20260305Final_Order_No_36954.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 5,2026
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER ) CASE NO. IPC-E-25-27
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR )
APPROVAL OF A POWER PURCHASE ) ORDER NO. 36954
AGREEMENT WITH BLACKS CREEK )
ENERGY CENTER,LLC )
On September 5, 2025, Idaho Power Company ("Company") applied to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission") requesting: (1) approval of the 25-year Power Purchase
Agreement ("PPA") between Blacks Creek Energy Center, LLC ("Blacks Creek") and the
Company and (2) acknowledgment that the resulting expenses associated with the PPA are
prudently incurred for ratemaking purposes ("Application").
On October 6, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and a Notice of
Intervention Deadline establishing a 21-day intervention period. Order No. 36791. The
Commission granted intervention to the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA") and
Micron Technology, Inc. (collectively"Intervenors"). Order Nos. 36803 and 36828.
On November 10, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of
Modified establishing written comment deadlines. Order No. 36842. Commission Staff("Staff")
and IIPA filed comments to which the Company replied. The Commission received no public
comments.
On February 9, 2026, IIPA filed a late Petition for Intervenor Funding seeking $14,923.25
("Petition").
Having reviewed the record in this case, we now issue this Final Order approving the PPA
and deem all expenses associated with PPA prudently incurred for ratemaking purposes.
THE APPLICATION
According to the Company, the PPA represents the least-cost, least-risk resource to help
meet its capacity needs beginning in the summer of 2027.Application at 4. The PPA was identified
through an All-Source Request for Proposals ("RFP") procurement process. Id. at 3-4. The
Company represented that the RFP process adhered to the competitive bidding requirements
established by the Oregon RFP guidelines, which were adopted by the Commission in Case No.
IPC-E-10-03.Id. at 4-5.
ORDER NO. 36954 1

The PPA would result in 80 megawatts("MW") of output from a solar powered generation
facility in Ada County, Idaho supplying energy to the Company's system. Id. at 6. The Company
stated that the developer had latent capacity under a separate interconnection agreement, resulting
in the Blacks Creek bid. Id. Because of this relationship and the existing facility, the PPA
negotiations progressed more quickly than those concerning other bids. Id. During negotiations,
the developer indicated an ability to advance the commercial operation date to June 1,2027,rather
than the April 1, 2028, operation date specified in the RFP.Id. at 6-7.
The PPA, which includes levelized, fixed pricing for 25 years, will only become effective
upon a Commission order approving the terms of the PPA and finding the Company's associated
expenses prudently incurred for ratemaking purposes. Id. at 7. The Company requested the
Commission issue a final order on or before March 5, 2026, so as not to delay the intended PPA
Commercial Operation Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date. Id. at 8-9.
STAFF COMMENTS
After reviewing the Company's Application and supporting exhibits, including the RFP
and PPA, Staff recommended the Commission approve the PPA and find the associated expenses
prudently incurred. Staff Comments at 2. Staff reasoned that the Company is facing a capacity
deficit in 2027 and has a need for additional resources beyond the Blacks Creek solar-powered
generation facility. Id. Staff also believed the PPA represents a least-cost, least-risk resource, as it
was selected through a fair and reasonable RFP and stochastic analysis process; compares
favorably to recent Staff-recommended resource additions; and, due to leveraging an existing
project, can become operational on an expedited timeframe with reduced development risks.Id. at
3-4. Additionally, Staff stated that the PPA contains terms that sufficiently protect ratepayers by
requiring a project development security and an output guarantee. Id. at 5.
Though Staff noted cost causation was tangentially related to this case, Staff did not believe
the issue was directly relevant to a decision on the Application. Id. at 5-6. According to Staff,
issues of cost allocation should be decided in a separate filing dedicated to that purpose. Id. at 6.
Nevertheless, Staff stated that unprecedented load growth "is the cause of the annual capacity
deficits, and therefore it is the cause for projects procured to mitigate that capacity deficit,
including this project."Id.
ORDER NO. 36954 2

Staff also stated that due to recent project cancellations,' the deficit facing the Company is
likely greater than 120 MW, and the remaining bids received in response to the REP each have a
commercial operation date of 2028 or later. Id. Staff recommended that the Commission require
the Company to outline its plan to mitigate the looming 2027 capacity deficit. Id. Additionally,
should the mitigation plan involve firm market capacity purchases, Staff recommended the
Commission require the Company to maintain distinct records of those purchases.Id. at 7.
INTERVENOR COMMENTS
IIPA recommended the Commission deny or defer the Company's Application. IIPA
Comments at 1.According to IIPA, the Company has not met the requirements for issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN"), because it has not demonstrated a
capacity need that is attributable to existing customers. Id. In fact, as detailed by IIPA, the
Company did not evaluate whether the PPA would be needed without Additional Firm Load
("AFL"). Id. at 2. IIPA argued that the Commission has a duty to protect the public interest and
that such interest is not served by catering to the requirements of a single new customer or small
group of new customers at the expense of all legacy customers.Id. at 1.
IIPA's analysis concluded that the Company's entire 2027-2028 capacity deficits were
created by demand from AFL. Id. at 2. According to IIPA, the Company's data showed AFL
contributed 366% of the total claimed 2027 capacity deficit. Id. Using the Company's data, IIPA
determined the Company has a capacity surplus of several hundred MWs in 2027 and 2028 without
AFL. Id. at 3. IIPA further argued that the proximity of AFL concentration to planned resources
confirmed AFL was the driver of new resource needs. Id. at 4-5.
Additionally,IIPA stated that the record in this docket fails to establish the cost of the PPA.
Id. at 2. IIPA contended that the Commission could not make a prudence determination without
cost data. Id. IIPA also argued that the Company did not evaluate less costly resources or non-
generation alternatives. Id. at 6. IIPA argued that the Company's failure to evaluate possible
expanded demand-side management("DSM")programs violated Order No.22299,which requires
DSM to be evaluated alongside supply-side resources. Id. Furthermore, IIPA contended the
' For instance, on December 31,2025,the Commission issued Order No. 36893, in which it granted the Company's
petition to withdraw the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Jackalope Wind Project due to
permitting delays and uncertainty concerning federal land use policies.
ORDER NO. 36954 3

Company failed to assess alternative resources, such as storage or flexible generation, that would
be more suitable than solar to support the winter risk hours identified by the Company.Id. at 7.
Finally, IIPA argued that if the Commission were to approve the PPA, it should implement
conditions to protect non-AFL customers from paying for a need they did not create. Id. at 9.
Specifically, IIPA stated the Commission should (1) set aside AFL-driven costs for separate
treatment in a future Company rate case; (2) direct the Company to create a cost-causation
framework identifying the customer classes driving incremental resource needs; and (3) require
the Company to obtain binding financial commitments from AFL customers that would sufficiently
cover incremental capacity costs prior to adding the associated resources to rate base or power cost
recovery. Id.
COMPANY REPLY COMMENTS
The Company agreed with Staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the PPA
and declare associated payments prudently incurred expenditures. Company Reply Comments at
4. The Company stated that the Oregon Public Utilities Commission ("OPUC") approved its
selection of an independent evaluator for the RFP and approved the RFP scoring and modeling
methodology. Id. at 4-5. According to the Company, the RFP process included 95 separate
proposals from 19 different bidders and 147 total resource bids.Id. at 5. The OPUC approved the
resulting shortlist.Id.
Additionally,the Company supported Staff's position that this docket is not the appropriate
forum to determine cost causation and recovery allocation.Id. at 7. The Company also committed
to working with Staff to provide information concerning mitigation of any remaining deficit. Id.
In response to Staff's recommendation that the Company maintain distinct records of any firm
market capacity purchases used to mitigate capacity deficits, the Company represented that it
already "maintains records to substantiate how the overall system load was served."Id.
The Company disputed IIPA's position that the record failed to establish incremental
capacity needs.Id. at 8.The Company contended that its obligation to serve extends beyond current
customers and that, because it may not discriminate among customer classes, capacity
requirements should not be based exclusively on the loads of existing customers.Id. The Company
added that, contrary to IIPA's representations, its resource procurement efforts correspond to
overall system needs, rather than a particular customer or class of customers' locational needs.Id.
at 9-10.
ORDER NO. 36954 4

The Company also challenged several other contentions made by IIPA to support the
conclusion that the Commission would be unable to make a prudence determination regarding the
PPA from the record. Id. at 11. Specifically, the Company argued (1) the PPA was filed as a
confidential attachment to the Application,negating the argument that the record does not establish
the cost of the PPA; (2)resource procurement is driven by high-risk hours rather than system peak;
(3) the capacity position to meet the pre-determined Loss of Load Expectation threshold is
calculated from the hourly Loss of Load Probability (or high-risk hours of the year), not by
subtracting peak load from resource capacity; (4) the PPA contribution to the capacity position is
assessed for the entire year and addresses annual reliability needs, contradicting the argument that
solar does not support winter adequacy issues; and (5) the testimony filed in support of the
Application discusses the 147 RFP bids at length, contradicting IIPA's claim that alternative
resources were not evaluated. Id. at 11-12.
IIPA'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
IIPA acknowledged that in filing its Petition, it failed to adhere to the timing requirement
imposed by IDAPA 31.01.01.164. Petition at 1. IIPA stated that it inadvertently missed the filing
deadline.Id.
The Petition included an itemized list of expenses totaling $14,923.25including expert
witness fees and legal expenses. IIPA Petition, Exhibit A. IIPA argued that these expenses were
reasonably incurred given its full participation in the matter, including during the discovery
process and through its preparation of extensive written comments. Petition at 2.
IIPA argued that the costs it incurred in this case constitute a financial hardship for the
501(c)(5) nonprofit association. Id. IIPA stated that it represents farming interests in eastern and
central Idaho through voluntary contributions by its members—which have been falling.Id. at 2-
3. IIPA stated that due to its financial constraints, its participation was focused and prudent.Id. at
3.
IIPA also noted that its recommendations—which included suggestions that the
Commission deny or defer approval of the PPA—materially differed from Staff s
recommendations. Id. IIPA represented that the issues addressed through its participation in the
case concerned the Company's general body of customers.Id. at 4.
ORDER NO. 36954 5

COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
1. Company's Application
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-501, 61-502,
and 61-503. The Commission is vested with the power to "supervise and regulate every public
utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the [Public
Utilities Law]."Idaho Code§61-501.The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,charges,
rules,regulations,practices,and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just,
reasonable,preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and to fix the same
by order.Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-503.
Having reviewed the Application and all submitted materials,the Commission finds it fair,
just, and reasonable to approve the PPA and to declare that all expenses associated with PPA are
prudently incurred for ratemaking purposes. The record demonstrates that the PPA is a least-cost,
least-risk resource selected through a fair and reasonable REP and stochastic analysis process. The
PPA will help the Company combat a capacity deficit beginning in 2027.The Company is directed
to meet with Staff, and all other interested parties wishing to participate,to discuss the Company's
plan to mitigate the remaining 2027 capacity deficit.
We find IIPA's arguments either uncompelling or misplaced in this proceeding. It is well-
established that the Company has an obligation to serve both existing and new customers without
discrimination. The Company is obligated to provide safe and reliable service to all customers
within its designated service territory. See Idaho Code § 61-302. The Company has a system-wide
need for capacity, without regard to cost causation. As part of the approval of a settlement in the
Company's most recent general rate case, the Company is required to "initiate a single-issue case
addressing the[customer cost of service]methodology for the Commission's consideration no later
than the end of the first quarter of 2026." Order No. 36892 at 12. The dedicated customer cost of
service filing will be the appropriate docket in which to raise the cost allocation arguments IIPA
has raised here.
Furthermore, IIPA's contention that the record in this docket fails to establish the cost of
the PPA is untenable. We note that the PPA was filed as a confidential attachment to the
Application, and Staff specifically compared the PPA's per megawatt-hour pricing to that of other
recently considered resources.
ORDER NO. 36954 6

Finally, like its cost causation arguments, IIPA's recommendation that we require the
Company to obtain binding financial commitments from AFL customers that would sufficiently
cover incremental capacity costs prior to adding the associated resources to rate base or power cost
recovery is inapplicable to this docket. To reiterate, the PPA addresses a system-wide capacity
need. As detailed by Staff, the PPA includes a project development security and an output
guarantee—provisions intended to protect ratepayers through mechanisms that are within the
control of the parties to the agreement. If IIPA believes ratepayer protections in the Company's
agreements with special contract customers are inadequate, the appropriate venue to raise those
concerns is the docket established to review the specific special contract at issue.
2. IIPA's Application for Intervenor Funding
Commission decisions benefit from robust public input. "It is hereby declared the policy
of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the commission so
that all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings."Idaho Code
§ 61-617A(l). Recoverable costs can include legal fees, witness fees, transportation, and other
expenses so long as the total funding for all intervening parties does not exceed$40,000.00 in any
proceeding.Idaho Code § 61-617A(2).The Commission must consider the following factors when
deciding whether to award intervenor funding:
(1) That the participation of the intervenor materially contributed to the
Commission's decision;
(2) That the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and would be a
significant financial hardship for the intervenor;
(3) The recommendation made by the intervenor differs materially from the
testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(4) The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of concern
to the general body of customers.
Id.
To obtain an award of intervenor funding, an intervenor must further comply with
Commission's Rules of Procedure 161-165, IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165. An intervenor requesting
funding must submit its request to the Commission "no later than fourteen (14) days after ... the
deadline for submitting briefs ..." Commission's Rules of Procedure No. 164. Rule 162 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure provides the form and content requirements for an application
2 When it references "Additional Firm Load customers,"we assume IIPA is specifically commenting on new large
load,special contract customers.
ORDER NO. 36954 7

for intervenor funding. The application must contain: (1)an itemized list of expenses broken down
into categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor's proposed finding or recommendation; (3) a
statement showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are reasonable; (4) a statement
explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; (5) a
statement showing how the intervenor's proposed finding or recommendation differed materially
from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; (6) a statement showing how the
intervenor's recommendation or position addressed issues of concern to the general body of utility
users or customers; and (7) a statement showing the class of customer on whose behalf the
intervenor appeared. IIPA's application comports with the procedural and technical requirements
of the Commission's Rules.
Commission Rule 165.02-.03 requires the payment of awards of intervenor funding to be
made by the utility and is an allowable expense to be recovered from ratepayers in the next general
rate case. IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02-.03.
IIPA filed its Petition on February 9, 202617 days after the January 23, 2026, deadline
for such requests.IIPA did not offer substantial justification for the untimely filing.It merely stated
that"the delay is inadvertent and not intended to prejudice any party or delay these proceedings."
The Commission has previously denied in-full late-filed requests for intervenor funding. Case No.
IPC-E-16-28.3
However, the Commission values IIPA's participation in this case. Aside from the timing
of its petition for intervenor funding, we find that IIPA's Petition satisfies the intervenor funding
requirements. IIPA intervened and meaningfully participated in all aspects of the proceeding in a
manner that materially contributed to the Commission's final decision.No party objected to IIPA's
request. We find the expert witness fees, legal fees,paralegal fees, and soft costs incurred by IIPA
are reasonable in amount for this case, and that IIPA, as a non-profit organization, would suffer
financial hardship if the request was not approved. In recognition of the time and resources
expended to allow for such participation, we find it reasonable to grant IIPA intervenor funding in
the amount of$7,461.63—half of the amount sought in the Petition—which the Company may
recover from its Schedule 24, Irrigation customer class.
3 The denial was ultimately upheld by the Idaho Supreme Court in Idaho Power Company v Tidwell, 164 Idaho 571,
576-577,434 P.3d 175, 180-181 (2018).
ORDER NO. 36954 8

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the PPA is approved, and that all expenses associated with
PPA are deemed prudently incurred for ratemaking purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall meet with Staff, and all other
interested parties wishing to participate, to discuss the Company's plan to mitigate the remaining
2027 capacity deficit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IIPA's Petition for Intervenor Funding is partially granted
in the amount of$7,461.63.See Idaho Code§ 61-617A(2),IDAPA 31.01.01.165.01.The Company
is ordered to remit said amount to IIPA within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order.
IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02. The Company shall be permitted to recover the cost of this intervenor
funding in its next general rate case from its Schedule 24, Irrigation customer class. See Idaho
Code § 61-617A(3).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one(21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration.Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 51h day of
March 2026.
G
EDWARD LODGE, PR IDENT
R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
X�
DAYN HA IE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
onica Barrios-eanchez
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-25-27_Blacks Creek PPA\orders\IPCE2527_FO_jl.docx
ORDER NO. 36954 9