20260417Answer to Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

' 11
Avista Corp.
1411 East Mission P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-0500 RECEIVED
Telephone [phone] APRIL 17, 2026
Toll Free 800-727-9170 IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
April 17, 2026
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714
Re: Case No. AVU-E-25-12—Avista Utilities' Answer to Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Commission Secretary:
Avista Corporation, dba Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), hereby submits for
electronic filing with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission), its Answer to
Clearwater Paper Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 36075 in the above-
referenced case.
If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact me at [phone] or
ail �me.stpeter(cavistacorp.com.
Sincerely,
/s/peme se ;Ve&T
Jaime St Peter
Regulatory Affairs Manager

I ANNI GLOGOVAC
COUNSEL FOR REGULATORY AFFAIRS
2 AVISTA CORPORATION
1411 EAST MISSION AVENUE RECEIVED
3
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99220-3727 APRIL 17, 2026
4 TELEPHONE: [phone] IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
anni.glo_ovac&avistacorp.com
5
6 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA CASE NO. AVU-E-25-12
9 CORPORATION'S APPLICATION ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION
FOR A DETERMINATION OF 2024 TO CLEARWATER PAPER
10 ELECTRIC AND ANTURAL GAS CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPENSES RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO.
I I AS PRUDENTLY INCURRED 36975 IN CASE NO. AVU-E-25-12
12
13
14
15 I. INTRODUCTION
16 Avista Corporation doing business as Avista Utilities ("Avista" or the "Company"),
17 pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01, Rules of Procedure ("RP") 331.05, et.
18
seq., hereby answers the Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 36975 ("Petition") filed by
19
Clearwater Paper Corporation ("Clearwater") on April 10, 2026. Avista respectfully requests
20
21 that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") deny the Petition and affirm its
22 determination in Order No. 36975 ("Order") that Avista's 2024 electric Energy Efficiency
23 ("EE") expenditures were prudently incurred.'
24 Clearwater fails to demonstrate that Order No. 36975 is "unreasonable, unlawful,
25 erroneous, or not in conformity with the law", such that it would justify reconsideration by the
26
Commission.RP 331.01. Order No. 36975 reflects a reasoned application of the Commission's
27
28
' Order No. 36975 at p.4,Case No.AVU-E-25-12.
I
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I long-standing prudence and cost-effectiveness standards and is fully supported by the
2 evidentiary record, including Avista's Annual Conservation Report ("ACR"), which
3 comprehensively evaluates portfolio and program level performance using Commission-
4
approved methodologies. The Commission's prudence determination was based upon
5
6 substantial evidence in the record, and the Commission acted within its discretion in issuing
7 Order No.36975.As such,Avista respectfully requests that the Commission deny Clearwater's
g Petition for Reconsideration.
9
10 II. BACKGROUND
11
On March 23, 2026, the Commission issued Order No. 36975, finding that Avista's
12
2024 electric EE expenses were prudently incurred.2 Consistent with long-standing practice,
13
14 Avista filed its"Application for a Determination of 2024 Electric Energy Efficiency Expenses
15 as Prudently Incurred" on August 29, 2025 ("Application"). The Application sought an order
16 from the Commission determining that Avista's 2024 electric EE expenditures, as funded
17 through Avista's Schedule 91 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment ("Schedule 91")3, were
18 prudently incurred. After an extensive review of the record, including an analysis of verified
19
savings, expenditures, and cost effectiveness results, the Commission issued the Order, which
20
expressly approved Avista's 2024 electric EE expenditures as "fair, just and reasonable".4
21
22 Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626, any person interested in the Order may petition the
23 Commission for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of the Order.
24 Clearwater submitted its Petition for Reconsideration on April 10, 2026, challenging the
25
26
27 'Id.
s Avista's request for rate recovery under Schedule 91,as provided in both proposed and legislative format per
28 RP 052, 121,201,et. seq.,is addressed in Case No.AVU-E-26-01.
4 Order No. 36975 at p.4,Case No.AVU-E-25-12.
2
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I Commission's finding that Avista's 2024 energy EE expenditures were prudently incurred.'
2
3 III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECONSIDERATION
4
1. Clearwater asserts that reconsideration of Order No. 36975 is required due to erroneous
5
prudence filings.
6 _ -
7 Clearwater contends that the Commission's finding in Order No. 36975 "is erroneous
8 in that more than$4 million of the $17 million in expenditures are not cost effective,"and that
9 the Commission should reconsider Order No. 36975, "because it is alleged to be unreasonable
10 and unlawful in that it is based on erroneous and inadequate findings of fact'.6 That Clearwater
11
disagrees with the Commission's findings does not mean the Commission erred in its
12
determination.
13
14 Clearwater's primary contention is that certain expenditures within Avista's Small
15 Business Lighting Program were not cost-effective when evaluated on a retrospective,
16 measure-by-measure basis, and therefore should have been disallowed by the Commission as
17 imprudent. Commission precedent evaluates prudence based on whether expenditures were
18 reasonable when incurred, consistent with approved tariffs and Commission-recognized cost-
19
effectiveness methodologies. Prudence does not require that each individual installation
20
achieve identical cost metrics, but rather requires reasonable program design, good faith
21
22 implementation, and overall cost effectiveness—all of which the Commission found satisfied
23 in Order No. 36975.
24 Clearwater's argument does not establish any error in the Commission's methodology
25 pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626, nor does it point to any factual finding that is unsupported
26
27
5 See,Clearwater Paper Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 36975 in Case No. AVU-E-
28 25.12("Petition").
6 Id. at p. 3.
3
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I by the underlying record, any calculation relied upon by the Commission that is internally
2 inconsistent, or any misapplication of any Commission-approved cost-effective testa
3 Instead,Clearwater seemingly applies its own incorrect analysis of a single EE program
4
in isolation (Avista's Small Business Lighting Program) to conclude that Avista's EE
5
6 programs, in totality and as a portfolio, are not cost-effective.8 This approach does not
7 sufficiently demonstrate that the Commission violated any statutory or regulatory requirement
g for assessing the prudence of Avista's EE expenditures at either a program or portfolio level,
9 nor is it consistent with any Commission-approved prudence review process, rendering
10 Clearwater's argument that Order No. 36975 is "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
11
conformity with the law"untenable.
12
Furthermore, Clearwater's analysis is shortsighted in that Avista has long been able to
13
14 demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of its EE programs at a portfolio level and across customer
15 segments. Since the inception of Avista's EE programs in 1978,Avista has provided countless
16 customer benefits through direct incentives, as well as saved energy usage through efficiency
17 upgrades. In 2024 alone, Avista provided over $1.5 million in rebates and direct benefits to
18 residential customers in Idaho. Notably, Clearwater has also significantly benefited from
19
Avista's EE programs,receiving over$2.9 million in direct incentives since 2021,and is saving
20
approximately 14.2 million kWh in energy usage per year due to efficiency upgrades.
21
22 Granting reconsideration on the basis proposed by Clearwater would introduce
23 significant regulatory uncertainty into Idaho's EE framework. If prudence determinations
24 could be reopened whenever a party later dissects individual measures using alternative
25
26 7 Avista utilizes four Commission-approved measurements to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its EE programs,
accounting for both the Company and customers' perspectives:the Utility Cost Test(UCT),the Total Resource
27 Cost (TRC), the Participant Cost Test (PCT), and the Ratepayer Impact Test (RIM). Avista's EE programs in
Idaho are primarily analyzed using the UCT as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness.
28 8 See,Petition at p.4,5,"...Clearwater's analysis of the Company's overall application focused on this
program.".
4
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I calculations, utilities would be unable to administer Commission-approved programs with
2 confidence that approved costs will remain recoverable. The authority to assess whether
3 Avista's EE programs are cost-effective, and therefore prudent, rests squarely with the
4
Commission.
5
6 2. Clearwater asserts that reconsideration of Order 36975 is required due to failure of due
7 process and basic notice requirements.
g Clearwater contends that Avista's Application in Case No. AVU-E-25-12 ("Prudence
9 Case") failed to meet customer notice requirements. While Clearwater correctly identifies that
10 Avista sought that the prudence review and potential future rate impacts be addressed in
11
separate cases, it fails to recognize the distinct legal processes for seeking prudence
12
determinations versus pursuing rate recovery. Pursuant to RP 052, Avista's Application at
13
14 issue contained the required elements, and addressed only whether Avista's 2024 EE costs
15 Were prudently incurred—not how or when those costs would be recovered.9
16 Clearwater argues that "[r]atepayers were not put on notice that the findings in the
17 Prudence Case (25-12) would result in a rate increase."10 This argument misconstrues the
18 structure of EE ratemaking and the proceedings at issue. Avista agrees with Clearwater that
19
"[n]otice is rightfully considered to be a critical aspect of due process to be afforded in any
20
administrative process." See Grindstone Butte Mut. Canal Co. v. Idaho Power Co., 98 Idaho
21
22 860, 574 P.2d 902 (1978). However, the matter at issue in Grindstone was distinct from the
23 matter at issue here; the notice requirements challenged in Grindstone centered around an
24 Idaho Power application "seeking an increase in electrical rates," and a subsequent
25
26
9 Idaho Rule of Procedure 052 requires that"[a]ll pleadings requesting a right,certificate,permit,or authority
27 from the Commission are called"applications",all of which must(1)fully state the facts on which they are
based,(2)refer to the particular provisions of statute,rule,order,or other controlling law upon which they are
28 based,and(3)request the action desired.
10 See,Petition at p.7.
5
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I Commission order that "directed the company to submit new rate schedules...[and] provided
2 that the allocation of the increase among various classes of users would be subject to further
3 proceedings."Id. at 861, 903.Avista's Prudence Case filing was limited to a backward-looking
4
prudence determination—the incorporation of which was just one component of Avista's
5
6 Schedule 91 Tariff Rider Adjustment in Case No. AVU-E-26-01. The so-called "bifurcation
7 of the two dockets"aligns with Idaho utilities'historical practices of seeking a prudence review
g versus pursuing rate recovery.l l Avista does not seek to set a new precedent or propose any
9 new type of ratemaking treatment through such bifurcation, and Clearwater does not identify
10 any statutory or regulatory requirement that notice of potential future rate recovery be provided
11
as a prerequisite to seeking a prudence determination.
12
Additionally, the Prudence Case was and is not Clearwater's only opportunity to
13
14 participate in evaluating the cost effectiveness of Avista's EE programs. These programs are
15 subject to ongoing, extensive Commission-approval processes, many of which are public.12
16 Avista urges the Commission to encourage Clearwater's participation in such processes,
17 through Avista's Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG") or other channels. The
18 assertion that"[t]he Commission finding as to the prudence of Avista's EE expenses took place
19
in a vacuum"is simply unfounded.13 The Commission also offered several avenues for public
20
participation in the Prudence Case, including the issuance of two news releases.14 Clearwater,
21
22 which is well-versed in Commission policy and procedure, chose not to formally intervene or
23 file written comments after the issuance of either news release.
24
25 11 See,Petition at p. 7.;Avista's requested Schedule 91 Tariff Rider adjustment in Case No.AVU-E-26-01.
12 The prudence of Avista's Energy Efficiency programs is evaluated through a continuous cycle of planning,
26 reporting,third-party evaluation and verification,ongoing collaboration with Avista's Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group(EEAG),and annual prudence auditing by Commission Staff.
27 13 See,Petition at p. 8.
14 On September 19,2025,the Commission issued a news release,which set a deadline of October 8,2025,for
28 "interested parties to file as intervenors."On November 18,2025,the Commission issued a second news release
seeking public comments on the Prudence Case by January 15,2026.14
6
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I Ultimately, Clearwater's Petition reflects disagreement with Commission's long-
2 standing practice of evaluating prudence separately from rate recovery requests, rather than
3 pinpointing any legal or factual defect in Order No. 36975. Clearwater's assertion that rate
4
impacts must be litigated in the prudence phase is inconsistent with well-established
5
6 Commission precedent.Furthermore,Clearwater's due process claim does not cite any specific
7 statutory or regulatory authority requiring combined prudence and rate recovery proceedings.
8 As such, Clearwater's request for reconsideration aims to undermine the Commission's
9 authority to assess and determine prudence of utility expenditures through its well-established
10 processes and procedures.
11
12
IV. CONCLUSION
13
14 Clearwater's Petition for Reconsideration does not sufficiently demonstrate that Order
15 No. 36975 is "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law."
16 Clearwater's disagreement with the Commission's determination does not render the Order
17 unreasonable or erroneous within the meaning of Idaho Code § 61-626. The Commission
18 properly determined that Avista's 2024 electric EE expenditures were prudently incurred,
19
based on a robust evidentiary record and consistent application of Commission practices and
20
procedures. Accordingly, Avista respectfully requests that the Commission deny Clearwater's
21
22 Petition for Reconsideration in its entirety.
23 Dated this 17th day of April, 2026.
24
25 An ' Glogovac, ISB No. 13010
Counsel for Regulatory Affairs
26 Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue
27 Spokane, Washington 99220-3727
Telephone: [phone]
28 anni.glo og vac(cavistacorp.com
7
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975

I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _17th_ day of April, 2026, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Answer of Avista Corporation to Clearwater Paper Corporation's Petition for
3 Reconsideration of Order No. 36975 was served upon all parties of record in this proceeding
by electronic mail only to:
4
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
5 Attn: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
6 secretga(d),puc.idaho.gov
7 Peter J. Richardson, ISB No. 3195
Richardson Adams, PLLC
8 515 N. 271h Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
9 [phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
10 peter(crichardsonadams.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
ANSWER OF AVISTA CORPORATION TO CLEARWATER PAPER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 36975