20260120Answer to IPCs Petition.pdf

RECEIVED
Eric L. Olsen(ISB#4811) January 20, 2026
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 CASE NO. IPC-E-25-10
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF A POWER PURCHASE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
AGREEMENT AND AN ENERGY ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER
STORAGE AGREEMENT WITH TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
CRIMSON ORCHARD SOLAR LLC. PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND/OR RECONSIDERATION
COMES NOW the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA"), by and through
counsel of record, Echo Hawk & Olsen, PLLC, and hereby respectfully provides its Answer in
opposition to Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power" or "Company" or "IPC") Petition for
Clarification and/or Reconsideration of Amended and Restated Order 36881 ("Order") pursuant
I.C. § 60-626 and IDAPA §§ 31.01.01.331, as follows:
I. Introduction/Summary
IIPA does not seek to re-litigate the merits of the Crimson Orchard PPA or ESA, which
the Commission has already approved. Instead, IIPA urges the Commission to deny IPC's
petition. Or, in the alternative, limit any clarification narrowly to avoid altering the substantive
effect of the Order.
The Commission's Order reflects a deliberate and balanced outcome: The Commission
approved the contracts, but paired the approval with express limits on the scope of prudence
approval and future cost recovery.' IPC's Petition seeks clarification which would weaken those
limits by introducing presumptions of future rate recovery and by blurring the distinction
between contract approval and ratemaking treatment.
I Amended and Restated Order No. 36881,IPC-E-25-10: "Having reviewed the Application,the
Supplemental Application,and all submitted materials,the Commission finds it fair,just,and reasonable to(1)
approve the 20-year PPA ... (2)approve the 20-year ESA ... (3)approve the First Amendment to the PPA;and(4)
approve the First Amendment to the ESA."
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 1
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10

To preserve the integrity of its Order as well as the Commission's discretion in future
ratemaking proceedings, any clarification of its Order should:
1. Reaffirm that approval of the PPA, ESA, and First Amendments does not constitute
approval of all future costs arising under those agreements;
2. Avoid characterizing costs above the soft cap or purchase option costs as either prudent
or"not imprudent";
3. Preserve the soft cap as a meaningful prudence limitation, not as a procedural deferral;
and
4. State expressly that any clarification is non-ratemaking and not prejudicial to future
proceedings.
II. The Commission's order is clear and deliberate
The Order approves the PPA, ESA, and First Amendments while expressly limiting the
scope of prudence approval. The Commission found that expenses are prudent only to the extent
they do not exceed the originally negotiated rates, and it excluded purchase options from the
prudence determination altogether.2 This structure is neither ambiguous nor accidental: it reflects
an intentional exercise of the Commission's authority to approve a resource while reserving
ratemaking discretion and protecting customers from open ended cost exposure.
Nothing in the Commission's Order suggests that costs above the soft cap were approved,
presumed reasonable, or insulated from future scrutiny. To the contrary, the Commission stated
that recovery of such costs would require additional justification.3 This is language that places
the burden on the Company in future proceedings.
III. IPC's requested clarifications would change the effect of the order
A. The "not imprudent, merely deferred" framing should be rejected
IPC asks the Commission to clarify that costs above the soft cap and costs associated
with purchase options were "not deemed prudent"but also "not deemed imprudent," and that
prudence was merely deferred. The Company's framing goes beyond clarification. It would
introduce a substantive characterization of costs the Commission expressly declined to approve.4
2 Amended and Restated Order No.36881,IPC-E-25-10:"The Purchase Options are excluded from this
determination with the understanding that the Company can pursue prudence and recovery if it elects to exercise the
Purchase Options."
3 Amended and Restated Order No.36881,IPC-E-25-10,P. 8"While the Company is always required to
provide sufficient justification to recover costs for its prudently incurred investments,to recover above the soft cap
for any additional costs associated with the First Amendments to the PPA and the ESA we expect additional
justification to support the Company's request."
4 Amended and Restated Order No.36881,IPC-E-25-10,P.8""The Commission finds it reasonable that
expenses—excluding the Purchase Option provision—be deemed prudent only to the extent they do not exceed the
originally negotiated rates,"and"The Purchase Options are excluded from this determination..."and"To recover
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 2
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10

By labeling such costs as "not imprudent,"the Company seeks to create a presumption in its
favor that does not exist in the Order.
The Commission need not, and should not, assign any prudence characterization to costs
it expressly reserved for future review. The appropriate and sufficient statement is that such costs
were not adjudicated in this case and will be evaluated, if and when presented, on a full record.
B. Approval of contract mechanisms does not pre-approve resulting costs
The Company also seeks confirmation that approval of the First Amendments includes
approval of the price adjustment mechanisms contained within.5 While the Commission
approved the First Amendments as contracts, that approval does not resolve the ratemaking
treatment of costs that may result from those mechanisms, particularly where such costs exceed
the soft cap.
Clarification should not be used to convert approval of a contractual structure into an
advanced approval or a presumption of future cost recovery. Consistent with the Commission's
longstanding practice, the Order distinguishes between approval of agreements and later
determinations of prudence and recoverability, expressly limiting prudence approval and
reserving recovery questions for future proceedings.6 Any clarification should reaffirm, not
erode, that distinction.
C. Purchase options were intentionally excluded from prudence approval
The Commission's Order explicitly excludes purchase options from the prudence
determination.7 IPC's request to characterize those costs as merely deferred risks undermines the
Commission's express reservation of discretion.
If the Company elects to exercise a purchase option, it must demonstrate prudence and
customer benefit based on the conditions existing at that time. Nothing in the Order suggests
otherwise. Any clarification should not imply advance approval or favorable treatment.
above the soft cap for any additional costs associated with the First Amendments to the PPA and the ESA we expect
additional justification to support the Company's request."
5 Idaho Power Company's Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration,IPC-E-25-10:""The Company
is requesting clarification that the approval of the PPA and ESA and the First Amendments thereto as outlined in the
Order is inclusive of the price adjustment mechanism in the First Amendments."
6 Amended and Restated Order No.36881,IPC-E-25-10:"While the Company is always required to
provide sufficient justification to recover costs for its prudently incurred investments,to recover above the soft cap
... we expect additional justification to support the Company's request."And Expenses—excluding the Purchase
Option provision—be deemed prudent only to the extent they do not exceed the originally negotiated rates..."
7 Amended and Restated Order No.36881,IPC-E-25-10: "The Purchase Options are excluded from this
determination with the understanding that the Company can pursue prudence and recovery if it elects to exercise the
Purchase Options."
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 3
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10

IV.Accounting acknowledgment should not prejudge ratemaking
IPC also seeks clarification regarding lease accounting treatment for the ESA.B If the
Commission elects to address this issue, any clarification should be narrow and expressly non-
ratemaking. Acknowledgment that a particular accounting treatment is consistent with GAAP
does not determine:
• Prudence;
• Recoverability;
• Rate base treatment; or
• Allocation of costs among customer classes.
To avoid future disputes, any clarification should state explicitly that accounting
acknowledgment does not prejudice or constrain the Commission's authority in future
ratemaking proceedings.
V. Requested relief
For the reasons stated above, IIPA respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Deny Idaho Power's Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, or
alternatively;
2. Limit any clarification to reaffirm that:
o Approval of the PPA, ESA, and First Amendments does not constitute
approval of all costs arising under those agreements;
o Costs above the soft cap and costs associated with purchase options were not
adjudicated for prudence and carry no presumption of recoverability;
o The soft cap remains a substantive limitation on prudence approval; and
o Any clarification is non-ratemaking and non-prejudicial to future proceedings.
Such clarification would preserve the balance struck in Order 36881,protect customers, and
maintain the Commission's discretion to evaluate costs based on a full and contemporaneous
record.
8 IPC's Petition: "Because Order No.36881 is silent as to the requested lease accounting treatment for the
ESA,Idaho Power hereby respectfully seeks clarification as to the Commission's acknowledgement of the requested
lease accounting"
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 4
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10

DATED this 201h day of January, 2026.
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 5
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of January, 2026, I served a true, correct and
complete copy of the foregoing to each of the following,via U.S. Mail or private courier, email or
hand delivery, as indicated below:
Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Commission Secretary ❑ U.S. Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ❑ Hand Delivered
P.O. Box 83720 ❑ Overnight Mail
Boise, ID 83720-0074 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
[e-mail] ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Donovan E. Walker ❑ U.S. Mail
Tim Tatum ❑ Hand Delivered
Idaho Power Company ❑ Overnight Mail
1221 W. Idaho Street(83702) ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
P.O. Box 70 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Boise, ID 83707
dwalkernidahopower.com
dockets gidahopower.com
ttatum(k idahopower.com
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D. ❑ U.S. Mail
2623 NW Bluebell Place ❑ Hand Delivered
Corvallis, OR 97330 ❑ Overnight Mail
lance(kae is�.hg t.com ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
❑ Electronic Mail (Email)
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
darueschhoff(a�hollandhart.com
tnelsonghollandhart.com
awj ensen(k hollandhart.com
karoach(khollandhart.com
aclee(a,hollandhart.com
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S ANSWER—Page 6
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-10