20260408IIPA Comments.pdf

Eric L. Olsen(ISB#4811) RECEIVED
ECHO HAWK& OLSEN, PLLC APRIL 8, 2026
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-26-03
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF THE 2032 ALL-SOURCE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO MEET ASSOCIATION,INC.'S WRITTEN
CAPACITY RESOURCE NEEDS IN AS COMMENTS
EARLY AS 2031.
The Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("IIPA"), by and through counsel, hereby submits
its Written Comments on Idaho Power Company's("Idaho Power"or"Company")Application for
Approval of the 2032 All Source Request for Proposals to Meet Capacity Resource Needs in as
Early as 2031 ("2032 RFP"or"Application"), as follows:
Introduction
IIPA intervened in this proceeding to protect the interests of its members who are ratepayers of
Idaho Power and who bear the costs of resources acquired through Commission approved
procurement processes. IIPA does not oppose the use of competitive solicitation to acquire
resources. However, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that the proposed RFP includes
material changes to evaluation methodology and process safeguards relative to prior Commission
reviewed RFP's. Taken together, these changes create a risk that the RFP will not reliably produce
a least cost, least risk outcome.Accordingly, IIPA recommends that the Commission approve the
RFP subject to three targeted conditions designed to ensure transparency, preserve oversight, and
maintain the evidentiary record for future proceedings:
1. Require Idaho Power to model and disclose the effect of imputed debt adders on bid
rankings, including a side-by-side comparison with and without the adder, before the
Commission approves the final shortlist;
2. Require the participation of an independent evaluator, or in the alternative, require
Commission Staff to audit bid evaluations on a concurrent, real-time basis with binding
reporting obligations; and
3. Require Idaho Power to maintain disaggregated data throughout the RFP sufficient to
identify the share of procured capacity attributable to Additional Firm Load("AFL")versus
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page I
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

the existing customer base, in order to preserve the evidentiary record necessary for the
pending cost of service ("COS")proceeding.
Idaho Power's responses to discovery confirm that approval of the 2032 RFP will effectively define
the framework under which resource selections are later reviewed. The Company states that,
following RFP approval, it will demonstrate that the process was followed and that the resulting
portfolio is least cost and least risk.'
These three conditions impose minimal cost or schedule burden, and address specific process
deficiencies that are documented in the discovery record already developed in this case. Each is
addressed in turn below.
I. The Commission should require Idaho Power to disclose imputed debt modeling before
the final shortlist is approved
The 2032 RFP proposes to apply an imputed debt adder to all third party owned bids for (power
purchase agreements ("PPA") and battery storage agreements ("BSA"). Idaho Power
acknowledges that "imputed debt was not included in the evaluation of either the 2026 or 2028
RFP bids as directed by the OPUC.2" That direction came from the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission in Order No. 23-260, Docket UM 2255.3 Idaho Power nevertheless proposes to
include imputed debt in the 2032 RFP.
Importantly, Idaho Power's own data from the 2022 RFP, which is the last solicitation in which
imputed debt was applied, demonstrates that the adder increased bid costs for PPA and battery
storage agreement("BSA")bids by a median of approximately 18%.4 An 18% cost adder is not a
marginal adjustment. It is sufficient to materially affect bid rankings across ownership structures.
Simultaneously with filing this Application on February 20, 2026, Idaho Power filed a request in
OPUC Docket UM 2434 for a waiver of Oregon's Competitive Bidding Rules("CBRs"),including
the very provision, Order No. 23-260, that prohibited imputed debt in the 2026 and 2028 RFPs.5
Idaho Power's Application and testimony do not provide analysis quantifying the impact of the
imputed debt adder on bid rankings, portfolio selection, or customer costs. While Idaho Power
provides a narrative justification based on credit metrics,6 the record contains no independent or
comparative analysis evaluating whether imputed debt results in lower total cost to ratepayers
relative to alternative ownership structures.
II. The imputed debt adder systematically disadvantages the resource structures that
are most beneficial to existing ratepayers
1 Company responses to IIPA 1-2,p.4-5;1-3,p.5-6.
2 Idaho Power's response to NIPPC Interrogatory 6,at p.13 of Idaho Power's Response to NIPPC's First Set of Production Requests
and First Set of Interrogatories,dated March 23,2026("NIPPC Responses").
3 Idaho Power,NIPPC Responses at p.13(Response to Interrogatory 7(a)).
4 Idaho Power,NIPPC Responses at p.14-15(Response to Interrogatory 7.
5 Idaho Power's Response to Staff s First Production Request,dated March 16,2026("Staff Responses"),at p.3(Response to
Request 2).
6 Response to Staff Production Request 10,p.14-17.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 2
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

Utility owned resources and third party PPAs allocate financial risk very differently from the
perspective of existing ratepayers. Utility owned resources increase rate base and earn a regulated
return. These costs are borne by all ratepayers. Third parry PPAs fix costs contractually,
transferring development and construction risk to the counterparty. For agricultural irrigators
operating on thin margins and facing variable seasonal load, the predictability and risk allocation
of competitively priced PPAs can be preferable to utility owned capital additions that expand rate
base.
The Company provides an extensive narrative concerning imputed debt and Idaho Power's credit
ratings.7 While IIPA does not dispute that credit considerations are legitimate, the record contains
no independent financial analysis comparing the ratepayer cost of imputed debt treatment against
the ratepayer cost of increased rate base from utility ownership. The Commission should not
approve an RFP that systematically penalizes HAS by approximately 18%based solely on Idaho
Power's financial narrative.
Idaho Power concedes that"Idaho Power's Application and testimony...do not specifically address
each individual component of the nearly 500-page 2032 RFP.g" This is precisely the point: a
methodological choice with an —18% effect on bid competitiveness for an entire ownership
category has been inserted into a 500 page RFP without supporting testimony, independent
analysis, or Commission preapproval of that specific methodology.
III. The Commission should require parallel modeling with and without imputed debt
IIPA does not ask the Commission to prohibit imputed debt in the 2032 RFP at this stage. Rather,
IIPA requests that the Commission condition its approval on Idaho Power's commitment to present
the final shortlist results both with and without the imputed debt adder applied, so that the
Commission, Staff, and intervenors can assess whether the adder materially affected bid rankings
and resource selection.This is a minimal transparency requirement that imposes no additional cost
on bidders and no material schedule delay.
The Commission approved prior RFPs conducted "in a fair and reasonable" manner under a
regime in which imputed debt was prohibited. The Commission should not now extend that "fair
and reasonable" finding to an RFP that reinstates a methodology with a documented —18%
distortive effect on third-parry bids, without requiring Idaho Power to demonstrate that the
reinstated methodology did not change the outcome.
IV. The elimination of an independent evaluator combined with multiple other
process reductions requires Commission oversight
The 2032 RFP differs from the 2026 and 2028 RFPs in several process protection dimensions,each
of which Idaho Power acknowledges in the discovery record:
7 Response to Staff Request 10,(pages 14-16)of Responses.
8 Idaho Power's response to NIPPC Interrogatory 6b.
9 Hackett Direct at p.12,cited in NIPPC Responses at p.2.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 3
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

1. No independent evaluator to score bids or monitor contract negotiations;10
2. No five business-day cure period for bidders to correct bid defects identified by
Idaho Power;"
3. No independent third-parry review of site specific performance factors for wind and
solar resources;12 and
4. Waiver of Oregon CBRs, including mandatory benchmark bid pre-scoring before
opening third parry bids.13
Idaho Power's justification for the elimination of the independent evaluator is that it will
coordinate with Commission Staff throughout the process: "the Company will also be coordinating
and sharing information with Commission Staff throughout the process, functioning in an audit
capacity similar to an independent evaluator.14,' This is not equivalent.An independent evaluator
is contractually bound to score bids independently and report to the Commission. Staff review,
however valuable, is not subject to the same independence requirements and is not a substitute
when Idaho Power's own Internal Bid Team is competing against third parties.
Idaho Power's notice filed March 26, 202615 in this proceeding further illustrates the need for
concurrent Staff oversight with binding reporting obligations.In that notice,Idaho Power disclosed
that it had revised the Network Upgrades eligibility requirement in the draft 2032 RFP, changing
the interconnection service requirement from executed Network Resource Interconnection Service
("NRIS") to a mere GI request submission. This was done in response to a single bidder inquiry
submitted through the Zycus sourcing platform, without prior Commission approval. IIPA does
not oppose the substance of that revision, which may appropriately broaden bidder participation.
However, this demonstrates that material RFP terms governing bid eligibility are being modified
in real time, while this approval proceeding is pending, and through an informal bidder inquiry
process that is not subject to Commission review or independent scrutiny. This is precisely the
circumstance in which concurrent Staff audit with binding reporting obligations is necessary: if
eligibility terms can be revised unilaterally before the RFP is formally issued, the Commission
needs a mechanism to ensure that such changes are tracked, documented, and reviewed before they
affect bid outcomes. The internal bid team creates a structural conflict that requires independent
oversight.
Idaho Power's 2032 RFP includes an Internal Bid Team that will submit bids competing directly
against third-parry bidders16. The Evaluation Team is stated to be "unaware of the potential bid
proposal characteristics" of the Internal Bid Team's bids.17 However, Idaho Power acknowledges
that the Separation of Functions protocol is "consistent with" Oregon's requirement that "[a]ny
individual who participates in the development of the RFP or the evaluation or scoring of bids on
10 Company responses to NIPPC at pp.22-23(Responses to Interrogatories12 and 13.
11 Company Response to NIPPC Interrogatory 14.
12 Company Responses to NIPPC at pp.20-21(Response to Interrogatory 10).
13 Company Responses to NIPPC at pp. 19-20(Response to Interrogatory 9);and Responses to Staff at p.3(Response to Request 2).
14 Company Responses to NIPPC at p.22(Response to Interrogatory 12).
15 Idaho Power Company's Comments,26-03(filed March 26,2026),1-3.
16 Company Responses to NIPPC at p.8(Response to Interrogatory 1).
17 Id.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 4
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

behalf of the electric company may not participate in the preparation of an electric company or
affiliate bid."18
The structural tension inherent in a utility simultaneously designing the RFP, evaluating bids, and
submitting its own competing bid requires external verification,particularly when the independent
evaluator who previously provided that verification has been eliminated. If Idaho Power's internal
bid prevails, the result is utility ownership, which increases rate base and earns a regulated return
paid by all ratepayers including IIPA's members. The Commission should require real-time Staff
audit with binding reporting obligations as a minimum condition of approval,consistent with Idaho
Power's own suggestion.19
V. The Elimination of Benchmark Bid Pre-Scoring Creates an Unverifiable Firewall
Oregon Administrative Rule 860-089-0350 required that prior to opening third party bids, Idaho
Power complete a detailed score for any benchmark resource, with supporting cost information
and all other information necessary to score the benchmark resource locked in before the
competitive bids were visible. Idaho Power complied with this requirement in both the 2026 and
2028 RFPs.20 Under the 2032 RFP,Idaho Power has filed for a waiver of this rule in OPUC Docket
UM 2434.21 In its place, Idaho Power proposes that the Internal Bid Team submit its benchmark
bid on the same "Bids Due" date as third-party bidders,with the Evaluation Team simultaneously
receiving all bids.22
This is a material reduction in process protection. Pre-scoring under the Oregon rules served a
specific function: it created a locked, contemporaneous record of the benchmark bid's evaluation
before any competitive bid characteristics were visible to the Evaluation Team, which provided an
objective baseline against which the independence of the subsequent evaluation could be verified.
Without such pre-scoring, no such baseline exists. The Commission cannot verify after the fact
that the benchmark bid was evaluated on its own merits rather than in light of what third-parry bids
revealed.This concern is heightened by the simultaneous elimination of the independent evaluator
who previously provided exactly that verification function.
VI. The Commission should require data disaggregation to preserve the record for the
pending cost of service case
In Order No. 36954, issued March 5, 2026 in Case No. IPC-E-25-27 (Blacks Creek), the
Commission declined to address cost causation arguments in the PPA approval docket and directed
that"the dedicated customer cost of service filing will be the appropriate docket in which to raise
the cost allocation arguments."23 The Commission further noted that Idaho Power is required to
18 Company response to NIPPC Interrogatory 3 at p.11.
19 Company's Response to Staff 12 at p. 19.
20 Company Response to NIPPC Responses at p.19-20(Response to Interrogatory 9).
21 Response to Staff Request 2.
22 Company Response to NIPCC p.8(Response to Interrogatory 1).
23 Order No.36954 at 6.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 5
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

"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."24
IIPA accepts the Commission's direction. IIPA does not seek to relitigate cost allocation issues in
this proceeding. Instead, IIPA seeks to ensure that the record developed through the 2032 RFP will
support the Commission's future COS analysis. The record demonstrates that Idaho Power's
capacity need is dependent on evolving load assumptions and is subject to change.25 The RFP is
intended to meet incremental capacity needs in 2031-2032.26
To support a meaningful COS analysis,it is necessary that Idaho Power preserve modeling outputs
developed during the RFP process that identify the drivers of incremental capacity need and the
relationship between selected resources and those needs. Accordingly, the Commission should
require Idaho Power to maintain and preserve modeling outputs sufficient to support evaluation of
capacity drivers in the forthcoming cost-of-service proceeding. This requirement does not affect
bid evaluation, imposes no burden on bidders, and is consistent with the Commission's direction
that cost allocation be addressed in a future docket.
Conclusion
IIPA respectfully requests that the Commission condition its approval of the 2032 RFP on the
following three requirements:
1. Idaho Power shall present the final shortlist evaluation results to the Commission on a
parallel basis,both with and without the imputed debt adder applied to third party bids
so that the Commission can assess whether the adder materially affected bid rankings
before approving the final shortlist;
2. Commission Staff shall conduct real time, concurrent audit review of Idaho Power's
bid evaluations,with reporting obligations to the Commission,as a minimum substitute
for the independent evaluator eliminated from the 2032 RFP process; and
3. Idaho Power shall maintain disaggregated capacity modeling throughout the RFP
evaluation that isolates the share of identified capacity need attributable to AFL load
versus the existing customer base, and shall preserve those modeling outputs as part of
the RFP record for use in the pending COS proceeding.
DATED this 81h day of April, 2026.
EC AWK& OLSEN
ERIC L. OLSEN
24 Id.(citing Order No.36892 at 12).
25 Response to Staff Production Request 1,p.3.
26 Application,p.6-7.
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 6
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 8th day of April, 2026, I served a true, correct and
complete copy of the foregoing to each of the following, via method indicated below:
Monica Barrios-Sanchez, Commission Secretary ❑ U.S. Mail
Jeff Loll, 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]
j eff.loll(&puc.Idaho.ggv
Donovan E. Walker ❑ U.S. Mail
Timothy Tatum ❑ Hand Delivered
Connie Aschenbrenner ❑ Overnight Mail
Idaho Power Company ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
1221 W. Idaho Street(83702) ® Electronic Mail (Email)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
dwalkergidahopower.com
dockets kidahopower.com
ttatum(cr�,idaho power.com
caschenbrennergidahopower.com
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D. ❑ U.S. Mail
Deborah Glosser, Ph.D. ❑ Hand Delivered
2623 NW Bluebell Place ❑ Overnight Mail
Corvallis, OR 97330 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
lance(kae isg insi hg t.com ® Electronic Mail (Email)
deborah. log sser(a�gmail.com
Spencer Gray ❑ U.S. Mail
Northwest&Intermountain Power Producers ❑ Hand Delivered
Coalition ❑ Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 504 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
Mercer Island, WA 98040 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
spray( nippc org
Gregory M. Adams ❑ U.S. Mail
Richardson Adams, PLLC ❑ Hand Delivered
515 N. 27th Street ❑ Overnight Mail
Boise, Idaho 83702 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
greggrichardsonadams.com ® Electronic Mail (Email)
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 7
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03

Irion Sanger ❑ U.S. Mail
Sanger Greene, PC ❑ Hand Delivered
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd. ❑ Overnight Mail
Portland, OR 97214 ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
irion(a�sanger-law.com ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Ed Jewell ❑ U.S. Mail
Deputy City Attorney ❑ Hand Delivered
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE ❑ Overnight Mail
150 N. Capitol Blvd. ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
P. O. Box 500 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Boise, Idaho 83701- 0500
boisecityattomey(c,cityofboise.org
ei ewellkcityofboise.org
Katie O'Neil ❑ U.S. Mail
Energy Program Manager ❑ Hand Delivered
BOISE CITY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ❑ Overnight Mail
150 N. Capitol Blvd. ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
P. O. Box 500 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Boise, Idaho 83701- 0500
konielkcityofboise.org
Austin Rueschhoff ❑ U.S. Mail
Thorvald A. Nelson ❑ Hand Delivered
Richard A. Arnett ❑ Overnight Mail
Holland & Hart LLP ❑ Telecopy(Fax)
555 17th Street, Suite 3200 ® Electronic Mail (Email)
Denver, CO 80202
darueschho ff khollandhart.com
tnelson(a,hollandhart.com
raarnettkhollandhart.com
aclee(a-,hollandhart.com
tlfriel(a,hollandhart.com
ERIC L. OLSEN
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION,INC.WRITTEN COMMENTS—Page 8
CASE NO.IPC-E-26-03