20260602Comments.pdf

I Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
515 N. 271h Street RECEIVED
2 Boise, Idaho 83702
JUNE 2, 2026
3 [phone] DD IDAHO PUBLIC
[phone] Cell UTILITIES COMMISSION
4 peter"ri.richardsonadams.com
5
6 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF CLEARWATER Case No.: COI-E-26-01
9 POWER COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY'S 2026
10 IDAHO WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,
I 1 LLC's COMMENTS URGING REJECTION
OF CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S
12 WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
13
14
COMES NOW, POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC ("PotlatchDeltic")
15
16 and pursuant to that Notice of Modified Procedure issued in Order No. 36977 issued by the
17 Idaho Public Utilities Commission("Commission") on March 23, 2026, and pursuant to Rule
18 203 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.203, hereby lodges its Comment
19
Urging Rejection of Clearwater Power Company's ("CPC") Wildfire Mitigation Plan ("WMP").
20
Alternatively, PotlatchDeltic respectfully requests the Commission not prosecute this matter via
21
22 modified procedure and rather to hold evidentiary hearings as to whether CPC's WMP should be
23 approved or rejected. In support whereof, PotlatchDeltic says as follows:
24
25
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 1

1
2
3 I.
BACKGROUND
4
1. PotlatchDeltic:
5
6 PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC is a private owner of significant timbered acreage in
7 Idaho, including land holdings that are valuable timbered lands that are susceptible to wildfire.
8 Said forested lands are located, in part, in the service territory of and/or adjacent to facilities
9
owned and/or operated by CPC. For PotlatchDeltic, the prevention of wildfire is a constant
10
concern. Adding to that concern is the fact that a substantial portion of PotlatchDeltic's
11
12 valuable commercial timber holdings are traversed by CPC's electric distribution and
13 transmission systems. The Commission's decision process throughout this docket must therefor
14 be constantly instructed by the stark fact that CPC is seeking an order from this Commission
15
granting it immunity for its acts/omissions that cause an inferno in the forest. PotlatchDeltic's
16
property and, indeed, the very lives and livelihoods of PotlatchDeltic's dedicated employees and
17
18 contractors' in Idaho are at risk in such an event. Depending on whether CPC's WMP is
19 approved by the Commission, liability for untold millions of dollars of valuable timber and the
20 very lives and livelihoods of PotlatchDeltic's employees and contractors is at stake.
21
22
23
24
25
26 Some of whom are Clearwater Power ratepayers.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 2

I While PotlatchDeltic is confident in the Commission's diligence in reviewing CPC's
2 WMP, it is nevertheless critical that the magnitude of the consequence of its decision in this
3
matter be a constant beacon and guidepost.
4
5 2. The Commission's Abili to Respond to a WMP Application is Severely Limited:
6
The Commission's hands are tied. It can only do one of two things in response to
7
CPC's filing—it may reject the filing in its entirety, or it may approve the filing in its
8
9 entirety.2 This is unfamiliar territory for the Idaho PUC. In an,, other the
10 Commission has the authority to easily excise a flaw in a utility application or rate case
11 without the wholesale rejection of the utility's entire application. Here, the Commission does
12
not have that flexibility. A flaw in CPC's case, no matter how significant or trivial, can only
13
be remedied by the Commission's rejection of the WMP Application in total. Some have
14
15 argued to the contrary by suggesting the Commission retains the authority to oversee the
16 implementation of WMPs.3 Such unsupported assertions are clearly belied by a plain reading
17 of the Act, to wit:
18
The commission shall review a wildfire mitigation plan or an update thereto and, after
19 notice and comment, within six (6) months of receiving such filing, shall approve or
reject the plan.'
20
21
22
23
24
z Wildfire Standard of Care Act(the"Act"or"WSCA")at Idaho Code Section 61-1804(l).
25 3 See,e.g.,Avista Reply Comments in Docket No.AVU-E-25-15 at p. 10,April 30,2026.
26 a Idaho Code Section 61-1804(1).
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 3

I The Commission has no ongoing authority to police the implementation of a WMP. Indeed,
2 implementation duties have been specifically assigned by the Act to the plan's sponsor. The
3
Act clearly provides that:
4
Commission-approved wildfire mitigation plans shall be implemented upon approval
5 by the commission and shall be reviewed and updated annually. The plans shall be
6 updated, publicly filed, and approved in accordance with this section and section 61-
1804, Idaho Code.5
7
8 The Commission is referred to in the third person because it has only been given authority to
9 approve or reject initial plans and follow-up plans that are subsequently filed on an annual
10 basis. There simply is no intervening authority on the Commission's part to police the
I I implementation of a plan once it has been approved—such authority would, of course, subject
12
CPC and all other cooperative and municipal utilities to ongoing PUC jurisdiction—a status
13
14 they vehemently object to. This inability on the Commission's part to police (supervise
15 implementation of) WMPs underscores the critical need for it to reject deficient plans such as
16 CPC's WMP. To do otherwise places Idahoans at risk of being locked out of the ability to
17 recover for damages caused by a deficient WMP. While an investor-owned utility that is
l8
otherwise methodically regulated by the PUC (such as Avista, see Footnote No. 3) may
19
20 attempt to argue the Commission has oversight authority over the implementation of its
21 WMP, a non-regulated utility such as CPC cannot make even that unfounded argument.
22 H
23
24
25
s 26 Idaho Code Section 61-1803(4).
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 4

1 3. Consequences of Approval of a Flawed WMP are Without Remedy.
2 Approving a flawed Application has consequences—potentially serious consequences.
3
An approved WMP results in a blanket grant of immunity for CPC's negligence in starting a
4
5
conflagration that has the potential to cause the loss of life, property and livelihoods - all
6 without the ability of the injured to seek recovery or compensation. According to the Act:
7 [T]here is a rebuttable presumption that the electric corporation acted without
negligence if, with respect to the cause of the wildfire, the electric corporation
8 reasonably implemented a commission-approved wildfire mitigation plan. This
9 rebuttable presumption extends to any act or omission taken in reasonable accordance
with [the WMP].6
10
11
As an example, assume the Commission approves CPC's WMP which, in fact, rejects the
12 implementation of a Public Safety Power Shutoff Protocol ("PSPS).' Assume that subsequently,
13 a wildfire is ignited due to CPC's failure to implement a PSPS, which safety measure could have
14 easily been implemented and if properly implemented would have prevented the fire's
15
ignition/spread. CPC's failure to implement the PSPS, regardless of its negligence in its failure
16
17 to do so, is nevertheless granted immunity from liability under the Act because its failure to
18 implement the PSPS would clearly be considered an"omission taken in reasonable accordance
19 with the approved wildfire mitigation plan."' Note that CPC is granted immunity based on its
20 actions or omissions that are in"reasonable accordance"with its WMP and not based on the
21
22
23
6 Idaho Code Section 61-1806(1),emphasis provided.
24 7 CPC WMP at p.25.
8 Idaho Code Section 61-1806(1),emphasis provided. It would be difficult, if not impossible,for an injured person
25 to successfully argue that the omission to act subjects the utility to liability in light of the express language in the
26 statute to the contrary.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 5

I reasonableness (or lack thereof) of the WMP itself. Furthermore, and critically, the Act only
2 requires the Commission to determine if a WMP is adequate—not comprehensive or rigorous or
3
prudent—just adequate.y
4
5 This scenario is not a hypothetical or mere conjecture. CPC's WMP provides:
6 ...CPC believes the risks of implementing a PSPS far outweigh the chances of its electric
overhead distribution system igniting a catastrophic wildfire.10
7
8
This fantastic admission, alone, requires the Commission to reject CPC's WMP. CPC is,
9 incredibly, asking this Commission to require innocent Idahoans to bear the burden of liability
10 for CPC's (in its own words) "overhead distribution system igniting a catastrophic wildfire"that
I 1 would have been prevented if a PSPS were in place on CPC's electrical system.11 PotlatchDeltic
12
is unwilling to voluntarily assume that liability risk, and it is unjust and unreasonable for the
13
14 Commission to force it to do so, nor would such a forced liability shift be consistent with"the
15 public health, safety, and welfare."` Modified procedure is not the appropriate vehicle to
16 discern whether PotlatchDeltic is an outlier on this issue. Were the Commission to hold a public
17 hearing in Orofino or Weippe, (rather than proceeding via modified procedure from its offices in
18
Boise), it is reasonable to assume that public sentiment would reveal that PotlatchDeltic is not
19
20
21
22
23
9 Idaho Code Section 61-1804(1)(c),the test is"the degree to which the plan adequately minimizes
24 wildfire risk...,"emphasis provided.
10 CPC WMP at p.25.
25 11 Id.
26 12 The Act at Section 61-1804(1)(a).
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 6

I alone in its opposition to CPC's attempt to foist its liability for starting a"catastrophic wildfire"
2
that is preventable via a working PSPS upon the heretofore unsuspecting public.
3
It is compelling evidence as to the requirement for a utility to adopt a PSPS in order to be
4
5
entitled to the benefits conferred by the WSCA that all other utilities13 in Northern Idaho (that
6 have adopted a WMP) incorporate the PSPS tool in their arsenal for preventing wildfire. Thus,
7 the baseline standard of care on this issue is the implementation of a PSPS. It is beyond dispute
8 that the minimum standard for a WMP in Northern Idaho is that the utility adopt an effective
9
PSPS. CPC has not demonstrated (or even addressed the question of) why it deserves special
10
11 treatment with respect to the implementation of a PSPS. CPC is the outlier in this regard and
12 thus should have its plan rejected with instructions to go back to the drawing board in order to
13 bring its WMP up to minimum industry standards.
14 11.
15 CPC'S WMP MUST BE REJECTED
BECAUSE IT FAILS TO RESPOND TO THE MANDATES CONTAINED IN THE WSCA.
16
1. CPC'S WMP is Long on Rhetoric but Lacks Substance—it Talks the Talk but Does
17 not Walk the Walk.
18
A. The photocopied WMP:
19
20 Chapter 5 of CPC's WMP addresses its purported "Wildfire Prevention Strategy and
21 Programs." This chapter is copied, practically word for word, page for page, strategy for
22
23
24
25 is Avista,Docket No.AVU-E-25-15;Northern Lights,Docket No. C10-26-01; Kootenai Electric,Docket No. C07-
25-01.
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 7

I strategy and program for program from CPC's 2022 WMP. For comparison purposes, CPC's
2 2022 WMP (Chapter 4 in that year's iteration of the plan) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. CPC
3
has not made a single substantive change, improvement, alteration or adjustment to the WMP it
4
5 has had in place since at least 2022. Because CPC's 2022 WMP was drafted before the WSCA
6 was considered by the Idaho Legislature, it cannot be claimed to be responsive to the
7 requirements of the WSCA. Not only is that outdated plan non-responsive to the requirements o
8 the Act, it is also substantively lacking as a WMP.
9
B Substantive Flaws in the Photocopied WMP:
10
11 The `heart' of CPC's WMP begins at Chapter 5, entitled"Wildfire Prevention Strategy
12 and Programs. " This chapter begins with the promising-sounding introductory sentence to the
13 effect that, "The WMP outlines existingfire mitigation efforts and identifies new processes CPC
14 is evaluating or developing. " A simple parsing of the sentence reveals two fatal flaws in CPC's
15
WMP.
16
17 The first fatal flaw is conceded in the phrase "...outlines existing fire mitigation efforts."
18 While it may be instructive to understand what CPC's wildfire mitigation efforts have been in
19 the past, those past actions are irrelevant to the granting of immunity under the WSCA. The
20 WSCA requires that WMPs be prospective in their design and application and not merely a
21
rehash of the utility's prior wildfire mitigation efforts. The Idaho Legislature did not issue a free
22
23 blanket grant of immunity to Clearwater Power Company. Rather, the Act requires CPC to
24 develop a WMP that(note the use of future tense) "shall be implemented upon approval by the
25
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 8

I Commission."14 Indeed, the Act speaks to measures that"should be taken to minimize fire
2 risk.... "15 The Act doesn't gift immunity to utilities for measures that they have taken in the
3
past. Immunity comes with a price, the cost of which is the adoption and implementation of a
4
5 wildfire mitigation plan that is more than just business as usual. The quid pro quo for CPC to
6 enjoy immunity from liability is that it must actually step up to the plate and implement new and
7 additive wildfire preventative measures. CPC has not lived up to its end of the bargain offered
8 by the WSCA and is therefore not entitled to the benefits of that bargain.
9
The second fatal flaw is conceded in the introductory sentence's phrase stating that
10
11 CPC's WMP, "identifies new processes CPC is evaluating or developing. " "Evaluating" and
12 "developing" are not to be conflated with having implemented and executed, or even a
13 commitment to do so. Until CPC can demonstrate that it is actually committed, indeed obligated
14 to implementing concrete wildfire prevention measures and executing on its plans, it has not
15
earned the right to claim immunity from liability for wildfires it negligently causes or contributes
16
17 to. It seems that CPC has embarked on a never-ending journey of"evaluating and developing"
18 but has so far failed to implement any new plans and has no timetable for doing so.
19 The first section(5.1.1) in Chapter 5 of CPC's WMP's "Prevention Strategy and
20 Programs" is entitled "Situational Awareness and Assessment." According to the WMP
21
"Situational Awareness" creates the very "foundation for successful decision making."16 This
22
23
24
14 Idaho Code Section 61-1803(4). Emphasis provided.
25 15 Idaho Code Section 61-1802. Emphasis provided.
26 16 CPC WMP at p.23. Emphasis provided.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 9

I section lists six resources that CPC uses to inform its `foundation' for successful decision
2 making (decision making that is presumably related to fire prevention and response). It is worth
3
noting that CPC does not identify what decisions, if any, it commits to make as a result of the
4
5 monitoring of these resources. Moreover, none of the six resources provide current weather or
6 fire hazard data specific to Northern Idaho or CPC's service territory. Four of those six
7 resources are national, or Washington State based (USFS, NOAA, Washington State Energy
8 Office and the National Weather service). The only Idaho specific resource (Idaho Wildfire
9
Information) is not described as a fire weather forecast resource, and its cited web link
10
11 (http:/www.idahofireinfo.com) opens to an on-line gambling site. CPC's last listed resource for
12 forming the "foundation for successful decision making" is identified as "CPC-Owned Weather
13 Stations (pilot program)." However, reading CPC's WMP's description of its weather stations
14 reveals that CPC's weather station pilot program has yet to be initiated as it (future tense) "will"
15
be evaluated at some time:
16
17 CPC will evaluate installing its own weather stations at designated substations
throughout the service area. These stations would be monitored remotely and provide
18 temperature, wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, and relative humidity.17
19 Later in its WMP, CPC states that it is (present tense) "investigating the options for the
20 installation of weather stations in substations located in high-risk areas.18
21
22
23
24
25 CPC WMP at p.23. Emphasis provided.
18 26 CPC WMP, Section 5.6.5 at p. 38.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 10

I Of course, there are no better sources of information as to current fire weather conditions
2 in CPC's service territory than weather stations located in CPC's territory. This observation is
3
underscored by CPC in its WMP, which outlines some of the obvious benefits of weather station
4
installations:
5
6 As part of its proactive approach to improve CPC's situational awareness capabilities,
CPC is investigating the options for the installation of weather stations in substations
7 located in high-risk areas. Weather station observations would allow the Operations
Department to analyze critical fire weather elements at critical locations in real time.
8 Since the service area is quite expansive, having the ability to collect precise weather
9 information will allow the utility to focus its attention and resources on the areas
showing the most immediate risk. . . .19
10
11 Thus, CPC's WMP endorses the significant value that weather stations bring to its wildfire
12 mitigation efforts and also that it is both planning to investigate their installation and that it is
13 currentlyinvestigating nvestigating their installation.
14 Despite multiple comments in multiple locations in its WMP that weather stations are
15
valuable and that it is actively considering the installation of weather stations, CPC fails to
16
inform the Commission that its weather station installation `evaluation' process has been
17
18 completed. CPC determined, after all, that weather stations are not all that valuable of a tool in
19 its arsenal of wildfire mitigation efforts and that it will NOT install any weather stations in its
20 service territory. In response to PotlatchDeltic's Production Request No. 21 (attached at Exhibit
21
No. 2) CPC stated:
22
23
24
25
'9 26 CPC WMP at pp.38—39.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 11

1 CPC determined that installation of dedicated weather stations at substations is presently
not warranted.
2
3 In addition, in response to PotlatchDeltic's Production Request 19 (attached as Exhibit No. 3)
4 CPC contradicted the above quoted WMP language extolling the benefits of strategically placed
5 individual weather stations:
6
Weather Stations were suggested by BKI Engineering when it authored CPC's initial wildfire
7 mitigation plan, but have not been implemented because it is unclear how information from
individual weather stations would yield actionable information beyond what is already
8 obtained from the trusted weather sources already used.
20
9
When, exactly, the decision was made by CPC not to install weather stations is unclear.
10
Nevertheless, PotlatchDeltic is unaware of any attempt on CPC's part to clarify the (inadvertent)
11
12 misdirection on the benefits of weather stations contained in the above quoted provisions of its
13 WMP. All that said, to what resource will CPC turn in fire season to determine current fire
14 weather conditions in its service territory—the answer: "During fire season, local TV and radio
IS
broadcasts may be monitored...»21 It is unlikely that the Idaho Legislature intended to grant
16
immunity from liability for wildfires caused by CPC when that utility's sole source of local fire
17
18 weather information is "local TV and radio broadcasts."
19 The next section, (5.1.2) of Chapter 5 provides that CPC will comply with state and
20 federal agencies' directives relative to Industrial Fire Precaution Levels. Of course, complying
21
with federal and state fire prevention requirements relative to taking the "necessary precautions
22
23
24
21 It is not clear,but most likely the reference to the"initial wildfire mitigation plan" is to CPC's 2022 WMP—
25 which means that for the last four years CPC has been disregarding its own consultant's recommendation to install
individual weather stations,without updating its WMP to remove this recommendation.
26 21 CPC WMP at p.23.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 12

I and deploy[ing]available fire suppression equipment to job sites"22 is not part of CPC's WMP
2 plan—it is, rather, part of CPC's plan to comply-with-federal-and-state-fire-suppression-
3
requirements. The Legislature did not offer the enticement of liability immunity in order to
4
5 motivate CPC to simply comply with existing fire suppression regulations. The same
6 observations are apropos to the following section(5.1.3) addressing activities during the state
7 declared Fire Precautionary Period.
8 The next section of Chapter 5 (Section 5.1.4) discusses Recloser Operational Practices. I
9
is unclear why CPC has included this discussion in its WMP. Reclosers have been in place on
10
11 CPC's system for decades. Reclosers are standard equipment on electric distribution systems
12 throughout the country. There is nothing unique or relevant to its WMP in the fact that CPC has
13 reclosers on its transmission and distribution system. CPC's reclosers were obviously not
14 acquired, installed or maintained in response to the WSCA. However, CPC's WMP does later
15
(in Section 5.6.1) observe that it"currently"has 35 G&W Viper reclosers with SEL electronic
16
17 relay controls. Use of the descriptor"currently"misleadingly suggests that the installation of
18 these G&W reclosers is a recent event—possibly even in response to the WSCA. However,
19 attached at Exhibit 4 is a copyrighted story from Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.
20 (SEL) dated 2009 in which the installation of CPC's "current" G&W Viper reclosers with SEL
21
electronic relay controls is commended. The purpose of these "current"reclosers was not to aid
22
23
24
25
26 22 CPC WMP at p.23 -24.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 13

I in fire suppression, but rather to save on the time necessary to respond to a fault on CPC's
2 system. According to CPC's manager at the time:
3
The main reason we went with [the SEL relay] was because we knew it would save us a
4 tremendous amount of time . . . the guys were able to walk right to the fault.23
5 The fact that CPC has reclosers on its system and that some of those reclosers may happen to
6
have relay controls is unrelated to (and significantly predates) the passage of the WSCA.
7
8 Next, Chapter 5 addresses (Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6)the lack of a public safety power
9 shutoff and re-energization process on CPC's system, which is discussed ante.
10 Chapter 5.2 addresses CPC's Infrastructure Inspections and maintenance programs.
I I These programs and processes have been in place for CPC for many years and are unrelated to
12
compliance with the WSCA. Of particular note is that CPC only conducts a detailed inspection
13
14 of its Idaho-based transmission and distribution systems on a once every fifteen-year cycle, yet
15 in Oregon it is required by law to do so on a ten-year cycle. The Oregon Administrative rules on
16 utility pole inspection cycles and vegetation management are designed to "provide the minimum
17 »z4
standards ...for conductor clearances from vegetation to provide for ...fire prevention. It is
18
incumbent on CPC to explain why a ten year cycle for detailed inspections is just minimally
19
20
sufficient to comply with Oregon's legal requirements while a fifty percent longer interval
21 between inspections is sufficient to confer blanket immunity on CPC for potentially negligent
22
23
24
25 21 See Exhibit No.4;"Case Study, Clearwater Power Company—Lewiston Idaho"Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, Inc.,at p.2.(2009).
26 21 Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR) §860-024-0016(1)(c). Emphasis provided.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 14

I inspections and vegetation maintenance. While CPC's inspection cycle may be compliant with
2 historic industry standards, those old standards are no longer sufficient, as evidenced by
3
Oregon's ten-year minimum inspection cycle requirement.
4
CPC's "Wood Pole Test and Treatment"program (Section 5.2.5) is facially deficient.
5
6 The plan touts the fact that 6.6% of CPC's wood poles are inspected annually—which is once
7 every fifteen years. The plan is worded such as to lead one to believe that CPC's inspection
8 cycle complies with RUS standards by noting that:
9
CPC has over 50,000 wood poles in its system and inspects approximately 6.6%
10 annually. . . . This inspection interval is in line with RUS Bulletin 1730B-121 regarding
11
wood pole inspection and maintenance practices. 25
12 A fifteen-year inspection interval is not in compliance with RUS Bulletin 173013-121. It may be
13 "in line with" RUS Bulletin 1730B-121 if one reads "in line with" to mean"kind of or sort-of" in
14 compliance or"somewhat-in-the-ballpark" compliance. RUS Bulletin 1730B-121 (attached
15
hereto as Exhibit No. 5) requires an initial inspection of new wood poles twelve to fifteen years
16
17 after the new poles are installed.26 After that initial inspection, subsequent re-inspections are
18 required every 12 years with 8.3% of all poles inspected each year. The Commission should
19 reject CPC's WMP based on its misleading representation that it has minimally complied with
20 the RUS inspection guidance for wood poles. Inspecting 6.6% of its wood poles annually rather
21
than 8.3% leaves a significant number of poles uninspected each year for which the bare
22
23
24
21 CPC WMP section 5.4.1 at p.30.
25 26 See RUS Bulletin 1730B-121 at pp.5 -6. CPC's system is in"Decay Zone 1"on the table at the bottom of page
6.
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 15

I minimum of standards (RUS: every twelve years or Oregon: every ten years) requires to be
2 inspected. A rejection of CPC's plan will certainly aid in encouraging the utility to be more
3
precise in its representations as to its compliance (or lack thereof) with various standards and
4
metrics.
5
6 Sections 5.3 and 5.4 address CPC's vegetation management efforts. Nothing in the
7 vegetation management sections of CPC's WMP indicate that any effort has been made to
8 expand its vegetation management practices in response to the Act. It appears that CPC engages
9
in only the bare minimum vegetation management efforts that are imposed by existing state and
10
11 federal regulations or requirements. In Section 5.3 CPC observes that:
12 State and Federal Agencies require maintenance of CPC's right-of-way under or around
power lines...27
13
14 Indeed, CPC's WMP makes clear that CPC's goal is to accomplish the minimum vegetation
15 management practices that are required by law—and nothing more:
16 CPC crews follow standard practices for safety, reliability,policies, procedures, and
compliance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESQ, RUS, and relevant state and
17 federal requirements. Work performed to these guidelines provides reasonable service
18 continuity and guards against wildfire damage caused by supply conductors.28
19 The WSCA requires more of a utility seeking liability immunity than just following decades old
20 standard practices, some of which have been in place for half a century or more. (CPC's
21
Vegetation to Conductor Clearance standard on page 32 of the WMP is dated January 1962.)
22
23
24
25 n CPC WMP at p. 29.
26 28 CPC WMP Section 5.4.1 at p.30.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 16

I The Commission should reject CPC's plan because it fails to implement modern vegetation
2 management practices that are relevant to the prevention of wildfire. For instance, the Idaho
3
Department of Lands' ("IDL ,)29 comments on this issue provide:
4
Vegetative height layer. The plan should include data regarding the vegetative
5 layer that includes information where the surrounding tree canopy is taller than
6 the adjacent system. Trees provide a significant strike risk to above-ground
systems that occur outside of the managed rights-of-way.30
7
8 The Vegetation to Conductor Clearance standard on p. 32 of CPC's WMP does not address this
9 significant issue and only calls for a fifteen-foot buffer between the pole (not the conductor or
10 cross arm) and the adjacent vegetative cover. Depending on the width of the cross-arm and
11 where on the cross-arm the conductor is placed, the live conductor will be as close as just a
12
couple of feet from the nearest tree. CPC's WMP's failure to address the height of trees adjacent
13
to the conductor/cross-arm runs afoul of the IDL's concerns on this issue. CPC's WMP must be
14
15 rejected in order to give the utility an opportunity to fix this flaw. In short, these deficits,
16 coupled with the deference the Commission is required by law to afford to IDL's observations,
17 are fatal to the reasonableness of CPC's WMP and requires no less that its rejection by the
18
Commission.
19
20
In Section 5.5.1 CPC discusses its use of wood pole fire protection products such as fire-
21 resistant coating or mesh to prevent fire damage to poles. This `measure' is also listed as one of
22
23
24
29 Section 61-1804(c)(3)of the Act requires the Commission to `presume' that comments of the state forester(a.k.a.
25 the Idaho Department of Lands)are reasonable and appropriate.
26 so See Section I11,infra for a detailed discussion of IDL's Comments in this docket.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 17

I just six of CPC's Design and Construction Mitigation programs at Table 1 of the WMP.3� This
2 measure does not prevent wildfires and hence it is not relevant to CPC's WMP. CPC offers no
3
evidence (or offer of evidence) that wrapping wood poles with fire resistant coating or mesh doe
4
5 anything to prevent the ignition of wildfire. In response to PUC Staff Data Request No. 13(a)
6 CPC provided a copy of its fire wrap grant application that it submitted to the Idaho Office of
7 Energy and Mineral Resources. In that application CPC explained the purpose and function of
8 fire wrapped utility poles:32
9
We know we will continue to have fires in our territory and that we will continue to loose
10 [sic]poles due to fire. Without installing a preventative barrier/protection the company
and its members will continue to pay for expensive replacements. If preventative wrap is
11 installed it will allow us to extend the life cycle of each wood pole and reduce the overall
12 cost to maintain for each of our members.
13 Preventative wrapping of wood poles is designed for the sole purpose of saving CPC's ratepayers
14 money. Obviously, such a `measure' fails as a wildfire prevention strategy—"we know we will
15
continue to have fires. " Furthermore, such measures do nothing to mitigate a fire's spread once
16
17 it has been ignited. Because a wildfire must be extremely hot and robust before it causes a
18 standard utility pole to catch fire, there is nothing that a fire-resistant pole can do to contribute to
19 the control efforts aimed at such an inferno. The Act requires CPC's WMP to implement
20 measures that"should be taken to minimize wildfire risk before a fire occurs and to respond to it
21
when it does occur"33 Fire resistant wood poles do nothing to minimize fire risk before a fire
22
23
24
31 CPC WMP at p. 5.
25 32 CPC response to PUC Staff Data Request No. 13(a)at p. 12 of the attachment.
33 Idaho Code Section 61-1802.
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 18

I occurs. They also do nothing in response to a wildfire once it does occur. Fire resistant pole
2 installations should not be used to support the shift of liability for a wildfire started by CPC upon
3
innocent victims. As with the reclosers, discussed ante, the Commission should disregard CPC's
4
5 attempt to pass off pole wrapping as a wildfire mitigation measure at all, let alone one that is
6 responsive to the requirements of the WSCA.
7 Probably the most effective electric utility wildfire risk abatement measure is the
8 undergrounding of distribution and transmission systems. At page 37 of its WMP CPC validates
9
this proposition by stating that"The undergrounding of overhead distribution lines . . . [is] an
10
11
effective wildfire mitigation strategy" and that it will "continue to evaluate undergrounding
12 conductors in heavily forested and high fire-risk areas. " Despite this recognition and despite the
13 obvious fire prevention benefits of undergrounding conductors, CPC has not undergrounded a
14 single mile of conductor for at least the last four years. In response to PotlatchDeltic's
15
Production Request No. 14, CPC made the following revealing statements:
16
17
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION/INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Page 37 of the 2026 WMP provides that "CPC will continue to evaluate undergrounding
19 conductors in heavily forested and high fire-risk areas." Please provide copies of all
evaluations of undergrounding conductors in heavily forested and high fire-risk areas that
20 have been completed in the last four years. Please identify by date and location all overhead
21 conductors in heavily forested and high fire-risk areas that have been converted to
underground configurations over the last four years. Please identify the locations, and
22 wildfire risk status, of all overhead to underground conversions that are planned to occur in
the current (2026) WMP year.
23
RESPONSE: No lines have been converted in the past 4 years. CPC has not prepare
24 formal, standalone evaluations of the type requested, and CPC's evaluation of
25 undergrounding is conducted on a project-specific, operational basis rather than through
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 19

I system-wide studies. The current workplan34 for 2026 anticipates converting 0.7 miles of
overhead lines to underground lines located South of Fernwood, Idaho, from Pole #321 3-40
2 to Pole #321 3-51, which is rated Moderate Risk in the WMP.
3
CPC denies that it has prepared any `formal, standalone evaluations" in response to the
4
request that it provide copies of its "evaluations of undergrounding conductors in heavily
5
6 forested and high fire-risk areas." This admission directly contradicts its claim at page 37 of
7 its WMP that it"will continue to evaluate undergrounding conductors in heavily forested and
8 high fire-risk areas."3' CPC's response then concedes that the sole undergrounding project
9
contemplated in the current WMP year is a 0.7 mile conversion that is not even in a high fire-
10
risk area. CPC also concedes that it has never conducted a systemwide formal evaluation of
11
12 the benefits/costs of underground conductor on its system. Apparently undergrounding,
13 when it occurs, is accomplished36 on an ad hoc basis ("project specific, operational basis").
14 Thus, CPC has misleadingly listed undergrounding conductor at the very top of its list of its
15
"currently implemented" wildfire Mitigation Programs mitigation measures.37 This
16
misdirection is highlighted by the fact that, with over 900 miles38 of overhead line in"heavily
17
18 wooded areas" only 0.7 miles in a"Moderate Risk" area are slated for undergrounding in the
19 current WMP.
20
21
22
23 34 Whether or not a"current workplan"is an enforceable commitment is an open question.
35 Self-contradictory claims such as these require an evidentiary hearing to resolve—which militates against the
24 Commission proceeding via modified procedure to complete its evaluation of CPC's WMP application.
36 An accomplishment of 0.7 miles of undergrounding in five years.
25 37 CPC WMP at p. 5,Table 1.
26 38 CPC WMP at p.29.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 20

I CPC apparently only typically contemplates undergrounding existing distribution lines
2 when someone else is paying for it. In response to PotlatchDeltic Production Request No. 16,
3
CPC provided that:
4
CPC's WMP does not include a general objective to convert overhead distribution
5 facilities to underground facilities in forested or HWHP [High Wildfire Hazard Potential]
6 areas. CPC evaluates mitigation measures based on cost-effectiveness, system reliability,
and overall impact on members. Underground conversion is among the most capital-
7 intensive mitigation measures and, absent offsetting funding, typically does not represent
a cost-effective means of reducing wildfire risk on a system-wide basis.
8
9 CPC's lack of commitment to undergrounding and its lack of interest in even evaluating the
10 benefits of undergrounding require that the Commission reject CPC's WMP. CPC's WMP is
I I nothing more than business as usual dressed up as a thoughtful wildfire mitigation plan.
12 CPC's WMP downplays the significance and prevalence of the causes of wildfires by
13
electric utilities and therefore gives the false impression that the task of wildfire prevention
14
15 lies with others. For example, on page 10, CPC discusses the risk of wildfires in its service
16 territory using the following graphic:
17 H
18 H
19
H
20
21 H
22 H
23 H
24
25
H
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 21

1
2
3 Miscellaneous
4 Campfire
5 � \
6 Human 1
i
Children r Fires in
7 Idaho b
Railroad y
8 Cause
9 Smoking
Equipment
10 Use
11
Arson
12
Debris Burning
5
13
14
15 Notably missing from the graphic (and from the text introducing the graphic on page 10 of the
16
WMP) is a category for electric utility caused fires. Perhaps the outdated nature of the
17
graphic (the identified source is Idaho Firewise 1980—2009) explains this missing
18
19 component. Current estimates of wildfires caused by electric utilities are typically in the
20 ballpark of ten percent39 which is a figure certainly warranting recognition by CPC. The most
21 recent figures for utility caused wildfires in Northern Idaho are published by the Clearwater-
22
23
24
25 39"Research Sparks Prevention Techniques for Wildfires and Outages",Texas A&M University, Engineering
Department Study,January 2025, https•//en;ineerint tamu edu/news/2025/01/research-sparks-prevention-
26 techniques-for-wildfires-and-outazes.html; last accessed May 29,2026.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 22

I Potlatch Timber Protective Association41 ("CPTPA"). That organization's 2026 publication
2 relative to fire-year 2025 documents that last year 7% of Northern Idaho's Wildfires were
3
utility caused ("Powerline):41
4
Lightning 26 57%
5 Recreation 1 2%
6 Powerline 3 7%
Debris Burn 2 4%
7 Arson 0 0%
Equipment Use 8 17%
8 Fireworks 0 0%
9 Undetermined 5 11%
Other 1 2%
10 Total 46
11 In 2025, utility caused fires were the fourth most frequent cause of fire in Northern Idaho!
12
CPC either fails to understand the magnitude of the utility-caused wildfire problem or it seeks
13
14 to understate the severity of that problem. This lack of concern is evidenced by CPC's failure
15 to identify any utility causes in its discussion of the causes wildfire risk.
16 The Performance Metrics Table presented by CPC Table 8 (page 49) of its WMP is
17 notable for the lack of quantifiable measurements of effectiveness -there are simply no
18
quantifiable, measurable targets for any of the identified performance metrics. There are also
19
references to new undefined terms such as "critical areas." Table 8 is the first and only time in
20
21 the WMP the term"critical areas" is used. What"critical areas" are and how they relate to
22
23
24
25 40 hops: ' w,c�! i•COlniannual-re�ort�last accessed on May 29,2026.
26 al See Exhibit 6, Report of the Chief Fire Warden,dated Dec. 31,2025,at p.3.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
COI-E-26-01
28
PAGE 23

I fire hazard potential zones is unstated and unknown. There is also no information regarding
2 mitigation effectiveness in wildfire risk reductions and there is no comparative cost-benefit
3
analysis. The lack of quantifiable performance metrics or measurement indicia makes it
4
5
impossible to judge the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the plan. CPC's WMP should
6 therefore be rejected by the Commission.
7 III.
THE STATE FORESTER'S COMMENTS REQUIRE
8 THE COMMISSION TO REJECT CPC'S WMP.
9
The State Forester through the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) filed Comments on
10
11
May 29, 2026, well within the timeframe for lodging written comments. The Act assigns
12 comments by the State Forester special prominence in the Commission's decision-making
13 process. Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3) provides that the Comments of the State Forester are
14 «presumed to be reasonable and appropriate." Furthermore, absent a specific contrary finding,
15
the Commission is statutorily obligated to incorporate the State Forester's comments in its
16
order.42
17
18 The State Forester's comments identified multiple significant and pivotal flaws in CPC's
19 WMP and as a result the State Forester is recommending the Commission reject CPC's WMP:
20 IDL has reviewed the risk modeling as provided in the submitted Wildfire Mitigation
21 Plan by Clearwater Power and presents the following as considerable shortcomings that
IDL recommends must be addressed before plan approva1.43
22
23
24
az Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3)provides that the recommendation of the State Forester"shall be incorporated in
25 the decision of the commission unless the commission determines they are not just, reasonable, and in the public
interest, in which case the commission shall document its reasoning in its order approving or rejecting the plan.'
26 as Idaho Department of Lands' Comments at p. 1. Emphasis provided.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 24

I It is not necessary to restate the State Forester's identified"shortcomings" as her thoughtful
2 comments are on the record and they speak for themselves. However, PotlatchDeltic believes
3
the magnitude of the State Forester's concerns are worthy of highlighting.
4
5 The State Forester provided that CPC's WMP definition of the wildland urban interface
6 is so lacking as to present a"gross under-representation of the impact of wildfires on
7 communities and developments throughout Clearwater Power's system. "44 According to the
8 State Forester CPC's "anti uated tre modeling significantlyskews the wildfire risk within
q .� g. . . � j .f
9
the Clearwater Power system. ""4S The State Forester's comments proceed to identify nine
10
11 additional substantive fatal flaws in CPC's plan including the lack of a cost-benefit analysis and
12 the improper and outdated information metrics relied upon in its WMP—e.g., the erroneous
13 assertion that the IDL declares a"fire season."
14 In order for the Commission to approve CPC's WMP in light of the State Forester's
IS
detailed and disapproving comments to the contrary, it will have to make specific findings that
16
17 they are not just, reasonable, or in the public interest and it will have to document its reasoning i
18 its order. Of course, rebutting the State Forester's detailed and fact-based assertions will require
19 multiple findings of fact—which cannot be made on the fact-light record that is created pursuant
20 to modified procedure. Given the fact that the Commission's six-month time period for
21
approving or rejecting CPC's WMP lapses on June 20, 2026, there is simply not sufficient time
22
23
24
25 as Id.
26 as Id.at p.2.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 25

I to hold contested hearings. The Commission is, therefore, left with no choice but to reject the
2 filing and invite CPC to correct its multiple errors when it files its next iteration of a WMP in the
3
coming year.
4
IV.
5 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON STAFF'S
6 CONTRARY RECOMMENDATION
7 A. Overview
8 PotlatchDeltic appreciates the opportunity to, very preliminarily, review the Staff s
9
Comments (filed early in the day on June 2, 2026) and to provide the Commission with initial
10
11 critiques of the same.
12 Staff s timid approach to its review of CPC's WMP may be understandable if were made
13 in a different context. However, the potential real-world harm caused by approval of a flawed
14 WMI may be devastating -- wildfires result in homes being burned, working forests devastated
15
and lives lost—all without any means of compensation. Missing from Staff s analysis is any
16
discussion of the PURPOSE of the WSCA, which is to grant immunity from responsibility to
17
18 electric utilities for causing a conflagration that harms Idahoans as noted above. The
19 Commission can not make a reasonable judgment as to whether to approve or reject a WMP
20 without balancing those potential harms with the cost to the utility of implementing a viable and
21
enforceable WMP.
22
23
24
25 //
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 26

I B. Staff has Been Misled by CPC
2 One example of CPC's disingenuousness is highlighted by Staffs discussion of CPC's
3
weather stations. This issue is explained in detail above beginning on page 9. Staff has been led
4
5
to believe that CPC's weather station"pilot"program has "yet to be implemented:"
6 Within its 2026 WMP, the Company[CPC]describes its five pilot programs: ...
[including](5) Weather Stations. In Response to Staff's Production Request No. 1, the
7 Company provided more details regarding each of its current pilot programs and
explained that the ...Weather Stations pilots have not yet been implemented.46
8
9 Not disclosed by CPC is the fact that it has abandoned the concept of implementing weather
10 stations in its service area. Staff s understanding is contradicted by CPC's response to
11 PotlatchDeltic's Production Request No. 21, wherein CPC declares that "CPC has determined
12
that installation of dedicated weather stations at substations is not presently warranted."47
13
14 This is a significant discrepancy from Staff s understanding that weather stations are viable and
15 have only "yet been implemented." The significance is highlighted by the fact that weather
16 stations are identified in CPC's WMP as one of only six "Operational Practices"that"creates a
17 foundation for successful decision making."48 The other five Operational Practices have been
18
demonstrated to be ineffective49 in providing situational awareness that is specific to CPC's
19
20 service territory—including the Operational Practice that currently links to on-line gambling
21 sites.
22
23
24 46 Staff Comments at p. 12.
47 Exhibit 2,attached hereto.
25 41 CPC WMP at p.23.
26 49 See discussion, infra beginning on p. 9.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 27

I CPC's multiple weather station contradictions presents the Commission with
2 foundational discrepancies in a critical area of the WMP. All of CPC's representations are now
3
therefore suspect and must be verified on the record. Proceeding to resolve these issues via
4
5 modified procedure is not possible. CPC should be held to account for its WMP's vagueness
6 and self-contradictory assertions under oath in a public hearing. As noted, ante, there is not
7 sufficient time in which to resolve these issues by the deadline for Commission action, therefore
8 the Commission is left with no recourse other than to reject CPC's flawed WMP.
9
C. Staff s Failed Attempts to Salvage CPC's WMP Must be Rejected
10
11
Staff, on multiple critical issues, salvages critical flaws in CPC's WMP by observing that
12 the Company has responded to Staff s concerns in response to production requests. For example
13 on page 7 the Staff criticize CPC's failure to provide numeric values for measuring targets and
14 goals in its WMP. Despite that essential flaw, staff proceeds to provide a smokescreen to cover
15
the error by observing:
16
The Company supplied numeric targets for certain programs in Response to Staff's
17 Production Request No. 3. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Company incorperate
18 all applicable targets into the WMP . . .50
19 Staff s recommendation does not remedy the flaw. The WMP must be rejected or approved.
20 The Commission is without authority to rewrite the WMP to fix CPC's flaws. Furthermore,
21
responses to Staff s production requests do not magically appear in the WMP—it is still flawed.
22
23
24
25
26 so Staff Comments at p. 7.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 28

I Staff makes the same attempt to re-write CPC's WMP to correct for fatal flaws in its
2
discussion of Metrics:
3
The Company has identified some metrics it plans to use to assess the effectiveness of
4 various WMP programs. 2026 WMP Table 8. However, the Company also provided
additional detail on measuring WMP program effectiveness in Response to Staff's
5 Production Requests Nos. 9 and 11. Staff believe these metrics—and the underlying
6 data—should be included in the WMP...51
7 But"these metrics—and the underlying data" are NOT in the WMP, despite the fact that Staff
8 Believes they "should be in the WMP." It is fundamental—if the metrics and the underlying
9
data"should be in the WMP" and they are not in the WMP then the WMP is flawed and must be
10
11 rejected. That Staff has responses to Production requests that may (or may not) contain the
12 missing data is irrelevant. Those responses are not part of CPC's WMP.
13 Staff repeated the same drill -- correct for errors and omissions in the WMP via discovery
14 requests and responses not in the record--multiple times in its comments. See Lessons learned
15
at p. 8, Risk Model Description at p. 9, Risk Areas Updates at p. 11,Method of Line Design,
16
17 System Hardening at p. 14 and Vegetation Management Training at p. 19.
18 D. Due Process Violations
19 Except under limited circumstances, the PUC Staff is precluded from engaging in
20 settlement discussions with another party in a contested case by operation of Commission Rule
21
272. Yet, the Staff relies on the information provided by CPC during such meetings to inform it
22
23
24
25
51 Id.
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 29

I recommendations—a.k.a. settle the issues. PotlatchDetlic only just learned of the Staff s
2
multiple violations of that rule by reading its comments filed today. Rule 272 provides:
3 The Commission Staff, however, is precluded from entering into an active settlement
4 without first notifying all other parties and the Commission that it intends to begin or ha
5 begun settlement negotiations. The Commission Staff must give all other parties an
opportunity to participate in or be apprised of the course of the settlement negotiations
6 before a final settlement agreement is reached.
7 According to Staff s comments it met with CPC on multiple occasions for the purpose discussing
8 substantive issues associated with CPC's filing without notifying either PotlatchDeltic or the
9
Commission that it had engaged in such negotiations. Staff met with CPC and IDL on February
10
11 23 to discuss CPC's risk modeling and "other areas of the 2026 WMp."52 Staff met with IDL on
12 May 15 to discuss IDL's concerns without notifying PotlatchDeltic or the Commission. In an
13 undated meeting Staff and CPC discussed the fact that, "the Company stated that it also had not
14 consulted with local fire experts on the results of the model. "53 Apparently as a result of that
15
meeting, Staff recommended that, "the Company should consult with local fire experts, such as the
16
local fire warden, to further refine the risk modeling output."54 In another undated meeting between
17
18 Staff and CPC the parties discussed CPC's (non-existent) PSPS program and its recloser proposals—
19 both discussions have apparently been incorporated into Staffs comments. Then on April 23, Staff
20 and CPC and IDL met to discuss vegetation management issues,the results of which are now in
21
22
23
24
25 52 Staff Comments at p. 9.
51 Id. at 11.
26 54Id.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 30

I Staff s Comments.55 Staff and CPC held discussions regarding qualitive benefits of CPC's wildfire
2 mitigation measures.56
3
All of the meetings and discussions between Staff and CPC were for the obvious purpose of
4
instructing Staff in arriving at its ultimate recommendation to approve CPC's WMP—despite the fad
5
6 that Staff s comments are replete with caveats, concerns and the identification of otherwise fatal
7 flaws with the plan. PotlatchDeltic should have been apprised of all of the meetings and discussions
8 between Staff and CPC. PotlatchDeltic should have been included in those discussions and
9 meetings. Failure to provide such basic opportunities to participate violates basic notions of due
10 process, making the validity of Staffs comments recommending approval of the WMP suspect at
11
best.
12
WHEREFORE, PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC respectfully requests the
13
14 Commission to issue its order rejecting Clearwater Power Company's Wildfire Mitigation Plan
15 without prejudice to file ubsequent, compliant, plan.
16 By:
17 Peter Richardson
Richardson Adams, PLLC
18 Attorneys for PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC
Dated this 2nd day of June 2026.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55 Staff Comments at p. 19.
26 56 Id. at p. 11.
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 31

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 2nd day of June 2026, a true and correct copy of the within
and foregoing POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING
4 REJECTION OF CLEARWATER POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION in
5
Docket No. COI-E-26-01 was served by electronic copy only, to:
6
Monica Barrios-Sanches Bob Pierce
7 Commission Secretary Chief Operating Officer
Erica Melanson Clearwater Power Company
8 Deputy Attorney General 4230 Hatwai Road
9 Idaho Public Utilities Commission Lewiston, ID 83501
PO Box 83720 rpiercenclearwatergower.com
10 Boise, ID 83720-0074
secretary:c pue.idaho.Qov
11 monica.bariossanches2puc.idaho.Qov Susan P. Weeks
12 erica.melanson:c puc.idaho.ov James, Vernon& Weeks, P.A.
1626 Lincoln Avenue
13 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
sweeks,c vwlaw.com
14 John A. Richards c
15 J.J. Winters
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
16 300 N. 61h St., Ste. 103
Boise, ID 83702
17 %wintersLWdl.idaho.gov
18 jrichardsamidl.idaho.sov
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 By: Peter J. Richardson ISB 9 3195
26
POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S COMMENTS URGING REJECTION OF CLEARWATER
27 POWER COMPANY'S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
CO 1-E-26-01
28
PAGE 32