Eastland Drive
Twin Falls, ID 83301
[e-mail]
[phone]
October 23, 2025
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
[e-mail]
Subject: Comments on SWIP-North [IPC-E-25-08]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my support for Idaho Power's request for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessityfor the Southwest Intertie Project-North (SWIP-North),
currently being considered by the commission in case IPC-E-25-08.
As energy demand continues to increase in the Magic Valley and beyond, we need
additional pathways to bring energy into the region to make sure our homes, businesses,
farms and ranches have the power they depend on. SWIP-North is a key project for
ensuring the region has a reliable supply of affordable energy by accessing abundant, low-
cost energy in the desert southwest.These resources are especially important to meet
growing winter energy needs with affordable power.
While energy needs grow in Idaho at a pace we have never seen before, communities need
to find energy resources they can say yes to. SWIP-North is the right project at the right
time, especially when compared to more costly alternatives.
In our business we frequently speak with national and international companies that are
considering locating commercial and industrial operations in Southern Idaho. One of their
primary considerations is access to affordable power. Any opposition to this Intertie
Project is opposition to economic growth in our State. Further, opposition to this Intertie
Project is a direct tax on the citizens of Southern Idaho, as without access to reliable and
affordable power, we will see rates climb at a much higher rate. Please do not vote to tax
2

the citizens and businesses of Southern Idaho- please vote to support economic growth
and access to affordable power.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project for Idaho's energy
future.
Sincerely,
Tyler Davis-Jeffers
Summit Creek Development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

Liyah Babayan
132 Main Ave S
Twin Falls, Idaho 83301
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Opposition to Idaho Power's CPCN Application
Southwest Intertie Project North (SWIP—North)
To the Commissioners of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
I am writing to formally express my opposition to Idaho Power's application for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the Southwest Intertie Project—North
(SWIP—North), which proposes a 500-kilovolt transmission line through parts of Idaho.
While infrastructure improvements are sometimes necessary,this project raises serious and
unresolved concerns related to environmental preservation, cultural resource protection, and
ratepayer fairness. Based on the current information available, I respectfully urge the
Commission to deny the CPCN until Idaho Power can demonstrate clear and enforceable public
benefits and protections.
Threats to Idaho's Natural Environment. The proposed transmission corridor crosses regions
of Idaho that include ecologically sensitive rangelands,desert habitats, and forested areas. The
long-term impacts of constructing and maintaining this infrastructure include:
Destruction of wildlife habitat and migration corridors.
Increased wildfire risk due to transmission infrastructure.
Long-term soil and water resource degradation.
These environmental costs are too high, especially given the lack of demonstrated local benefit
to Idaho's own energy supply.
Risk to Archaeological and Cultural Resources. Many areas potentially affected by this
project include undocumented archaeological sites and sacred tribal lands. There is no evidence
4

that Idaho Power has conducted a comprehensive cultural resource assessment. nor that tribal
nations have been meaningfully consulted or their concerns integrated into project planning.
Without legally binding protections in place, this project could result in irreparable damage to
Idaho's cultural heritage.
Mitigation Through Proper Documentation and Site Management
If this project is to proceed, the Commission must require Idaho Power to implement a rigorous,
transparent, and enforceable Archaeological Documentation and Site Management Plan. This
plan should include:
A full Class III Cultural Resource Survey conducted by qualified archaeologists along the
proposed transmission corridor. My understanding is that this project is 30 years in the making,
with much of the studies and surveys outdated, a lot of developments have taken place in these
past 30 years.
Consultation and coordination with tribal governments,particularly those with ancestral ties to
impacted lands.
Avoidance or relocation of project components away from sensitive or sacred sites.
Establishment of site protection buffers with signage, fencing, and monitoring where disturbance
cannot be avoided. Data sharing and preservation in accordance with state and federal historic
preservation standards (e.g., SHPO, Section 106 of the NHPA). A publicly accessible summary
of findings (excluding sensitive site locations)to ensure transparency.
Mitigation must not be treated as a checkbox,rather it must be embedded into project planning,
financing, and permitting, with measurable enforcement mechanisms and third-party oversight.
Lack of Proven Benefit to Idahoans
The CPCN would allow Idaho Power to recover project-related costs through future rate cases,
passing expenses to Idaho households even if no local reliability or affordability gains are
realized. This project appears to serve California energy demand, not Idaho's. It offers:
No binding cost caps for Idaho consumers.
No quantified ratepayer benefits.
5

No evidence that importing power from SWIP—North improves Idaho's grid resilience or peak
load capacity.
In effect, Idahoans would carry the financial and environmental burden of a project that delivers
minimal direct benefit to them. Better Alternatives Are Available. Instead of constructing
high-cost,high-impact long-distance transmission lines,Idaho should invest in:
Local renewable generation.
Distributed energy resources and battery storage.
Grid modernization and energy efficiency programs.
These alternatives can create in-state jobs, reduce emissions, and improve grid stability without
sacrificing Idaho's lands or placing additional costs on its residents.
Until Idaho Power can offer a detailed and transparent plan that:
Protects Idaho's environment and cultural resources.
Provides quantifiable, direct benefits to Idahoans.
Includes binding cost protections for ratepayers.
Commits to comprehensive archaeological site documentation and long-term management, this
CPCN should be denied.
Idahoans may be hardworking, practical, and focused on making an honest living but do not
mistake that for complacency. We are deeply connected to our land, history, and communities.
When it comes to protecting our home, we are alert,informed, and fiercely active. If this project
threatens what makes Idaho special, you can be sure that citizens across this state will stand up
and speak up for what's right. And that is the baseline for this and for all future projects.
I appreciate the Commission's time and urge you to act in the public's best interest by requiring
significantly more justification before granting approval for this project.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Liyah Babayan
Twin Falls, Idaho
6

Public Testimony of Representative David Leavitt
Idaho Power CPCN—Case No. IPC-E-25-08
October 23, 2025—American Legion Hall,Twin Falls
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Representative David Leavitt, District 25 B. Several weeks ago, I
submitted written comments on this docket. Tonight, I wish to amend and expand those
remarks.
As a legislator, my first and foremost duty is to uphold the Idaho Constitution. Beyond that, my
moral duty is to protect and defend the rights, liberties, and freedoms of Idaho's citizens. That
responsibility does not end at the Statehouse—it extends to every action of government,
including those taken by this Commission.
Under Idaho Code § 61-526, a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity may be granted
only when public convenience and necessity require it. Idaho's current generation resources
already meet the needs of her citizens. The main beneficiaries identified in this application are
large private corporations and out-of-state market operators connected to California's CAISO
system. That is not "public necessity";that is private expansion at public risk.
Article XI, Section 18 of the Idaho Constitution forbids the state or any subdivision from lending
its credit or becoming financially interested in private enterprises. By granting this CPCN,the
Commission would effectively use Idaho's public authority to enable a privately owned, profit-
driven transmission line that ties our grid to markets governed beyond our borders.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in New Jersey v FERC reaffirmed that states cannot
be forced into regional transmission markets without consent. Yet this application does exactly
that—it compels Idaho's citizens to participate in an interstate market structure they never
approved, under regulatory control they did not choose. That is not consent;that is coercion
under the guise of progress.
This is not about a power line. It is about Idaho's sovereignty.
During the last legislative session, I served as a co-sponsor of House Bill 395, focused on
preserving Idaho's energy sovereignty and ensuring that our resources serve Idahoans first. That
work continues. In the coming session, I will be introducing several new bills that directly
address Idaho's energy sovereignty, participation in out-of-state transmission markets, and the
protection of Idaho ratepayers.
7

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Commission to hold or table this application until the
Legislature has had the opportunity to deliberate and clarify the law. Doing so will protect the
sovereignty of this state and the interests of her people, ensuring that Idaho's energy future
remains in the hands of Idaho's citizens—not unelected regulators, not corporate markets, and
not out-of-state interests.
Thank you for your time and for entering this statement into the official record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------