20260410Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
April 10, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
I Peter J. Richardson
515 N. 27t" Street
2 Boise, Idaho 83702
3 [phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
4 peter(�.richardsonadams.com
5
6 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION CASE No.: AVU-E-26-01
9 OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR
APPROVAL TO INCREASE ITS ENERGY
10 EFFICIENCY TARIFF RIDER COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO
11 ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE 91 MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY
CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION
12 CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; and
13 IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA
CASE No.: AVU-E-25-12
CORPORATION'S APPLICATIONS FORA
14 DETERMINATION OF 2024 ELECTRIC CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION'S
15 AND NATURAL GAS ENERGY PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
EFFICIENCY EXPENSES AS PRUDENTLY ORDER NO. 36975 IN DOCKET NO. AVU-
16 INCURRED E-25-12.
17
18
19 I.
INTRODUCTION
20
Clearwater Paper Corporation("Clearwater")herein lodges its "Comments in
21
22
Opposition"to Avista Corporation's ("Avista" or"the Company") Application to Increase
23 Schedule 91 Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider Adjustment, ("Application"). Clearwater's
24 Comments are filed pursuant to that Amended Notice of Modified Procedure issued in Order No.
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-1

1 36964 in Docket No. AVU-E-26-01 (the "26-01 Docket" or the "Rate Increase Docket") on
2 March 16, 2026, by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") and pursuant to Rule
3
203 of the Commission's Rule of Procedure.
4
In addition to its opposition to the use of modified procedure in the 26-01 Docket and
5
6 pursuant to Idaho Code Section 61-626 and Rule 331 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
7 Clearwater Paper herein lodges its Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 36975
8 issued in related Docket No. AVU-E-25-12 ("25-12 Docket" or the "Prudence Docket"). In
9
Order No. 36975 the Commission approved, as prudently incurred, $17 million in Avista's EE
10
11 expenditures.
12
II
13 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
14 A. Summary of Clearwater Paper Corporation's Opposition to the use of Modified
15 Procedure in the Rate Increase Docket (26-01)
16 Although Avista's requested average overall rate increase is approximately 7.4%, due to
17 Clearwater's beneficial load factor it is saddled with a much higher rate increase than the
18
Company overall average. The actual proposed increase to the Schedule 91 Energy Efficiency
19
20 Rider is a shocking 424% of the current cents/kwh. For Rate 25P, the resulting proposed Retail
21 Energy Charge is a 10% increase over the current net Retail Energy Charge, diluted to 8%due to
22 Clearwater's beneficial load factor as noted above. As is discussed in more detail below,
23 Avista's application for a rate increase should be denied and the requested use of modified
24
procedure to process Avista's Application should also be rejected. Clearwater's opposition is
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-2

based on evidence derived directly and entirely from Avista's Application, as to the imprudence
2 of more than approximately $4 million in EE expenditures. Such evidence calls for, at a
3
minimum, an evidentiary examination into the reasonableness of the remainder of the
4
5 Company's application for a 424 percent rate increase in the Schedule 91 kWh rate or,
6 alternatively, the outright denial of the Company's Application. Furthermore, given the
7 magnitude of the rate increase and the lack of any lack of advance notice that an increase of this
8 magnitude was in the works, it is incumbent upon the Commission to hold public hearings on
9
both the ratepayer impact and the reasonableness of the Company's request.
10
B. Summary of Clearwater Paper Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration of Commission
11 Order No. 36975 in the Prudence Docket (25-12).
12
On March 23 the Commission issued Order No. 36975 finding that $17 million in
13
14 Avista's electric EE expenditures were "prudently incurred." 1 Clearwater demonstrates herein
15 that this finding is erroneous in that more than $4 million' of the $17 million in expenditures are
16 not cost effective. At a minimum, therefore, $4 million in expenditures have not been prudently
17 incurred—and the remaining $13 million are therefore suspect by association. The Commission
18
should reconsider its decision in Order No. 36975 because it is herein alleged to be unreasonable
19
and unlawful in that it is based on erroneous and inadequate findings of fact.
20
21
22
23
24 Order No.36975 at p.4,Docket No.AVU-E-25-12.
2 Related to the Small Business Lighting Program.
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-3

1 III.
RECONSIDERATION ARGUMENT
2
3 1. Reconsideration of Order No. 36975 is Required
Due to Erroneous Prudence Findings:
4
5 It is unreasonable to approve, for ratepayer recovery, costs for EE measures that are not
6 cost effective. EE programs are, understandably, favored by the Commission given their broad
7 societal benefits. Nevertheless, because scarce ratepayer dollars are at risk, these programs must
8 also meet fundamental cost-effective standards. Application of these basic standards reveals a
9
significant($4 million) flaw in Avista's prudence request in its Application. The only program
10
Clearwater examined in detail for prudence in its analysis of the Company's Application
11
12 revealed that approximately half of the expenditures in that program, Avista's Small Business
13 Lighting program, are not cost effective. In addition, the fact that a significant portion of one of
14 the company's largest EE programs is actually imprudent calls into question the Commission's
15
findings relative to the prudence of the remainder of Avista's EE programs.
16
17 Exhibit No. 1 to Avista's Application for"Determination of 2024 Electric Energy
18 Efficiency Expenses as Prudently Incurred" contains the Company's Annual Conservation
19 Report for 2024 ("ACR"). According to the ACR, Avista's Small Business Lighting program is
20 by far the largest EE program in the Company's non-residential EE portfolio accounting for
21
"roughly 56.2%" of the non-residential portfolio. Therefore, Clearwater's analysis of the
22
23
24
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-4

I Company's overall application focused on this program.3 According to the ACR, the Small
2 Business Lighting program, "offers lighting and controls assessments, equipment and installation
3
for commercial customers." It concludes that "Measures are then installed at low/no cost to the
4
5 participant and incentivized at$0.40 - $0.65/kWh."4 (As discussed, infra, the cost-effective
6 threshold was recently increased to $0.72—a fact that does not change Clearwater's analysis or
7 conclusions.)
8 Despite the assertion that Avista pays no more that sixty-five cents per kWh for changing
9
the lighting fixtures for these customers, almost half of the costs incurred for the program, do in
10
fact, exceed both threshold levels (either $0.65 or $0.72). To the extent EE measures in this
11
12 program exceed the threshold payment level of sixty-five cents per kWh they are, by definition,
13 imprudent. Reference Table No. 5-125 for an identification of each individual lighting measure
14 by type and verified kWh savings. Table No. 5-13 then identifies the cost incurred by Avista for
15
incentivizing the measure's installation. Comparing individual measures from Table No. 5-12 to
16
17 the corresponding measure in Table No. 5-13 reveals (via a simple mathematical percentage
18 calculation)the per kWh cost for each measure. Overall, the program's per kWh cost is
19 $0.62644 ($9,487,604/15,161,166kWh). However, when each measure is examined for cost-
20
21
22
3 The ACR is found at Appendix 1 to Exhibit 1 to the Company's Application in the Prudence Docket(25-12). The
23 prudence analysis for the Small Business Lighting program is located at Section 5.3.2 of Appendix I beginning on
page 62.
24 4 Id at p.62.
s Id at pp. 63—65.
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-5

I effectiveness, it is apparent that in excess of$4 million in incentive payments are made to
2 achieve kWh savings well in excess of the then extant threshold of sixty-five cents per kWh or
3
the new threshold level of$0.72. The following table identifies each measure that exceeds both
4
cost-effective thresholds:
5
Verified Total
6 Savings Electric $0.00 per
Measure (KWh) Incentives wKh
7 LED Fixture-replacing FLT12,400W-1000W with OCC 1,527,699 $1,22.1357 0.799475
LED Fixture-replacing FLT5:2ft to 8ft,14W-54W with OCC 603,445 689,509 1.142621
8 LED Fixture-replacing FLT8:2ft to 8ft,17W-59W with OCC 1,712,676 1,469,500 0.858014
LED Fixture-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp,150W-150OW with OCC 29,676 26,015 0.876634
9 LED Fixture-replacing Halogen/Incandescent lamp,20-15OW with OCC 112,976 106,879 0.946033
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,10OW-25OW with OCC 3,474 2,894 0.833045
10 LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,320W-40OW with OCC 159,318 143,951 0.903545
LED Fixture-replacing Metal Halide/High Pressure Sodium lamp,40OW-I000W with OCC 65,827 55,596 0.844577
11 LED Fixture-replacing T12:2ft-8ft,34W-80W with OCC 403,277 389,982 0.967033
LED Retrofit Kit-replacing FLT12:2ft to 8ft,34W-80W with OCC 86,145 66,825 0.775727
12 Total 4,704,513 4,172,508 0.886916
13
In response to Clearwater Paper's Request for Production No. 4,the cost-effective threshold has
14
15 been increased to $0.72/kWh.7 Even with the higher cost effectiveness threshold, none of the
16 projects noted above are cost effective. The overall program may have a cost below the sixty-
17 five-cent threshold,$ but the fact remains that Avista's ratepayers are subsidizing the above
18 identified measures which are, on their face, not cost effective. Thus, at a minimum $4,172,508
19
20
21
22
'Id. at pp. 63—66.
23 7Attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1. "[E]ffective February 202E was the cost effectiveness threshold requirement
[sic]that all projects must meet a cost-effectiveness requirement of$0.72/kWh or lower based on the cost per
24 kilowatt hour saved."
'Now updated to$0.72/kWh.
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-6

I of the $17,313,338 the Commission determined to be prudently spent in its Order No. 36795
2 must be reconsidered and disallowed as imprudent -- making Order No. 36795 "unreasonable,
3
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law"pursuant to Rule 331.01 of the
4
Commission's Rules. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commission to grant reconsideration of
5
6 its prudence findings in Order No. 36795.
7 2. Reconsideration of Order No. 36975 is Required
Due to Failure of Due Process and Basic Notice Requirements:
8
9 Avista's Application in the Prudence Docket (25-12) did not put the Power Company's
10 ratepayers on notice that that docket's results would form the foundation for a four hundred and
11 twenty-four percent increase in the Schedule 91 kWh rate in a completely separate docket.
12
Ratepayers were not put on notice that the findings in the Prudence Docket (25-12) would result
13
14 in a rate increase. Thus, ratepayers were unaware and unprepared to participate in a proceeding
15 before the Commission that could/would result in a large increase in their rates. The de facto
16 bifurcation of the two dockets to (1) determine the balance of the underfunded EE programs and
17 then the initiation of a completely separate and ostensibly unrelated docket to (2) recover from
18
the ratepayers the money necessary to fully fund those EE programs results in a fundamental
19
20 lapse of due process and notice requirements. "Notice is rightfully considered to be a critical
21 aspect of due process to be afforded in any administrative proceeding. " See Grindstone Butte
22 Mutual Canal Company v. Idaho Power Co. 98 Idaho 860, 865, 574 P.2d 902, 907 (1978).
23 The Prudence Docket (25-12) contains no evidence of any public notice of the filing, no
24
evidence of a press release or of a billing stuffer or any attempt to put Avista's ratepayers on
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-7

I notice that the EE program was in a serious deficit situation—and that the Commission's
2 prudence finding would result in a subsequent rate increase request of unprecedented magnitude.
3
As a result, there were no intervenors in the Prudence Docket. Nor were there any public
4
5
comments lodged in the Prudence Docket. However, because the Prudence Docket is concluded
6 and by April 13, it will then become final and non-appealable, Avista's ratepayers will have no
7 recourse to question the underlying magnitude of the rate increase being considered in the 26-01
8 docket. A classic Catch-22. Were it not for Clearwater Paper's Petition for Reconsideration
9
herein, there would be absolutely no opportunity for any Avista ratepayer to challenge the
10
11 prudence of the underlying rate increase being requested in the 26-01 Docket.
12 The Commission finding as to the prudence of Avista's EE expenses took place in a
13 vacuum. Its ratemaking impact was never addressed. The prudence finding is practically
14 meaningless to Avista's ratepayers -- unless its direct and subsequent causation of an overall rate
15
increase is clearly noticed for ratepayer consideration and participation. This simply did not
16
occur. For stark evidence of the failure of notice (due process) one needs to look no further than
17
18 the list of public comments received in each docket. Keep in mind that the Prudence Docket(25
19 12) is the only docket in which the public could have any influence over the magnitude of the
20 rate increase being requested in the Rated Increase Docket(26-01). Yet not a single public
21
comment was lodged in the Prudence Docket(25-12)! By way of contrast, already more than
22
23 seventy public comments have been lodged in the Rate Increase Docket(26-01). Someone
24
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-8

I should tell those seventy ratepayers that they missed the boat—it was the Prudence Docket(25-
2 12)they should have been paying attention to.
3
The lack of notice of the impact of the Prudence Docket(25-12) on Avista's rates is a
4
5 breach of the fundamental and basic due process requirement found in the Commission's rules,
6 the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions and the PUC laws of the State of Idaho. For this reason,
7 Commission Order No. 36975 is "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with
8 the law"pursuant to Rule 331.01 of the Commission's Rules. It is therefore incumbent upon the
9
Commission to grant reconsideration of its prudence findings in Order No. 36795.
10
IV
11 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF MODIFIED
12 PROCEDURE IN DOCKET NO. AVU-E-26-01
13 1. The Magnitude of the Proposed Rate Increase is in Dispute and Modified Procedure is an
14 Inadequate Vehicle to Resolve Disputes of Fact
15
Docket No. AVU-E-26-01 was opened to establish retail rates to recover the questionably
16
17 prudent $17 million in EE expenditures established in the 25-12 Docket. Should reconsideration
18 be granted in the 25-12 Docket it will be incumbent upon the Commission to require an
19 evidentiary hearing to establish the exact nature of the prudency (or lack thereof) of all of
20 Avista's EE expenditures. This is especially important in light of the lack of prudence of the $4
21
million spent on the Small Business Lighting program that is detailed above which renders the
22
23 use of modified procedure inappropriate.
24
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-9

I As demonstrated above, the very prudence of the need for the requested increase has beein
2 called into question. The assertion that approximately half of the Small Business Lighting
3
program is not cost-effective calls into question not only the prudence of that program but also,
4
5
by association, the prudence of all of Avista's EE programs. The Commission should reject the
6 request to proceed via modified procedure and should instead establish a schedule for a robust
7 and thorough evaluation, via contested hearing(s), of the prudence of Avista's EE programs.
8
9
2. Amortization of the Requested Increase Should it be Approved Must be Implemented
10 over a Longer Period of Time
11
12 A four hundred and twenty-four percent increase in Schedule 91's kWh charge results iin
13 an overall increase(8%for Clearwater)that is larger than most of Avista's recent general rate case
14 increases. Those increases are typically amortized over a period of years in order to allow it
15
ratepayers to plan for and manage the rate increases in a predictable manner. It is unreasonable t
16
17 extract a rate increase of this magnitude without taking minimal measures to attempt to soften the
18 blow on the Power Company's ratepayers. Thus, Clearwater Paper respectfully requests that the
19 increase of this size be amortized (should it be approved) over a sufficiently long period of tim
20 such that it is limited to no more than two percent (2%)per year.
21
As recently as last summer, the Commission authorized a 1.2% increase in Avista's E
22
23 Schedule 91 rider with the explicit understanding that the under-funded balance would zero out b
24
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-10

I September 2028. Avista's application for the Schedule 91 EE rider balance increase in Docket No
2 AVU-E-25-10 provided:
3
To best support these increases in customer participation and associated increases in cost.
4 of the electric Energy Efficiency Program, the Company is proposing to increase rate
collected in Schedule 91 [1.2%] to bring the forecasted tariff balance close to $0 b
5 September 30, 2028.
6
7 The Commission approved that requested increase just seven months ago. Without getting into
8 questions as to how the EE programs' estimated costs could have been so wrong in so short of a
9
time period that just seven months later a zero balance becomes a$17 million shortfall, it is
10
11 incumbent upon the utility to do all it can to ameliorate the negative impact of its requested rate
12 increase. A limitation to a 2% rate increase over time is one such mitigation measure that should
13 be required by the Commission.
14 WHEREFORE, Clearwater Paper Corporation respectfully requests the Commission
15
issue its order(s):
16
1. In DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12, finding that$4.1 million in Small Business
17
18 Lighting energy efficiency program expenses are imprudent and should not be included in
19 Schedule 91 for recovery from Avista's ratepayers and also granting reconsideration of its
20 findings relative to the overall prudence of Avista's energy efficiency programs as more fully
21
detailed, infra.
22
2. In DOCKET NO. AVU-E-26-01, finding that the prudence of the underlying
23
24 request of a$17 million increase in funding for Avista's EE programs through Schedule 91 is no
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-11

I supported by the record and should be denied. Alternatively, and that at a minimum, $4.1
2 million of that request associated with the Small Business Lighting program be excised from the
3
requested increase as having been imprudently incurred. Alternatively, a cap on the overall
4
5 increase in rates should be adopted such that no class receives an overall increase in billed rates
6 of more that 2% per year.
7
8 Dated this 101h day of April 2026
9
10 i
Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
11
12
13 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1 Oh day of April 2026, a true and correct copy of the within
and foregoing COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY
14 CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; and CLEARWATER
15 PAPER CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975
IN DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12 was served by electronic copy only, to:
16
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
17 Commission Secretary
18 Idaho Public Utilities Commission
�Ionica.barriossancheL:&,puc.idaho.gov
19
Secretary
20 Idaho Public Utilities Commission
21 secretarvna�,puc.Idaho.gov
22 Anni Glogovac
23 Avista Corporation
Anni.glogovac'jcavistacorp.com
24 Avistadockets::cjavistacorp.com
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-12

I Shawn Bonfield
Avista Corporation
2 Shawn.bonfield,Lavistacorp.com
3
4 n
By, (�
5 Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE BY CLEARWATER PAPER
26 CORPORATION CASE NO. AVU-E-26-01; AND CLEARWATER PAPER
27 CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975 IN
DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-12
28
-13