20260217Answer to Company Objection.pdf

RECE IVED
February 17, 2026
1 Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195 IDAHO PL BLIC
Gregory M. Adams ISB # 7454 UTILITIES COMMISSION
2 515 N. 271" Street
3 Boise, Idaho 83702
[phone] DD
4 [phone] Cell
p�:tcr a ric hardsonadams.coin
5
6
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8
9 IN THE MATTER OF CLEARWATER Case No.: COI-E-26-01
POWER COMPANY'S 2026 WILDFIRE
1 o MITIGATION PLAN
i 1 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,
LLC's ANSWER TO CLEARWATER
12 POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO
PETITION TO INTERVENE
13
14
15 Pursuant to Rule 57(3) of the Rules of Procedure ("Rule" or"Rules") of the Idaho
16
Public Utilities Commission("Commission"), PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC.
17
("PotlatchDeltic") by and through its attorney of record, Peter J. Richardson, hereby lodges its
18
19
Answer to Clearwater Power Company's ("Clearwater" or"CPC" or the "Company") Objection
20 to Petition to Intervene by PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLCI ("Objection.")
21
22
23
24 'A notice of name change was filed by PotlatchDeltic on February 5,2026,indicating that PotlatchDeltic Forest
Holdings, Inc. is now PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings,LLC. The only change being the removal of"Inc."and its
25 replacement with"LLC".
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
COI-E-26-01
28
PAGE 1

1 I.
2 SUMMARY
3 Clearwater's Objection is fatally flawed for several independently significant reasons.
4 First, PotlatchDeltic has established that it has a direct, substantial and vital interest in the subjec
5 matter of CPC's Wildfire Mitigation Plan("WMP"). Second, CPC fails to provide any evidence
6
(or even an offer of proof)that PotlatchDeltic's intervention will"broaden the issues." Finally, i
7
8 is a thinly veiled collateral attack on final commission orders that confuses process for substance
9 II.
PROCEDURE
10
Clearwater's pleading is stylized as an"Objection." The proper form of a pleading in
11
12 opposition to a petition to intervene is not an "objection" but rather is a"motion." According to
13 Rule 75, "Any party opposing a petition to intervene must do so by motion in opposition... .Z"
14 Rule 57(3) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure requires answers to Motions to be filed with
15
"reasonable speed" but in no case later than fourteen days. This Answer in Opposition to CPC's
16
17 Objection (motion) is filed with reasonable speed and is well within the fourteen-day timeframe
18 required by Rule 57(3). Oral argument is not requested, nevertheless, PotlatchDeltic stands
19 ready to appear and present oral argument should the Commission so order.
20 III.
21 LEGAL STANDARD
22 Rule 74 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides:
23
24
25
26 z Underscoring provided.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 2

I If a petition to intervene shows direct and substantial interest in any part of the subject
2 matter of proceeding and does not unduly broaden the issues, the Commission . . . will
grant intervention, subject to reasonable conditions.
3
The Commission's rules do not define or establish parameters as to what is necessary to make a
4
5 showing of a"direct and substantial interest," nor do the Commission's rules provide guidance
6 as to how to establish whether a proposed intervention will "unduly broaden the issues,"
7 Nevertheless, prior Commission orders offer sufficient guidance and clarity for understanding
8 and applying both principles against Clearwater's Objection in this docket. For instance, in
9
Case No. UWI-W-04-043 the Commission made the following declaration as to the appropriate
10
11 legal standard for granting interventions:
12 Consistent with the legislature's stated policy `to encourage participation at all stages of
all proceedings before the commission so that affected customer will receive full and fair
13 representation", the Commission has liberally allowed intervention and encouraged
14 public participation.'
15 In the very same docket, the Commission made it clear how it will handle non-specific assertions
16 (such as those made by Clearwater)that an intervenor might unduly broaden the issues by
17 observing that:
18
If it subsequently appears that a part's intervention is not in the public interest, or that
19 issues are unduly broadened by an intervenor, the Commission may place limits on the
20 parry's participation or even dismiss the intervenor from the proceeding.S
21
22
23
24 s In the Matter of the Application of United Water Inc for Authority to Increase its Rates and Charges for Water
25 Service in the State of Idaho Order No.29675(2005)at p.2.
'Underscoring provided.
26 5 Id. at pp.4-5.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 3

I The Commission has also made it clear that it will not be moved by speculative assertions that an
2 intervenor may, at some point in the proceeding, attempt to broaden the issues. In Docket Nos.
3
AVU-E-17-01, AVU-G-17-01 the Commission ruled on an objection to intervene thusly:
4
At this time, Avista's argument that Sierra Club may unduly broaden the issues is
5 speculative and premature. Further, Sierra Club has attested that it will not unduly
6 broaden the issues or delay proceedings. Accordingly, Avista's objection, including
limitation of potential issues, is denied.6
7
8
In sum, the Commission has established clear and objective precedents as to how it handles
9 attempts to restrict participation in its proceedings (extreme disfavor) and how it responds to
10 vague and speculative assertions that a particular intervenor might broaden the issues (reject
I 1 speculative assertions as premature). For these, and for the additional reasons summarized
12
above and detailed in the following pages, Clearwater's objection must be denied.
13
IV.
14 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO CLEARWATER'S OBJECTION TO
15 INTERVENTION BY POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC
16 A.
PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings LLC has established that it has Direct and Substantial
17 Interests in the Subject Matter of this Docket
18
19 Initially, it is important to underscore that CPC does not dispute that PotlatchDeltic has a
20 direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. As pointed out in
21
PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene:
22
23
24
25
6 In the Matter of the Application of Avista Corporation DBA Avista Utilities for Authority to Increase its Rates and
26 Charges for Electric Service and Natural Gas Service in Idaho,Order No.33829(2017)at p.4.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 4

I This Intervenor, PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, Inc. [now LLC], is a private owner of
significant timbered acreage in Idaho. Includ[ing] ... land holdings[that]are valuable
timbered lands that are susceptible to wildfire. Said lands are located, in part, in the
3 service territory of and/or adjacent to facilities owned and/or operated by Clearwater
Power Company ("Clearwater'). The prevention and risk of wildfire is a constant
4 concern of this Intervenor.7
5 A substantial portion of PotlatchDeltic's valuable commercial timber holdings are
6
traversed by CPC's electric distribution and transmission system. Cavalierly ignored by CPC is
7
8 the fact that it is seeking immunity for its potential actions that could cause an inferno destroying
9 much of PotlatchDeltic's property and, indeed,that could threaten the very lives and livelihoods
10 of PotlatchDeltic's dedicated employees in Idaho. The conditions under which CPC is granted
11 that immunity from liability by this Commission are vitally, substantially and directly of interest
12
to PotlatchDeltic. Depending on whether CPC's WMP is blessed by the Commission, liability
13
14 for untold millions of dollars of valuable timber and the very lives and livelihoods of its
15 employees is at stake.
16 B. CPC's Assertion that PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene Broadens the Issues is
17 Speculative and Void of Substantive Merit
18 The sole issue before the Commission is whether CPC's wildfire mitigation plan is
19 sufficient to "meet the minimum requirements stated" in the Wildfire Standard of Care Act.8
20 The stated purpose of the Wildfire Standard of Care Act is "to direct the prudent use of
21
resources by electric utilities to mitigate and respond to wildfire risk...in order to protect Idaho
22
23
24
25
7Petition to Intervene PotlatchDeltic at p. 2.
26 8 Idaho Code Section 61-1804(1).
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 5

I residents and their property. " PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene addressed that issue—and
2 that issue alone - which Petition provides at p. 2:
3 Clearwater's proposed implementation of the Act [Wildfire Standard of Care Act] that is
4 contained in its Application will have direct impact, on inter alia, wildfire risk, wildfire
damage recovery and wildfire prevention on a significant share of this Intervenor's
5 property in Idaho.
6
PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene raised no issue other than Clearwater's proposed
7
8
implementation of the Wildfire Standard of Care Act.
9 CPC's objection points to no ancillary issue asserted, implied or implicated by
10 PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene. PotlatchDeltic hereby attests that it has no intention to
11 broaden the issues. To reiterate, PotlatchDeltic's sole issue in this matter is whether CPC's
12
WMP comports with the requirements of the Act. To state the obvious, PotlatchDeltic has no
13
motivation to broaden the issues because it has no interest in any other aspect of Clearwater
14
15 Power's business activities which are likely not jurisdictional to this Commission anyway. Thus,
16 CPC's assertion that PotlatchDeltic's intervention"unduly broadens the issues" is total caprice.
17 The Commission should accordingly deny PCP's objection and grant PotlatchDeltic's
18
intervention as requested.
19
C. Clearwater Power Company's Objection is a Poorlydisguised Illegal Collateral Attack o
20 Final Commission Orders Adopting the Procedure for the Filing of WMPs
21
CPC's Objection runs aground on Idaho Code Section 61-625 which provides that"All
22
23 orders and decisions of the commission which have become final and conclusive shall not be
24 attacked collaterally. " Rather than offer any indicia that PotlatchDeltic's intervention is an
25 attempt to broaden the issues, CPC's Objection is, in fact, an attempt to relitigate the question of
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 6

I the appropriate "process"the Commission will use for reviewing WMPs that are filed by
2 otherwise non jurisdictional electric corporations such as CPC. Clearwater's Objection(which
3 ostensibly is about the `broadening' of issues) rehashes its own past(and thoroughly rejected)
4
5 assertion that non-profit electric cooperatives should not be burdened by the Commission's
6 adherence to basic notions of due process. According to CPC's Objection to PotlatchDeltic's
7 Petition to Intervene:
8 The process contemplated by the Idaho legislature in the Act was not to turn the review
9 and approval of WMP into lengthy and costly litigation for non-nroftt electric
Cooperatives throughout the state of Idaho. Doing so would be very prejudicial to
10 Clearwater and all of its members who would have to bear this cost 9
11 Back in October of last year, Clearwater made this very same argument in its Petition for
12
Reconsideration of the Commission's final order adopting a filing process for wildfire mitigation
13
14 plans.10 In its Reconsideration Petition, Clearwater asserted that non-regulated utilities (e.g.,
15 non-profit electric cooperatives) deserve special treatment in the Commission's evaluation
16 process of WMPs. Back then Clearwater asserted that:
17 [T]he Commission should ensure that it is not undermining or second-guessing the
18 authority of unregulated utilities'governing bodies and thereby effectively engaging in
rate regulation of those utilities. Where a governing bodof an unregulated utility
19 attests . . that it has reviewed the feasibility of its WMP and the costs of its
20 implementation. . .nothing further should be required. . . Such consideration does not
require the Commission to undermine or second-guess determinations made by
21 unregulated utilities'governing bodies.l
22
23
9 Objection at p.3. Underscoring provided.The Act requires a Commission decision within six months of a WMP's
24 filing—an expedited and certainly less costly process than is typical at the Idaho PUC.
10 Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, Request for Clarification of Order No. 36774, filed by, inter
25 alia, Clearwater Power Company in Docket No. GNR-E-25-02 on October 25,2025. Herein"CPC's
Reconsideration Petition."
26 11 CPC's Petition at p. 7. Underscoring provided.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 7

1
2 In its Objection to PotlatchDeltic's intervention, Clearwater is, once again, attempting to
3
undermine the Commission's obligation to issue orders and make decisions that are based on a
4
5 record and hence that are fair,just and reasonable and that also are in harmony with fundamental
6 notions of due process. The Commission resoundingly rejected Clearwater's newly resurrected
7 and rehashed assertions in its order denying reconsideration:
8 [T]he Commission is required by the WSCA and must determine for itself that a proposec
9 WMP meets the minimum requirements of Idaho Code§ 61-1803.
10 [U]nregulated electric corporations do not have to obtain a Commission-approved
WMP. ... By deciding to seek one, they voluntarily subject themselves to the same review
11 and approval process as all other electric utilities.12
12
Thus, as recently as last November, the Commission rejected Clearwater's argument that non-
13
14 profit cooperative utilities are to receive special treatment. The special treatment CPC seeks,
15 once again, is to have the Commission issue its order without the benefit of having independent
16 third parties' participation—which flies in the face of basic fundamental notions of due process.
17 Indeed, according to CPC, the very presence of any party other than CPC is an illegal broadening
18
of the issues:
19
There is no question that Potlatch's request to essentially turn the review and approval o
20 a WMP into a contested legal proceeding where evidence and witnesses will be
21 introduced will unduly broaden the issue.13
22
23
24
25
12 Order No.36849 at p.4. Underscoring provided.
26 13 Objection at p.3.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 8

I Despite Clearwater's speculative assertion, PotlatchDeltic's Petition to Intervene did not request
2 an evidentiary hearing. Rather, PotlatchDeltic's Petition made the standard request that it be
3
allowed to participate as a party and, if necessary, to introduce evidence, cross-examine
4
5 witnesses, call and examine witnesses. This request is in accord with the Commission's Notice
6 of Intervention Deadline issued in this matter which provides:14
7 After the intervention deadline runs, the Commission Secretary shall issue a Notice of
Parties ... Once the Notice of Parties has issued Commission Staff shall informally confe
8 with the Company and any intervening parties about how to further process this case an
9 shall then report back to the Commission on a proposed case schedule./S
10 Its lack of understanding as to the Commission's procedures notwithstanding, Clearwater Power
11 Company can be assured that its preferences as to "how to further process this case" will be
12
addressed in due time during the informal conferences convened by the Staff for that very
13
14 purpose.
15 WHEREFORE, PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC respectfully requests, for all of the
16 above reasons, that its Petition to Intervene be granted as filed without restriction or limitation
17 and that Clearwater Power's objection be denied.
18 ( q
Respectfully submitted this_day of February 2026.
19
20 � r
21 By.
Peter Richardson
22 Richardson Adams, PLLC
23 Attorneys for PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC
24
25
"Notice of of Application Notice of Intervention Deadline,of Intervention Deadline,Order No.36934, Feb. 13,2026.
26 151d. p.2.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 9

1
2
3
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5
6 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of February 2026, a true and correct copy of the
within and foregoing ANSWER of POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC To
7 CLEARWATER POWER'S OBJECTION in Docket No. CO 1-E26-01 was served by electronic
8 copy only, to:
9 Monica Barrios-Sanches Bob Pierce
Commission Secretary Chief Operating Officer
10 Idaho Public Utilities Commission Clearwater Power Company
PO Box 83720 4230 Hatwai Road
11 Boiie, ID 83720-0074 Lewiston, ID 83501
12 secretary c puc.idallo.gov rd ip erce c clearwaterpower.com
monica.bariossanclies,,puc.idaho..gov
13
Adam Triplett Sonyalee R. Nutsch
14 Deputy Attorney General Clements, Brown& McNochols, PA
15 Idaho Public Utilities Commission 321 13" St.
P.O. Box 83720 P.O. Box 1510
16 Boise, ID 83720-0074 Lewiston, ID 83501
adam.triplettacpuc.idaho.gov snutsch�clbnnc.com
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 v: Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S ANSWER TO CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
27 OBJECTION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE
COI-E-26-01
28
PAGE 10