20251028Cross Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECEIVED
October 28, 2025
Gregory M. Adams, ISB No. 7454 IDAHO PUBLIC
Richardson Adams, PLLC UTILITIES COMMISSION
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 CROSS PETITION
THROUGH MAY 31, 2026, FOR RECONSIDERATION
INCOMPLIANCE WITH ORDER NO. 36048
October 28, 2025

Table of Contents
I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
II. The City Correctly Identifies the System-Wide Value of Distributed Energy Resources. .. 2
III. The City's Petition, like Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Petition, Demonstrates that Order
No. 36875 Correctly Found the ECR Methodology Unreasonable but Failed to Address
Underlying Calculation Deficiencies. .................................................................................. 2
IV. The Commission Should Reject the 2025 ECR Update, or, at a Minimum, Direct its Staff
to Establish a Working Group Process to Address the ECR Calculation. ........................... 3
V. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 5
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 CROSS PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
I. 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 Cross Petition for
Reconsideration of Order No. 36785 in response to the City of Boise's ("City") Petition for
Reconsideration. Consistent with the Commission's duty under Idaho Code § 61-502 to ensure
that all rates are just,reasonable, and non-discriminatory, Sierra Club and Vote Solar urge the
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR CROSS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - I

Commission to reconsider its approval of Idaho Power's Export Credit Rates ("ECR") update
and to, at minimum, direct its Staff to initiate a targeted stakeholder process to correct the
underlying calculation flaws before the next ECR filing in 2028.
This Cross Petition is being filed within seven days of the City's Petition and is thus
timely.
II. The City Correctly Identifies the System-Wide Value of Distributed Energy
Resources.
The City's filing persuasively explains that customer-generators lower system costs,
defer transmission and generation investment, and diversify Idaho Power's resource mix
benefits that accrue to all customers, not just the customer-generator.1 As the City notes, exports
from customer-generators "are produced by generation assets that are not in rate base,"yet
contribute to meeting system demand.2 Sierra Club and Vote Solar agree that the ECR must
fairly compensate these contributions and that undervaluing distributed generation risks higher
long-term costs to ratepayers through increased rate-base investment.
III. The City's Petition, like Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Petition, Demonstrates that
Order No. 36875 Correctly Found the ECR Methodology Unreasonable but Failed
to Address Underlying Calculation Deficiencies.
Both the City's and Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Petitions for Reconsideration
emphasized that the Commission's decision to impose a 40 percent cap on the ECR energy
component decrease and freeze the rate for three years was an acknowledgment that the
calculated ECR was unjust and unreasonable.3 These ad hoc fixes confirmed that the current
ECR methodology cannot be relied upon to produce reasonable results. Reconsideration is
' Boise City Petition for Reconsideration at 2-5.
2 Id. at 4.
3 Id. at 5; Sierra Club and Vote Solar Petition for Reconsideration at 3.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR CROSS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2

therefore necessary to align Commission practice with the statutory requirement that rates be just
and reasonable, which requires that they be grounded in transparent, evidence-based
methodologies.4
IV. The Commission Should Reject the 2025 ECR Update, or, at a Minimum,Direct its
Staff to Establish a Working Group Process to Address the ECR Calculation.
The City makes four requests of the Commission: (1) deny Idaho Power's 2025 ECR
update request; (2) direct Idaho Power to update the proxy used to determine the avoided energy
value component of the ECR to more accurately reflect avoided costs; (3) cap future ECR
decreases to no more than 20 percent; and (4) establish an ECR update cadence of three to four
years.5 Sierra Club and Vote Solar agree that the record evidence supports these requests and that
they warrant full consideration on reconsideration.
As the Commission has recognized, the 2025 ECR produced results so unjust and
unreasonable that it required ad hoc mitigation measures. Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Opening
Comments and Petition for Reconsideration identified multiple flaws in the underlying ECR
methodology—including but not limited to the energy cost component—that must be corrected
to prevent future distortions. For instance, Sierra Club and Vote Solar explained that the current
calculation relies on unverifiable and volatile inputs, including an opaque Effective Load
Carrying Capability(ELCC) factor, as well as other flaws that fail to reflect the value that
distributed generation provides to the grid. This evidence supports both denying Idaho Power's
2025 ECR update requests as well as updating the avoided energy value component prior to the
next ECR update filing.
a Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 101 Idaho 567, 574 (1980)
(Commission decisions must be based upon"adequate findings of fact based upon competent and
substantial evidence"and the Commission"must forth its reasoning in a rational manner").
5 Boise City Petition for Reconsideration at 2.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR CROSS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -3

Sierra Club and Vote Solar also explained in earlier comments that ECR volatility
undermines customer confidence and investment in on-site generation.6 In adopting the
mitigation measures contained in Order No. 36785, the Commission also recognized the need for
gradual, predictable rate adjustments.7 Adopting the City's proposed modifications—a 20
percent limit on ECR decreases and three to four years between ECR updates—would improve
rate stability,promote fairness, and advance the Commission's commitment to gradualism in rate
design. While the Commission has paused changes to the ECR until 2028, this was on a one-off
mitigation measure that may not be carried forward in later years.
Accordingly, the City's proposals are well founded and warrant reconsideration of Order
No. 36785. If reconsideration is granted, Sierra Club and Vote Solar will submit additional
evidence in support of the City's recommendations as well as other recommended modifications.
Should the Commission decline to accept the City's Petition, the Commission should, at a
minimum, grant Sierra Club and Vote Solar's Petition for Reconsideration and direct Staff to
convene a working group to evaluate the ECR calculation before Idaho Power's next filing. This
approach would allow stakeholders to use the time before the next ECR update to develop
recommendations the Commission can consider to resolve deficiencies in the ECR and ensure
that e ECR updates are grounded in a durable and accurate ECR calculation. The City's
recommendations regarding updates to the avoided energy cost component, limits on ECR
decreases, and time periods between ECR updates could be considered through the proposed
stakeholder working group, while also allowing for review of other components of the ECR
calculation that have proven equally problematic.
6 Sierra Club and Vote Solar Opening Comments at 8.
Order No. 36785 at 24.
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR CROSS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -4

V. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Sierra Club and Vote Solar recommend that the
Commission grant the City's Petition for Reconsideration and/or grant Sierra Club and Vote
Solar's Petition for Reconsideration.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: October 28, 2025
Rose Monahan(pro hac vice)
Attorney for Sierra Club and Vote Solar
SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR CROSS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 28th day of October, 2025, I delivered true and correct copies
of the foregoing SIERRA CLUB AND VOTE SOLAR'S CROSS 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