20251226Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

RECEIVED
DECEMBER 26, 2025
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Kelsey Jae (ISB No. 7899)
Kelsey Jae LLC
521 E. 41st St.
Garden City, Idaho 83714
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO )
POWER COMPANY'S ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-44
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ) CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES
SPECIAL CONTRACT AND TARIFF ) FOR IDAHO
SCHEDULE 28 TO PROVIDE )
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MICRON ) PETITION FOR INTERVENOR
IDAHO SEMICONDUCTOR ) FUNDING
MANUFACTURING (TRITON) LLC )
COMES NOW Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho ("CEO"), by and through its
attorney of record, Kelsey Jae of the firm Kelsey Jae LLC, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A
and IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165 with the following request for intervenor funding. CEO is an
intervenor in this case pursuant to Order No. 36554. This request is timely under Rule 164
because this request is filed within the deadline set by the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"
or "Commission").
I. Applicability of Idaho Code § 61-617A and IDAPA Rule 31.01.01.161
Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or the "Company") is a regulated public utility
that has gross Idaho intrastate annual revenues exceeding $3,500,000.00.
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 1

II. IDAPA Rule 31.01 .01.162 requirements
A. Itemized list of expenses
Idaho Code provides that the Commission may award "legal fees, witness fees, and
reproduction costs" to intervenors in a proceeding. Idaho Code § 61-617A. The attached Exhibit
A is an itemized list of legal fees incurred by CEO's legal counsel assisting CEO with
investigating and responding to Idaho Power's Application; analyzing and conducting discovery;
preparing analyses, presentations, and proposals for review by other parties; meaningfully
participating in several meetings, negotiation sessions, and hearings; and filing of testimony and
briefing. CEO focused its participation and input on facts and issues that are directly relevant to
this docket.
B. Statement of proposed findings
CEO recommends that the Commission find the proposed use of embedded cost-based
demand charges in Schedule 28 presents unnecessary risks of cost shifting to existing customers.
The ESA should be modified to reflect the FAB being charged for the incremental capacity costs
it causes with offsetting credits for absorbing a portion of existing embedded demand costs.
CEO recommends that the Commission find that in this transformational period where
the Company is incented to compete for new large loads that Commission Staff, rather than the
Company, should take the lead role in analyzing the impacts on existing captive customers.
CEO recommends that the Commission find that marginal energy costs are not flat across
all hours of the year and that any Schedule implementing marginal energy rates should reflect
that variation.
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 2

C. Statement showing costs
CEO requests $7,037.40 in intervenor funding for attorney fees, as shown in Exhibit A.
These fees were incurred reasonably and appropriately. This case covered complex and technical
issues and required reviewing and responding to extensive analyses and/or proposals of the
Company, Commission Staff, and other active parties and community members. To uncover and
understand the facts, CEO reviewed multiple data sets; reviewed discovery requests and
submitted its own discovery requests; and engaged in lengthy analytic efforts internally and with
other parties. CEO and its legal counsel were active participants in the proceeding. For each of
these efforts, CEO endeavored to be efficient with time and delegation of tasks. CEO maintained
clear divisions of labor to reduce expenses. This request does not include hours invested by CEO
officers, Michael Heckler and Courtney White. CEO requests an hourly rate for legal counsel of
$222 per hour. For all these reasons, CEO's request for intervenor funding to pay the costs of the
listed attorney is reasonable.
D. Explanation of cost statement
CEO is a nonprofit organization. In this proceeding, CEO represented its directors and
supporters who are Idaho Power ratepayers. To provide consistent, professional, and impactful
advocacy, CEO dedicates significant time to energy issues and specifically to policy making at
the Commission. CEO has actively participated in prior proceedings on related matters. CEO
does not have any financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
The cost of this time and hiring legal counsel is a significant financial commitment and
hardship for a nonprofit organization. Because contributions to CEO are inherently unstable and
sometimes insufficient, the availability of intervenor funding is essential for CEO to participate
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 3

fully in these proceedings. CEO has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case; rather
CEO dedicated its time and resources to represent the interests of its supporters.
E. Statement of difference
CEO has long admired the skill and dedication of Commission Staff (see, for example,
Ms. White's comments at Hearing Transcript page 731). On several matters in this very
important first-impression case, CEO respectfully but fundamentally and vehemently disagrees
with the approach that Staff recommends. Material differences between Staff and CEO positions
include:
1. Inadequate analysis of protection from cost shifting between classes
• There is a fundamental difference between how Staff views the Company's no-harm
analysis in the context of the totality of protections offered in the ESA to protect
customers from stranded asset risk and how CEO distinguishes between the no-harm
analysis and the other protections. Stranded risk protections such as termination payments
could presumably protect the set of customers that would exist at the time of any
termination. CEO showed that no-harm analysis and the comparison to terms from the
Lamb-Weston and Brisbie special contracts provide inadequate justification regarding
protection for existing customers from cost shifting today.
• CEO has shown that the no-harm analysis does not protect existing customers from
FAB-caused costs in all but the best case scenario. CEO shows that after full ramp-up
occurs, if FAB loads follow the minimum load requirement pattern documented in the
ESA, the use of the Company's "proposed method for determining the Demand Charges"
will result in non-FAB customers paying more than $1 billion of FAB caused cost. Staff
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING -4

presented no similar analysis. CEO suggested a method for charging the FAB for its
incremental capacity costs while recognizing the benefit their additional load presents for
existing customers via potentially offsetting credits.
• CEO has also shown that the Company's attempts to justify giving the FAB a load ratio
based share and embedded cost treatment for the incremental costs the FAB causes by
comparison to Brisbie and Lamb Weston special contract demand charge treatment are
misplaced and non-convincing. Staff did not present a similarly detailed analysis.
2. We are in a transformational period where utilities compete for new load in
their service territories.
• CEO noted how the FAB application is fundamentally different from existing special
contracts, a distinction CEO presented as early as its March 21, 2025 comments. The
largely new competitive customers in the Company's pipeline are different from existing
special contract customers. These new megaloads, for which the Company competes with
other utilities for their business, require a different treatment than that afforded traditional
special contract customers already resident in the Company's service territory.
• It is uncontested that the FAB alone will directly cause a need for additional generation
resources. CEO has shown that such generation resources likely carry capital costs
measured in billions of dollars. CEO sees those FAB-caused incremental capacity costs as
a basis for distinguishing the FAB from other special contracts.
• Staff doesn't directly address the implications for growth caused by these new
competitive megaloads. In contrast, CEO requested that the Commission address specific
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 5

issues this new period of competition presents by providing guidance on each of the
following matters:
o Guidelines regarding what constitutes a new large load customer.
o When does a new large load customer transition from new to existing.
o Which incremental costs caused by the new large load customer should be
charged to that customer, and how should those costs be measured.
o Guidelines for how customers that disproportionately cause upward pressure on
ROE and financing costs should pay for those impacts.
o Guidelines for no-harm scenario analyses for large load customers so that the
Commission can adequately weigh the risks of harm to existing customers.
o Consideration of alternatives such as whether payments made in the form of
self-supply or CIAC could protect existing customers.
o Guidelines regarding the degree to which G&T infrastructure provide energy
benefits and the means of reflecting those in energy rates.
3. Punting the incremental vs. embedded capacity cost treatment question to a
future GRC is an inappropriate response given the magnitude of the issue.
• Staff supports using the embedded cost demand charges approach the Company presented
now and deferring evaluation of this cost allocation matter until a future general rate case.
Staff has acknowledged that general rate cases are focused primarily on revenue
requirements.
• In contrast, CEO has noted that if the FAB goes into the next general rate case with
demand charges calculated on an embedded cost basis, they are not likely to be moved
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 6

off that position. Resolving the effect competitive megaload customers have on cost
allocation will not receive an adequate review in a GRC absent guidance from the
Commission prior to that GRC's convening. Punting the question to a future GRC risks
establishing a precedent in this case that future megaload applicants who aren't as
attractive as the FAB may rely upon to the detriment of all the Company's captive
customers.
In addition to taking different positions than Staff on the above matters, CEO introduced
and led the request to revise Schedule 28 in order to more accurately align rates with the
time-varying nature of costs. The ability of CEO to propose solutions and to find common
ground with regard to time-varying rates was enhanced by CEO's work prior to this docket in
leading workshops and research related to Hourly Informed Rate Design as stipulated in the
settlement agreement in Idaho Power's 2023 rate case (IPC-E-23-11, Settlement Agreement,
Stipulation 13, p11). CEO has not requested intervenor funding for those workshop related
efforts.
F. Statement of recommendation
CEO has consistently approached the matters raised in this case from the perspective that
we are in a transformational period of electric load growth. The FAB is just the first of a
potentially large number of new competitively procured megaload customers.
CEO has presented information showing how approval of the proposed ESA could cause
existing Company customers billions of dollars of harm. Possibly even more detrimental is the
risk that treating an attractive new load like the FAB preferentially could establish a basis for
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 7

succeeding megaloads to claim they are being discriminated against if not given a similar
treatment.
To address this potential for substantive harms CEO has proposed (as summarized in
section 3 of CEO's closing brief) needed changes to the ESA and follow-on processes to
accommodate the transformed landscape Idaho Power is operating in.
Prompt, thoughtful and comprehensive resolution of these issues is clearly in the interest
of the general body of Idaho Power customers.
G. Statement showing class of customer
Class cost allocations are, in the short term, a zero sum game. CEO argues for the long
term interest of Idahoans. In this case the matters CEO presented benefit all customers, in every
class, except the FAB in Schedule 28.
Based on the foregoing reasons, CEO respectfully requests that the Commission grant
this Petition for Intervenor Funding in the amount of$7,037.40 as illustrated in Exhibit A.
DATED this 26th day of December, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
t^' v
Kelsey Jae
Attorney for CEO
Exhibit A: Statement of Costs
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 8

Exhibit A: Statement of Costs
For attorney fees incurred by Kelsey Jae LLC
Analyzing Idaho Power's application and direct testimonies; 31.7 hours @
conducting relevant legal research; analyzing discovery requests and $222/hr
responses of other parties; drafting CEO discovery; crafting response
strategies, including comments/testimony/settlement
strategies/pleadings; preparing for and participating in hearing.
Total 31.7 hours
$7,037.40
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 26th day of December, 2025, I delivered true and correct
copies of the foregoing PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING to the following persons via
the method of service noted:
Electronic Mail Delivery (See Order No. 34602)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
secretary0puc.idaho.gov
Idaho PUC Staff
f
Chris Burdin
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
chris.burdin(@puc.idaho.gov
Idaho Power Company
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Donovan Walker
Connie Aschenbrenner
Grant Anderson
mgoicoecheaallenOidahopower.com
[e-mail]
caschenbrennerna idahopower.com
gandersonOidahopower.com
dockets idahopower.com
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power, Inc.
Peter J. Richardson
Dr. Don Reading
[e-mail]
dreadingna mindspring.com
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Eric L. Olsen
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D.
elo(a)echohawk.com
lance(a�aegisinsight.com
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 10

Micron Technology, Inc.
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen
Kristine A.K. Roach
Holland & Hart, LLP
darueschhoff0hollandhart.com
tnelson aphollandhart.com
awj [e-mail]
aclee(a)hollandhart.com
karoach(a)hollandhart.com
'U
Kelsey Jae
Attorney for CEO
IPC-E-24-44 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO -
PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - 11