20260430Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
April 30, 2026
Thomas J. Budge, ISB No. 7465 IDAHO PUBLIC
RACINE OLSON, PLLP UTILITIES COMMISSION
P.O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center St.
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Ruveon LLC, an affiliate of Bayer Corporation
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN CASE NO. PAC-E-25-22
POWER'S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF THE 2026-2028 IDAHO COMMENTS OF BAYER
WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
Ruveon LLC (referred to herein as "Bayer"), respectfully submits these comments in
response to Rocky Mountain Power(the "Company")'s Application requesting approval of its
2026-2028 Idaho Wildfire Mitigation Plan("WMP" or"Plan").
I. Introduction
Bayer appreciates the opportunity to comment and recognizes the importance of wildfire
mitigation planning to public safety, system reliability, and risk management in Idaho.
These comments are intentionally limited in scope. Bayer submits them to (1) acknowledge the
statutory purpose of the WMP process under the Wildfire Standard of Care Act ("WSCA") and
(2)preserve Bayer's rights to address cost recovery, allocation, and liability issues in the
appropriate future proceedings.
11. The Limited Purpose of the Wildfire Mitigation Plan Proceeding
The WSCA directs the Commission's review toward prospective mitigation measures and
whether the proposed WMP satisfies Idaho Code § 61-1803 and Commission guidelines,
including whether the Plan reflects a reasonable balancing of mitigation costs and risk reduction
and identifies appropriate preventative actions.
This proceeding does not adjudicate the allocation of wildfire liability or wildfire-related
costs among the multiple jurisdictions in which the Company and its affiliated service areas
operate on an integrated basis, nor does Commission approval of a WMP constitute a
determination that any particular wildfire-mitigation expenditure is prudent or recoverable from
COMMENTS OF BAYER 1

Idaho ratepayers. Those issues arise, if at all, in general rate cases, cost recovery proceedings, or
allocation dockets on an appropriate record.
III. Distinction Between Wildfire Mitigation Compliance and Cost Recovery
The Company is a division of PacifiCorp which operates the Company and Pacific Power
on an integrated basis. While this Application is filed by the Company and concerns its Idaho
Wildfire Mitigation Plan, it includes tools,programs, and operational capabilities that are
developed,managed, or deployed on a systemwide basis across PacifiCorp's multi-state service
territory and then applied in Idaho as part of a broader wildfire-mitigation platform.
The Plan appears to assume that wildfire mitigation costs will be allocated using traditional
systemwide allocation methodologies, without clearly demonstrating cost causation for Idaho or
providing a transparent state-by-state comparison of expected costs, risk levels, and mitigation
activity. Importantly, systemwide wildfire mitigation spending and wildfire-related costs may be
influenced by conditions and policy choices in other jurisdictions served by PacifiCorp—
including differing standards of liability and approaches to damages. This potential for
jurisdiction-specific drivers underscores the need for transparency and cost-causation support
before wildfire-related costs are assigned to Idaho customers.
Bayer emphasizes this distinction because utilities sometimes cite compliance with
mitigation plans as evidence supporting later requests for cost recovery. Compliance with an
approved WMP may be relevant to evaluating whether actions were consistent with the
Company's asserted standard of care,but it is not dispositive of(and should not be conflated
with) whether the amounts spent to implement particular measures were reasonable, whether
lower-cost alternatives were available, or whether those costs should be allocated to and
recovered from Idaho ratepayers.
Factors affecting cost-allocation that are not resolved by the Plan include:
1. There are no identified Fire High Consequence Areas ("FHCA") in Idaho. Consequently,
some mitigation measures associated with FHCA designation(increased inspection
frequency, enhanced vegetation clearance, and system hardening) are not being
implemented in Idaho.
2. The Plan does not provide state-by-state comparisons of expected wildfire mitigation
costs (and, where applicable, by major mitigation category), sufficient to evaluate
whether Idaho's assigned share is consistent with Idaho-specific risk and the level/type of
mitigation activity occurring in Idaho. This is critical considering the reduced exposure to
wildfire in Idaho compared to other PacifiCorp states.
COMMENTS OF BAYER 2

3. Some mitigation measures appear to be primarily related to distribution level public
safety risks, rather than transmission level reliability, raising questions as to whether
Idaho transmission-level customers, such as Bayer, should reasonably bear a share of
total system wide wildfire mitigation costs.
4. Both the WSCA and PUC guidance emphasize cost reasonableness and the prudent use
of resources. While the Plan describes mitigation measures in detail, it does not clearly
demonstrate a robust least-cost/least-risk comparison of alternatives for each major
mitigation category. Therefore, the Plan apparently fails to adequately satisfy the
standard required to demonstrate that costs are reasonably incurred.
5. The Plan does not provide state-by-state comparisons of actual wildfire activity and
exposure metrics; for example, where the Plan provides combined acreage-burned totals
for multiple states, a breakout by individual state would assist parties in evaluating
relative exposure and any asserted basis for allocating systemwide costs.
6. The Plan includes changes and additions that may materially affect costs—such as
increased standard visual inspection frequency for overhead lines, increased minimum
vegetation clearance distances, and new initiatives (including a Wildfire Intelligence
Center, idle line mitigation, and wildfire detection cameras)—which should not be
assumed to be reasonable for Idaho absent a clearer showing of Idaho-specific need,
alternatives considered, and cost-causation-based assignment to Idaho customers.
IV. Conclusion
Bayer appreciates the Company's efforts to develop and file a WMP consistent with Idaho
law. Bayer also appreciates the Commission's careful oversight of wildfire mitigation planning
under the WSCA.
Given Idaho's decreased exposure to FHCA's there should be demonstrable cost savings
compared to other states. The Plan lacks sufficient information to evaluate whether the proposed
wildfire program will be successful and whether its costs are reasonable.
Therefore, Bayer submits that approval of the 2026-2028 WMP should be understood as a
determination regarding mitigation planning and standard of care compliance only, and not as a
determination regarding cost recovery, allocation, or liability for wildfire losses incurred in other
jurisdictions.
To avoid confusion in future proceedings, Bayer respectfully requests that any order
approving the 2026-2028 WMP make clear that such approval is without prejudice to:
(a) challenges to the recovery of wildfire-related costs in future rate cases;
(b) disputes regarding the allocation of wildfire-related costs among jurisdictions; and
(c) disputes regarding the allocation of wildfire-related costs among customer classes.
COMMENTS OF BAYER 3

Such clarification would not expand the scope of this proceeding. Rather, it would
reinforce the statutory boundaries established by the WSCA and preserve the Commission's
ability to address cost recovery and allocation issues on a full and appropriate record when they
are properly presented.
Respectfully submitted this 301h day of April, 2026.
RACINE OLSON, PLLP
By: 77
THOMAS J. BUDGE
COMMENTS OF BAYER 4

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of April, 2026, I served a true, correct and
complete copy of the foregoing document, to each of the following, via the method so indicated:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Commission Secretary Email
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
[e-mail]
Erika Melanson Email
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
[e-mail]
PacifiCorp Email
Data Request Response Center
[e-mail]
Jana Saba Email
Rocky Mountain Power
[e-mail]
Joe Dallas Email
PacifiCorp, Senior Attorney
[e-mail]
THOMAS J. BUDGE
COMMENTS OF BAYER 5