20260123Comments - Redacted.pdf

RECEIVED
JANUARY 23, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Eric L. Olsen(ISB#4811)
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN, PLLC
505 Pershing Ave., Ste. 100
P.O. Box 6119
Pocatello, Idaho 83205
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
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-25-29
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
NECESSITY FOR THE BENNETT GAS ASSOCIATION,INC.'S COMMENTS
EXPANSION PROJECT AND FOR
AN ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTING ORDER
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA"), by and through counsel, hereby submits its
Comments on Idaho Power Company's Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Bennett Gas Expansion Project and for an Associated Accounting Order, as
follows:
Introduction/Summary
The IIPA respectfully recommends that the Commission deny or defer Idaho Power Company's
("Idaho Power"or"Company")Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity("CPCN") for the Bennett Gas Expansion Project and for an Associated Accounting
Order in IPC-E-25-29. 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 CPCN. Using Idaho Power's own data,removal of a single disclosed
Additional Firm Load("AFL")driver ) converts the Company's
claimed
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
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 1
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

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.
Moreover, the Company seeks approval of a long-lived,rate-based natural gas asset while
simultaneously acknowledging that near-term capacity positions are`Very fluid,"that key
assumptions have recently changed, and that major resource decisions have been deferred,
accelerated,or withdrawn. This internal inconsistency further undermines any claim of necessity.
Finally, Idaho Power requests approval of the CPCN while expressly disclaiming any prudence
determination, seeking early accrual of AFUDC, and providing no binding mechanism to ensure
that the customers who cause the alleged need bear the associated costs and risks. Granting a
CPCN under these circumstances would expose existing customers (including irrigation
customers)to stranded asset risk driven by speculative and customer-specific load growth.
For these reasons, the Commission should deny, or at minimum defer,Idaho Power's request for
a CPCN for the Bennett Gas Expansion Project until the Company demonstrates,with quantified
analysis, that the project is necessary to meet system needs of existing customers.
Our analysis shows that:
1. No system need has been demonstrated absent AFL;
2. Idaho Power failed to carry it's burden of proof for granting a CPCN;
3. Granting a CPCN would improperly prejudge cost causation;
4. The Alleged Urgency Is self created, assumption-driven, and reversible; and
5. The alleged urgency is self-created and reversible.
1. Idaho Power has not demonstrated a system capacity need attributable to existing
customers
A. Idaho Power's claimed 2028 capacity deficit is calculated using a load forecast that fully
embeds Additional Firm Load
Idaho Power asserts that it faces-capacity deficit in 2028,which it contends
necessitates approval of the Bennett Gas Expansion Project. Mr. Ellsworth states that this deficit
is derived from a"most recent system reliability assessment"using the Company's RCAT model
with updated load and resource inputs'.
1 Direct Testimony of Jared L.Ellsworth("Ellsworth Direct"),p.4,lines 1-4;p.8,lines 1-4
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 2
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

The Company's load forecast underlying this assessment includes Additional Firm Load or large,
discrete, firm industrial loads that are contractually distinct from legacy customer classes. Idaho
Power does not dispute that AFL is included in the coincident peak forecast used to calculate the
annual capacity position.
Importantly, Idaho Power does not identify any separate calculation of system peak demand
attributable solely to existing customers. The claimed deficit therefore reflects the arithmetic
result of adding AFL to the system peak, not an independent demonstration of system wide need.
B. Idaho Power admits it did not evaluate system capacity absent AFL
The evidentiary record establishes that Idaho Power did not evaluate whether the claimed
capacity deficit exists without AFL.
In discovery, Idaho Power admits that it:
• did not evaluate the system capacity position without AFL;
• did not perform any resource expansion or reliability sensitivity excluding AFL; and
• did not determine whether the alleged capacity need would exist absent AFL.2
Mr. Ellsworth confirms that the Company's planning process relies on RCAT-derived inputs that
are passed into Aurora,but he does not identify any scenario or sensitivity in which AFL is
removed or treated separately for purposes of evaluating necessity. These admissions are
consistent with the Company's testimony, which presents only a single capacity position that
embeds AFL by assumption, without any counterfactual analysis.
As a result, the record contains no analysis demonstrating that existing customers contribute to
the alleged deficit.
C. The Company's own discovery responses provide the data necessary to quantify system
capacity excluding AFL, but the Company did not perform the calculation
Although Idaho Power declined to evaluate system capacity absent AFL, the Company produced
the data necessary to do so.
Specifically, Idaho Power produced:
• projected system capacity positions;
• coincident peak demand values; and
2 Ellsworth Direct,p. 5,lines 8-21;p.6,lines 105
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 3
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

• AFL coincident peak contributions for forecast years.3
Because annual capacity position is defined as: "Available Capacity Resources—Coincident
Peak Load"the impact of AFL on the capacity position is mechanically determinable. Removing
AFL from the coincident peak forecast reduces system peak by exactly the AFL coincident
contribution.
Nothing in RCAT or Aurora methodology prevents this subtraction. It is simple arithmetic.
Thus,the Company's refusal to perform this calculation is not due to data limitations,but by
choice.
D. Using Idaho Power's own data, the capacity deficit does not persist absent AFL
Using the Company's discovery responses, it is possible to reconstruct the system capacity
position excluding AFL by subtracting AFL coincident peak from the Company's stated capacity
position.
The data produced by Idaho Power show that:
• AFL coincident peak contributions in the late-2020s are and
• those contributions are larger than, or comparable to,the claimed system deficit.
Because the claimed 2028 deficit ISM=4 and because AFL coincident peak contributions
produced in discovery exceed that magnitude, removal of AFL necessarily converts the deficit
into a surplus.
A conservative calculation,using the Company's own data for a single AFL driver DOM),
shows that removing this single AFL driver results in a— surplus on the same"perfect
capacity"basis, even before removing any other AFL components.5
Idaho Power has not disputed this arithmetic. Instead, it has declined to perform or present the
calculation.
Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the alleged capacity deficit does not persist absent
AFL.
3 Response to IIPA Request No. 1-2(b) Projected Peak Load Existing Customers;Response to IIPA
Request No. 1-3(f) Confidential Attachment;Response to IIPA Request No. 1-1(b)—System Peak Forecast
a Ellsworth Direct,p.4,lines 1-4
5 70'h percentile peak load forecast for all months RCAT and Ellsworth direct:265 MW deficit in'28.
Idaho Power construction upgrades
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 4
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

E. Idaho Power provided no evidence that legacy customer classes contribute to coincident
peak growth
In addition to failing to model the system without AFL, Idaho Power did not quantify coincident
peak growth attributable to legacy customer classes, such as irrigation, residential, or traditional
commercial customers.
The Company produced no evidence showing:
• positive coincident peak growth for legacy classes;
• that such growth contributes meaningfiilly to the claimed deficit; or
• that the Bennett Gas Expansion Project is required to maintain reliability for those
customers.6
Indeed, the Company's discovery responses reflect that peak growth is tracked at the system
level with AFL embedded,rather than by class-level coincident contribution.
Using the Company's data,' the total coincident peak load across theme listed"existing
customers" for 2027 and 2028 is:
• Max monthly coincident total (2027):_M8
• Max monthly coincident total (2028):_-9
• Increase from 2027 to 2028 =—
In other words, for the Company's produced"existing customers,"coincident peak increases
— MW from 2027 to 2028.
Scaled against the 70th percentile system peak10(the percentile the Company says it uses in
RCAT) the system peak growth (70th percentile July peak, 2027 to 2028) is— Therefore,
the legacy share of system peak growth is about And compared to the
Company's claimed system deficit of 265 MW with no new build,versus the existing customer
6 Response to IIPA Request No. 1-4:Response to IIPA Request No. 1-12 Confidential Attachment
7 Response to IIPA Request No. 1-2(b)Confidential Attaclunent Projected Peak Load Existing
Customers.xlsx
B Id
9 Id
no Response to IIPA Request No. 1-1(b)
-1
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUIIIPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT CO'4INIENTS—
Page 5
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

peak increase o� the measurable"existing customer"coincident-peak growth in the
produced dataset- of the claimed 2028 deficit
2. Idaho Power Failed to Carry Its Burden of Proof for a CPCN
A CPCN may issue only upon an affirmative showing that a proposed facility is necessary to
provide adequate service to the public. That burden rests entirely with the applicant.
Idaho Power did not carry that burden here. The Company elected to present a single,
assumption-laden capacity position without performing the analyses necessary to determine
whether the alleged deficit exists independently of Additional Firm Load or is attributable to
existing customers. Idaho Power admits it did not evaluate system capacity absent AFL, did not
perform sensitivity analyses excluding AFL, and did not quantify coincident peak contributions
by legacy customer classes.
These omissions are not technicalities. They prevent the Commission from making the findings
required by Idaho Code Sections 61-501 through 61-503. The Commission cannot infer necessity
from an untested forecast, cannot assume that discretionary new load constitutes a system
obligation, and cannot approve a long-lived, rate-based resource without evidence that it is
required to serve existing customers.
Required Showing Idaho Power Evidence
Capacity need absent AFL Not evaluated
Coincident peak growth by legacy class Not quantified
Deferral sensitive 1- ear Not analyzed
Where an applicant declines to perform the analyses necessary to demonstrate necessity, the
appropriate regulatory response is denial or deferral,not approval conditioned on assumptions
the record does not support.
3. Granting the CPCN Would Improperly Prejudge Cost Causation and Expose Existing
Customers to Unwarranted Risk
Approval of the Bennett Gas Expansion Project would have inuuediate and irreversible
consequences for ratepayers, even though Idaho Power has not demonstrated that existing
customers require the resource.
The majority of AFL is either unconfirmed or undisclosed by Idaho Power. Without approved
energy service contracts, such as those held with Micron,there are no remedies available for
existing customers if those loads fail to appear.
A key example to illustrate the risk posed by speculative load growth is the proposed Diode
Ventures"Gemstone Technology Park"data center project outside Boise. Diode Venhires, a
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COINMENTS—
Page 6
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

Kansas-based subsidiary of Black&Veatch that develops large data-center campuses, has
applied for service for a 600-800 MW load at a site in Kuna, Idaho: an amount of energy that
would exceed the usage of hundreds of thousands of homes at full buildout.11 However, as noted
in reporting on the project, Diode has not yet secured an operator or tenant to actually occupy
and consume that power.A company spokesperson confirmed that the eventual customer for the
facility, the entity that would be drawing and paying for that electrical load, is "not yet
determined. ,12
Because Idaho Power's filings and utility planning treat this proposed load as potential future
firm demand, it gets folded into forecasts of system need and resource acquisition planning. But
unlike projects that have executed energy services agreements ("ESA") or other binding
commitments (such as Micron's semiconductor expansion, which includes contractual guarantees
about load and financial responsibility) the Diode project currently lacks such contractual
safeguards. Without an ESA or approved energy service contract, there is no mechanism to
guarantee that Diode (or a future tenant)will pay for the generation and grid upgrades sized to
serve its projected load.
This gap matters for ratepayers because under current utility ratemaking practice, the financial
risk associated with non-materializing load, including the costs of generation plants, transmission
upgrades, or other capacity acquisitions, can be allocated to the broader customer base if the
speculative load never appears or is delayed. In other words: if Idaho Power builds capacity or
secures generation assets based on projections that include Diode's un-contracted 600 - 800 MW
and that load never materializes, the cost consequences could be shifted onto existing customers,
rather than being borne by the developer or its tenants.
The Bennett Gas Expansion Project is a long-lived, rate-based natural gas asset. Idaho Power
seeks early accrual of AFUDC and expressly disclaims any current prudence determination.
Granting a CPCN would therefore begin locking in cost recovery and risk allocation before the
Commission has determined whether the project is necessary or who should bear its costs.
At the same time, Idaho Power provides no binding mechanism ensuring that the customers who
cause the alleged need—new large firm load customers—will bear the associated costs or risks
over the life of the asset. Existing customers, including irrigation customers, would be exposed
to stranded-asset risk driven by speculative and customer-specific load growth.
The Commission should not prejudge cost causation,prudence, or risk allocation by granting a
CPCN in the absence of a demonstrated system need.
11 https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article303505246.html
12 Id.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 7
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

4. The Alleged Urgency Is Self-Created,Assumption-Driven, and Reversible
Idaho Power characterizes the Bennett Gas Expansion Project as urgently required to address a
near-term capacity deficit in 2028. The Company's own testimony, however, demonstrates that
this asserted urgency is not the result of immutable system constraints, but rather of planning
assumptions and discretionary decisions that have recently changed and may change again.
A. Idaho Power Acknowledges That Near Term Capacity Positions Are"Very Fluid"
Mr. Ellsworth expressly acknowledges that Idaho Power's annual capacity positions in the near
term are "very fluid" and subject to material change as inputs are updated and assumptions
evolve. He explains that Idaho Power regularly updates its system reliability assessments and has
repeatedly adjusted its resource plans in response to changing conditions.13
This admission is significant. It confirms that the Company's asserted 2028 deficit is not a fixed
or irreversible condition,but a snapshot dependent on current assumptions, including load
forecasts, resource availability, and planning choices.
B. Idaho Power Has Recently Accelerated, Deferred, and Withdrawn Major Resource
Decisions
The record reflects that Idaho Power has repeatedly altered the timing and composition of its
resource portfolio in response to changing assumptions. Mr. Ellsworth notes that Idaho Power
has made consecutive near-term resource acquisition requests for resources to be online in 2023
through 2027, reflecting ongoing adjustments to planning assumptions rather than a single, stable
reliability trajectory.14
In addition, Idaho Power has withdrawn previously approved resources when underlying
assumptions changed. Most notably, the Company filed a contemporaneous request to withdraw
the CPCN associated with the Jackalope Wind Project due to uncertainty and delay, despite that
project having been previously approved as part of the Company's resource plan.15
These actions demonstrate that Idaho Power retains substantial flexibility in managing near-term
capacity needs and that reliability can be maintained through adaptive planning, rather than
irreversible commitments to long-lived assets.
13 Ellsworth Direct
14 Id.
15 Id.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 8
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

C. The Bennett Gas Expansion Project Itself Reflects Planning Discretion,Not Emergent
Need
Idaho Power acknowledges that the Bennett Gas Expansion Project was originally contemplated
to meet later capacity needs and was subsequently accelerated based on revised assumptions.16
Mr. Ellsworth explains that the project was initially considered to meet 2029 needs and was able
to advance its commercial operation date to June 2028.
That acceleration reflects a discretionary planning decision rather than an emergent reliability
failure. Idaho Power did not present evidence that the system would become unreliable absent
this acceleration, nor did it demonstrate that alternative measures could not bridge any interim
need.
D. Idaho Power Did Not Demonstrate That Deferral Would Jeopardize Reliability
Despite asserting urgency, Idaho Power did not analyze whether deferral of the Bennett Gas
Expansion Project would compromise system reliability. The Company did not model:
• A one-year deferral scenario;
• Interim alternatives such as short-term market purchases or demand-side measures; or
• The reliability impacts of revised load or resource assumptions.
Absent such analysis, the record does not support a conclusion that denial or deferral of the
CPCN would result in inadequate service or reliability violations.
E. Where Urgency Is Assumption-Driven and Reversible, Deferral Is the Appropriate
Regulatory Response
The Commission's role is to ensure reliable service while protecting the public interest. Where a
claimed need is driven by assumptions the utility acknowledges are fluid, and where the utility
has not demonstrated that immediate approval is necessary to avoid harm, deferral, not approval,
is the prudent regulatory course.
Deferring the CPCN would preserve the Commission's ability to:
• Require a quantified showing of system need attributable to existing customers;
• Evaluate cost causation and risk allocation; and
• Avoid premature commitment to a long-lived, rate-based asset.
'6 Id.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 9
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2026.
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 10
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 23rd day of January, 2026, 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
Erika Melanson, 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]
erika.melanson(i�puc.Idaho.gov
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D. ❑ U.S. Mail
2623 NW Bluebell Place ❑ Hand Delivered
Corvallis, OR 97330 ❑ Overnight Mail
lance@ae 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
[e-mail]
com
ttatum(&b,iidahopower.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
darueschhoff(&,hollandhart.com
[e-mail]
awj ensen(d),hollandhart.com
[e-mail]
aclee(&,hollandhart.com
]KRICE beSK
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.BENNETT GAS EXPANSION PROJECT COMMENTS—
Page 11
CASE NO.IPC-E-25-29