20251219IIPA Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
Eric L. Olsen(ISB#4811) December 19, 2025
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN, PLLC IDAHO PUBLIC
505 Pershing Ave., Ste. 100 UTILITIES COMMISSION
P.O. Box 6119
Pocatello, Idaho 83205
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: elo(a)echohawk.com
Attorney for Intervenor Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER'S CASE NO. IPC-E-25-27
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A
POWER PURCHASE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
AGREEMENT WITH BLACKS CREEK ASSOCIATION,INC.'S COMMENTS
ENERGY CENTER, LLC
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.,by and through counsel,hereby submits its Comments
on Idaho Power Company's Applicational for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with
Blacks Creek Energy Center, LLC, as follows:
Introduction/Summary
The Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA") respectfully recommends that the
Commission deny or defer Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power" or "Company") Application
for approval of the Blacks Creek Power Purchase Agreement ("Blacks Creek" or"PPA") in IPC-
E-25-27. Based on the evidentiary record, the Company has not demonstrated a capacity need
attributable to existing customers, and therefore has not met the standard of necessity required for
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN").
Under Idaho law,a CPCN may be granted only upon a showing that a proposed resource is required
to provide adequate, efficient,just, and reasonable service to the public. Idaho Code Sections 61-
501, 61-502, and 61-503 charge the Commission with determining whether a proposed facility or
contract is necessary for public convenience and necessity, not whether it is desirable to serve the
needs of a particular customer or discrete class of customers. Where a proposed resource is driven
by the requirements of a single customer or a small group of new customers, and where existing
customers do not contribute to the claimed capacity deficiency,the resource cannot be said to serve
a public necessity absent a showing that the need would exist independently of that customer-
specific demand. The Commission's obligation is to protect the public interest as a whole,
including existing ratepayers, and to ensure that long-term commitments are justified by system-
wide need rather than by individualized load accommodations.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 1
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

Our analysis shows that:
1. Additional Firm Load ("AFL"), not legacy customers, creates the entirety of the
Company's claimed 2027-2028 capacity deficits: Idaho Power's own data shows 524 MW
of AFL coincident with the 2027 system peak, compared to a claimed 143 MW deficit.
AFL alone contributes 366%of the total 2027 deficit,while legacy load classes collectively
contribute no net increase in coincident peak. The Company admitted it never evaluated
system needs without AFL.
2. AFL is geographically concentrated precisely in the Boise Bench/Blacks Creek corridor
where Idaho Power seeks to add new resources: In 2027,- of all AFL coincident peak
is located at four substations )all electrically proximate
to Blacks Creek and Hemingway. The largest AFL cluster at in
one year,nearly equal to the entire 2027 capacity deficit.
3. Idaho Power refused to study whether Blacks Creek is needed absent AFL,despite repeated
direct discovery questions: In Responses to EPA', the Company admits:
• It did not evaluate system capacity without AFL;
• It conducted no resource-expansion sensitivities excluding AFL;
• It performed no analysis of whether Blacks Creek is needed without AFL.
These omissions prevent the Commission from determining whether the PPA is necessary to
provide reliable service to existing customers.
4. Because Idaho Power's evidence shows that AFL is the sole driver of incremental capacity
need, approval of the Blacks Creek PPA without explicit cost-causation protections would
violate basic regulatory principles:Legacy customers,including irrigation,would be forced
to subsidize infrastructure driven by new, year-round industrial customers with-
-. This outcome is inconsistent with the Commission's cost-causation and just-
and-reasonable standards.
Furthermore, the record does not establish the cost of the proposed Blacks Creek PPA. Without
cost data, the Commission cannot evaluate whether the proposed resource is prudent,reasonable,
or in the public interest, nor can it assess whether the costs are appropriately aligned with the
customers who cause the need. Issuing a CPCN in the absence of cost information would require
the Commission to make statutory findings without an adequate evidentiary record.
1. Additional Firm Load, not legacy customers, creates the entirety of the Company's
claimed 2027-2028 capacity deficits
Idaho Power's own data demonstrates that AFL is solely responsible for the Company's claimed
near-term capacity deficits, and that no deficit exists at all when AFL is removed from the load
1Couipury Responses to IIPA DRs 1-4. 1-5.mid 1-6
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 2
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

forecast. This conclusion is based entirely on information provided by the Company, including:
Ellsworth's reported 2027-2028 capacity positions; and the AFL coincident peak values Idaho
Power produced in Response to IIPA Request No. 1-3, as described below.
1.1 Idaho Power's stated deficits are smaller than the AFL added to the forecast
Mr. Ellsworth's testimony states that Idaho Power faces a 143 MW capacity deficit in 2027 and a
186 MW deficit in 20282. Yet in its Response to IIPA 1-3, the Company reports:
No other customer class contributes any comparable growth in coincident peak demand.
1.2 Removing AFL from the load forecast eliminates the capacity need entirely
Because the capacity position is defined as (resources-peak load),removing AFL reduces system
peak by the amount of AFL coincident with peak. Using the Company's own numbers we
reconstructed the Company's capacity position without AFL, and the data show that without the
AFL, Idaho Power has- surplus in 2027, and- surplus in 2028. We emphasize
these discrepancies in Table 1:
Table 1 Companl`s capacity position with and withoutAFL
Claimed Deficit with AFL Actual Capacity Position
without AFL
2027 -143
2028 -186
1.3 Legacy customers do not drive the capacity need
Idaho Power provided no evidence of meaningful coincident peak growth for irrigation,
residential, or traditional commercial classes. In Response to IIPA 1-7, the Company confirmed it
does not even forecast class-level peak demand for any non-AFL class. All available data' show
2 Ellsworth tb12
3 Capacity position=(Existing resources+new builds+market purchases)—peak load+PRM. Since AFL
is incremental component of peak load,if we remove it from the forecast the capacity position becomes: (capacity
position with AFL included-AFL MW coincident to system peak in year).If we apply this logic to Blacks Creek
specifically the eqn becomes:(capacity position with BC included-AFL MW coincident to system peak in year).
Response to HPA Request No. 1-7 Attachment Irrigation Sales.xlsx
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCUTION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 3
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

that legacy classes are essentially flat in energy and peak contribution. Thus, if AFL is removed
from the Company's forecast,the capacity deficit disappears and becomes a several hundred MW
surplus in both 2027 and 2028.
1.4 The claimed capacity need cannot be attributed to existing customers
The Company seeks to attribute a resource need to the system as a whole. However, the entirety
of the record shows that _ of the near term need is driven by AFL. Existing customers
contribute no incremental load to the coincident peak. Therefore these existing customers do not
contribute to the alleged deficit. In short, Idaho Power has not demonstrated a capacity need for
existing customers. What Idaho Power has demonstrated is a capacity need for AFL.
2. AFL is geographically concentrated precisely in the Boise Bench/Blacks Creek
corridor where Idaho Power seeks to add new resources
Assuming arguendo, even if AFL were not the quantitative driver of Idaho Power's claimed
capacity deficits, the Company's own filings show that AFL is also the locational driver of the
need for a new resource in the Blacks Creek area. Idaho Power's Response to IIPA 1-3 confirms
that- incremental AFL coincident with system peak is clustered in the same electrical
corridor that feeds the Blacks Creek,Hemingway, and Boise Bench substations.
2.1 - of AFL coincident peak occurs in Ada and Canyon Counties
From the Company's AFL-by-substation data5:
Table 2 Boise metro corridor and AFL
System total Ada+Canyon subs % of all AFL in
system
'27 AFL coincident -
peak
'28 AFL coincident -
peak
Over_in 2027 and= in 2028 of all AFL coincident peak in Idaho Power's system is
clustered in Ada and Canyon counties. This geographic pattern is unmistakable: virtually all
incremental peak-causing load is occurring in the Boise metropolitan corridor, not across the
system, and not in irrigation territory.
2.2 The Blacks Creek resource is electrically located within the same stressed
pocket created by AFL growth
The Ada/Canyon AFL substations(CHIP,DRAM,COLE,and SMPT)feed directly into the Boise
Bench/Hemingway 230kV and 500kV backbone, the exact part of the system where Idaho Power
now claims resource inadequacy leading to the Blacks Creek acquisition. This means that the
5 Response to 1-3
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 4
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

location of the new AFL aligns exactly with the location where Idaho Power asserts a capacity
constraint,which in turn aligns exactly with the location of the Blacks Creek interconnection. The
Company has therefore demonstrated a load pocket constraint created by AFL, not by legacy
customers.
2.3 Substation-level AFL growth alone equals or exceeds the entire 2027
"deficit"
The most dramatic example is the_ substation in Ada County, where AFL grows by_
MW from '27 to '28,whereas Idaho Power's entire system-wide claimed deficit is-143 MW. One
AFL cluster,at one substation,nearly equals the entire Company wide"need".No legacy customer
class exhibits anything remotely comparable.
2.4 Locational evidence reinforces the conclusion that Blacks Creek is an AFL-
driven project
Taken together,AFL is large enough to explain the entire system need(as demonstrated in Section
1), and the AFL is located exactly in the electrical pocket where Idaho Power has selected a new
resource (as shown in this section). Therefore, the need for Blacks Creek is not system-wide,nor
caused by existing customers. It is caused by large new industrial AFL customers concentrated in
the Boise Bench/Blacks Creek corridor. This failure to distinguish between load-driven need and
system need prevents any determination of necessity.
3. Idaho Power Did Not Perform the Required Analysis to Demonstrate Necessity
Even if one accepted Idaho Power's asserted capacity deficits, the Company's Application fails
for a more fundamental reason:Idaho Power did not perform the analyses necessary to demonstrate
that Blacks Creek is needed to serve existing customers. Through discovery, Idaho Power
admitted, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it conducted no analysis of system need without the
Additional Firm Loads that are driving all incremental peak demand.
3.1 Idaho Power admits it never modeled system capacity without AFL
In Responses to IIPA 1-4, 1-5,and 1-6, the Company states:
Table 3 Coin anv statements demonstrating Idaho Poirer did not pei fo»n the anah•ses necessai7V to demonstYate that
Blacks Creek is needed to serve existing customers
Ref IIPA DR Statement
1-4 "The Company does not evaluate the system capacity position without the
AFL"
1-5 "The Company has not conducted any resource expansion sensitivity studies
without AFL"
1-6 "Idaho Power has not performed any modeling or analysis to determine
whether the need... would exist absent AFL"
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 5
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

These are not ambiguities or interpretations. They are explicit admissions that the Company:
1. never tested whether existing customers need Blacks Creek;
2. never tested the sensitivity of resource need to AFL uncertainty; and
3. never quantified or evaluated the cause of the alleged capacity deficit.
By committing existing winter capable resources to serve new firm load without replacing that
capability, the Company is effectively pre-allocating system capacity that would otherwise be
available to meet future native load growth. That decision is being made without a quantified
showing of surplus, without a winter need case, and without a cost allocation framework that
assigns the resulting reliability risk to the customers who cause it.
This alone is grounds for denying or deferring the CPCN.
3.2 Idaho Power did not evaluate less costly or non-generation alternatives
Idaho Power also acknowledges that":
1. It modeled demand response only at current levels;
2. It did not model any increase in Peak Rewards or other DSM programs;
3. It applied no incremental DR expansion despite claiming a near-term capacity shortage.
This violates Order 22299's requirement that DSM alternatives be evaluated on equal footing with
supply-side resources.
The Company also does not dispute that the Blacks Creek developer advanced COD by nearly a
year (from April 2028 to June 2027), which demonstrates that Blacks Creek was not originally
procured as a 2027 resource,and that the Company did no independent evaluation of whether 2027
resource additions could or should be deferred.
The Company's own RCAT hourly renewable dataset7 demonstrates that solar provides negligible
contribution during the hours that Idaho Power identifies as winter adequacy risk. Using the
Company's hourly profiles, Solar output during winter evening peak hours (18:00-20:00,January
and December) averages _ of its maximum output. For winter Solar output during winter
morning peak hours (08:00-10:00, January and December)averages only- of maximum.
In contrast, summer afternoon hours (16:00-19:00,July-August)exhibit substantially higher solar
availability.These patterns show that a standalone solar PPA cannot materially contribute to winter
reliability, the very condition Idaho Power invokes to justify immediate procurement.
6 Response to HPA 1-8
Solar hourly profiles for 2019 were taken from Response to IIPA Request No. 1-19 Attachment 4 RCAT
Input Renewable Hourlv.xlsx.Solar capacity factors were computed at(a)summer peak hours(16:00-19:00,Jul-
Aug),(b)winter morning hours(08:00-10:00,Jan/Dec),and(c)winter evening peak hours(18:00-20:00,Jan/Dec).
These results quantify Blacks Creek's effective contribution to summer vs.winter adequacy
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 6
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

Despite these facts, the Company did not evaluate whether alternative resources such as storage,
demand-response expansion, or flexible generation, would better support winter adequacy. This
omission fiuther undermines the Company's claim of necessity for this specific resource.
3.3 Without these analyses,the Commission cannot make the findings required
for a CPCN
The Commission cannot determine:
1. Whether a capacity deficit exists absent AFL;
2. Whether the deficit is locational or system-wide;
3. Whether DSM or market alternatives could defer or avoid the need; or
4. Whether the PPA is"necessary"or"prudent" for existing customers.
Because Blacks Creek provides almost no contribution at the winter risk hours identified by the
Company,Idaho Power's failure to evaluate any alternative resource types is a material analytical
flaw. The Company did not model:
• Expanded Peak Rewards or any increase in demand-response capability;
• Storage or hybrid solar-plus-storage options;
• Flexible thermal or market-based capacity products;
• Deferral strategies, including the one-year COD shift that the developer
itself was able to achieve.
By evaluating only a solar project that does not address winter adequacy (and by declining to
model resources that could) the Company did not provide the Commission with the record
necessary to determine least-cost, least-risk compliance.
Idaho Power's failure to evaluate alternatives is especially problematic because the resource
selected (i.e. an 80 MW solar PPA) does not address the Company's stated adequacy problem.
Using Idaho Power's own RCAT renewable-hourly datasetg solar output averages = of its
maximum MW observed maximum hourly output in the profile year) during
winter peak evening hours. During winter peak morning hours, solar output is abouM of
maximum (-46 MW equivalent, adjusted from the profile year). By way of comparison, summer
afternoon peaks show an average solar capacity factor of 66%, which demonstrates that the
resource is fundamentally summer-oriented, not winter reliable. Yet at the same time, Idaho
Power's own peak models show that winter peaks are rising sharply (2027 winter peak (70th
percentile) =— MW and for 2028 =—MW). Nevertheless, the Company selected a
resource that contributes roughly 0-1 MW during the hours of these winter peaks. Given these
values, the Company's refusal to analyze alternatives is indefensible.
A CPCN cannot be granted on the basis of such an incomplete alternatives analysis. And CPCN
cannot rest on a need that the Company refused to analyze.
g Response to HPA 1-19 Attachment 4
9 Response to IIPA 1-10 Attachments 3-7
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 7
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

4. Approval of Blacks Creek Without Cost-Causation Protections Would Shift AFL-
Driven Costs onto Existing Customers
Finally, even if the Commission were to assume (contrary to the evidence) that a capacity deficit
exists, the cost-allocation consequences are unavoidable: Blacks Creek is a resource procured to
serve AFL,not legacy customers.
AFL customers are:
• High load-factor-;
• Year-round users of transmission and generation capacity;
• Located in the congested Boise Bench/Blacks Creek corridor; and
• The sole driver of incremental coincident peak demand.
In contrast, legacy customers (i.e. irrigation,residential, and small commercial classes) are:
• Flat or declining in peak contribution;
• Not geographically located in the stressed load pocket;
• Not responsible for system reinforcement in this corridor; and
• Not beneficiaries of the new capacity.
4.1 Allowing Blacks Creek costs to be rolled into general rates would violate
cost-causation principles
Because_ of the incremental need is caused by AFL, assigning Blacks Creek costs to legacy
ratepayers would cross-subsidize new industrial customers at the expense of existing ones in
contravention of fundamental cost causation and just and reasonable standards. The unavoidable
consequence would be to produce rates that do not reflect the drivers or beneficiaries of the
investment. This is particularly acute for irrigation customers, whose load is seasonal and whose
contribution to coincident peak is effectively nil in the Company's own recordslo
The cost-causation problem is amplified by the quantitative record: AFL contributes_ MW
to the 2027 system peak and_MW to the 2028 system peak". These magnitudes are_
an� respectively of the Company's claimed capacity deficits. AFL in the Boise corridor
alone contributes_ MW in 2027 and_ MW in `28,
which represents - of all system AFL12. Meanwhile, irrigation customers contribute
effectively 0 MW to winter peak, and the Company does not forecast any meaningful class-level
peak growth for irrigation or other legacy classes. And Solar provides essentially no winter
capacity...only 0.1% of maximum output during the winter evening risk window identified by
Idaho Power.
10 Response to IIPA Request No. 1-7 and Attachment Irrigation Sales.xlsx
11 Response to HPA Request No. 1-3 Confidential Attachment"Coincident to System"
12 Id
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 8
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

Under these conditions, rolling the Blacks Creek PPA costs into general rates would violate the
Commission's cost-causation principles by forcing legacy customers to pay for a need they did not
create, and a resource that does not serve their reliability interests.
4.2 If the Commission were to approve the PPA, it must protect non-AFL
customers from bearing AFL-driven costs
If approval is considered, the Commission should:
1. Segregate AFL-driven costs for separate treatment in a future rate case;
2. Require Idaho Power to develop a cost-causation framework identifying which customer
classes drive incremental resource needs; and
3. Require that the Company obtain binding financial commitments from AFL customers to
cover their incremental capacity costs before adding these resources to rate base or power
cost recovery.
But even these protections cannot substitute for the threshold requirement: Idaho Power must
demonstrate a need for existing customers before a CPCN can be granted.
It has not done so.
DATED this 191h day of December, 2025.
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 9
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day of December,2025, I served a true, correct and
complete copy of the foregoing to each of the following as indicated below:
Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Commission Secretary ❑ U.S. Mail
Jeff Loll, Deputy Attorney General ❑ Hand Delivered
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ❑ Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 83720 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
Boise, ID 83720-0074 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
[e-mail]
j eff.loll(&puc.Idaho.ggv
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D. ❑ U.S. Mail
2623 NW Bluebell Place ❑ Hand Delivered
Corvallis, OR 97330 ❑ Overnight Mail
lancekae isg insi.hg t.com ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
® Electronic Mail (Email)
Donovan E. Walker ❑ U.S. Mail
Timothy Tatum ❑ Hand Delivered
1221 W. Idaho Street(83702) ❑ Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 70 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
Boise, ID 83707 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
dwalker(&�idahopower.com
dockets(&idahopower.com
ttatumgiidahopower.com
Austin Rueschhoff ❑ U.S. Mail
Thorvald A. Nelson ❑ Hand Delivered
Austin W. Jensen ❑ Overnight Mail
Kristine A.K. Roach ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
Holland& Hart, LLP ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Micron Technology, Inc.
555 17th Street Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
darues chhoff(&,hollandhart.com
tnelsonghollandhart.com
awj ensen(d),hollandhart.com
karoachghollandhart.com
aclee(&,hollandhart.com
tlfriel(cr�,hollandhart.com Z2�5��
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BLACKS CREEK PPA COMMENTS—Page 10
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-27