20260630PotlatchDetic Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECE IVED
June 30, 2026
1 Peter J. Richardson IDAHO PL BLIC
515 N. 271h Street UTILITIES COMMISSION
2 Boise, Idaho 83702
3 [phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
4 peter i richardsonadains.aom
5
6 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA CASE No.: AVU-E-25-15
9 CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF THE 2026 WILDFIRE
10 MITIGATION PLAN POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS,
LLC'S PETITION FOR
ll
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO.
12 37064
13
14
I.
15 INTRODUCTION
16
PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC ("PotlatchDeltic"), pursuant to Idaho Code Section
17
61-626 and Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure ("Rule 331") of the Idaho Public Utilities
18
19 Commission("Commission"), herein lodges its Petition for Reconsideration of Commission
20 Order No. 37064 issued in the above captioned Docket. In Order No. 37064 the Commission
21 approved Avista Corporation's ("Avista" or the "Power Company") 2006 Wildfire Mitigation
22
23
24
25
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-1

I Plan("WMP")which was filed in purported compliance with the Wildfire Standard of Care Act
2 ("WSCA").'
3
4 II.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
5 OF FINAL COMMISSION ORDERS
6
Reconsideration affords parties an opportunity to bring to the Commission's attention an
7
8 matter previously determined and provides the Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake
9 before the matter is appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. Washington Water Power Co. v.
10 Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242 (1980) (citing Idaho Underground
11 Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co., 89 Idaho 147, 404 P.2d 859 (1965); Consumers Co. v.
12
Public Utilities Comm'n, 40 Idaho 772, 236 P. 732 (1925). Any person has the right to petition
13
14 for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined in a Commission order. Idaho Code §
15 61-626(1). Rule 331 explains that a petition for reconsideration:
16 must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided in it is unreasonable, unlawful,
17 erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and(b) the nature and quantity of evidence
or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.
18
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Further:
19
20 the petition. . . must state whether the petitioner. . . requests reconsideration by evidentiary
hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.
21
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.03.
22
23
24
25
'.26 Idaho Code Section 61-1801 et seq.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-2

I The Commission may grant reconsideration by reviewing the existing record, by
2 submission of briefs, memoranda, written comments, interrogatories, and statements or by
3
evidentiary hearing. Rules 331 and 332.
4
III.
5 SUMMARY OF POTLATCHDELTIC'S ARGUMENTS
6 FOR RECONSIDERATION
7 PotlatchDeltic's reconsideration petition is based on the following three arguments. First
8 The Commission exceeded the bounds of its authority by approving Avista's WMP, which the
9
Commission admits is largely for the benefit the residents of a foreign state and which is
10
11 implemented at the direct expense of Idaho residents. Second: The Commission illegally ignored
12 its obligation to incorporate the recommendations of the Idaho State Forester without the
13 requisite finding that her recommendations are unjust, unreasonable and not in the public
14 interest. Third and finally: The Commission arbitrarily and capriciously ignored and
15
disregarded substantial, competent and uncontested evidence identifying fatal flaws in Avista's
16
WMP.
17
18 It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the WSCA is not to protect the interest
19 of Avista's shareowners in securing immunity from liability for its acts that cause or contribute
20 to the ignition or spread of wildfire. The Commission's primary consideration is the rights and
21
interests of the people of the State of Idaho. The Commission neglected to recognize in Order
22
23 No. 37064 that its duty pursuant to the WSCA is to "protect Idaho residents and their property."
24 Idaho Code §61-1802.
25
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-3

1 IV.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
2
3 A. The Commission Lacks Jurisdiction to Approve a WMP for the Benefit of Washington
State Residents—at the Expense of Idaho Residents and their Property
4
In Petitioner's initial comments in this docket, PotlatchDeltic objected to approval of
5
6 Avista's WMP on the basis that it was designed to protect persons and property primarily in
7 Washington State. PotlatchDeltic's comments are uncontested and unchallenged in the record.
8 PotlatchDeltic objected to Avista's WMP, noting:
9
Avista's budget for distribution grid hardening and wood pole management in Idaho
10 reveals that there are no grid hardening activities taking place in Idaho in 2026 Avista
is asking the Commission to grant it immunity from liability for its wildfire mitigation
11 plan in Idaho which—for practical purposes, simply does not exist. The budget for grid
12 hardening and wood pole management in Idaho for 2026 is limited to engineering work
and is only$300,000. The budget (for the same time)for distribution grid hardening an
13 wood pole management in Washington State is, by way of contrast, $26,500,000 or
14 eighty-eight times larger than Idaho's budget.z
15 In its Reply, Avista offered no rebuttal or objection to the factual assertions in PotlatchDeltic's
16 critique. Instead,the Power Company argued that its Washington State ratepayers are more
17 deserving of the benefits of this aspect3 of its Idaho WMP than are Idaho residents:
18
Avista explained[4] that "High Risk Mitigated Miles" are selected based on the highest
19 average feeder wildfire risk scores, and that the feeders with the highest scores during
20 this planning period are located in dense WUI areas in Spokane County.[5] Based on
21
22
Z. PotlatchDeltic Comments at p. 7,citing to Avista's WMP at Appendix B pp 1 -2. Emphasis provided in
23 Comments.
3. Although Avista's WMP does provide other wildfire mitigation measures that encompass Idaho residents,grid
24 hardening"represents the largest capital investment in Avista's Wildfire Mitigation Plan—approximately 90%of
total wildfire related expenditures." Avista WMP at p. 19.
25 a In its Reply Comments,the Power Company referred to itself in the third person.
5.26 The Commission may take judicial notice that Spokane County is in Washington State. Rule 263(b).
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-4

I that analysis no Idaho distribution feeders ranked among the highest-riskfeeders
warranting concentration of distribution hardening during this planning cycle.6
2
3 Avista's Reply defended its plan by observing that its WMP does provide wildfire mitigation
4 measures other than grid hardening that includes Idaho residents.' Its defense is, however,
5 meaningless in light of the observation in its own WMP that:
6
Grid hardening represents the largest capital investment in Avista's Wildfire Mitigation
7 Plan—approximately 90%of total wildfire related expenditures.8
8 The math is not hard to do; the Company proposes to spend $26,800,000 on grid hardening
9
which is 90% of its entire wildfire management budget. Of that $26,800,000 only $300,000 is
10
11 spent in Idaho—and that amount is for engineering, not actual physical grid hardening. Thus,
12 under the plan approved by the Commission, no grid hardeningtakes akes place in Idaho. Despite
13 being denied the benefit of any grid hardening (or 90% of Avista's wildfire prevention dollars)
14 Idaho residents are still paying the price for Avista's WMP in the form of the loss of the right to
15
recover compensation for wildfires started or spread by Avista's facilities or activities. This
16
17 scenario is directly contrary to the mandate the WSCA placed on the PUC which is to "protect
18 Idaho residents and their property." It is blatantly unreasonable, unjust and contrary to law for
19 the Commission to approve Avista's WMP under these conditions.
20 Unlike Idaho, Washington State's wildfire mitigation statutes do not provide a shield
21
against liability for wildfire damages caused by utility facilities or actions. This difference in
22
23
24
6. Avista Reply Comments at p. 11.
25 Id.
8.26 Avista WMP at p. 19.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-5

I liability exposure may go a long way to explain why, with immunity in Idaho and no immunity
2 in Washington, well over 90% of Avista's wildfire mitigation dollars are spent in Washington
3
State where liability immunity does not exist. This not only increases the fire risk for Idahoans,
4
5
it also likely will lead to increased insurance premiums for Idahoans, at least for those who are
6 not already priced out of the insurance market as timberland owners are. To the extent the
7 WSCA is designed to avoid increases in electric rates for ratepayers,the cost of those reduced
8 electric rates is greater risk of fire, higher insurance premium costs and uncompensated damages
9
from utility caused wildfires.
10
11 PotlatchDeltic's concerns and arguments were, at least, acknowledged in the
12 Commission's final order. In that Order the Commission agreed with PotlatchDeltic that
13 Avista's WMP is a plan"largely" benefiting Washington State:
14 Though the Commission understands PotlatchDeltic's discomfort with a plan [Avista's
15 WMP] that largely focuses on mitigation efforts outside of Idaho...v
16 Incredibly, nevertheless, in the face of such evidence the Commission still approved the plan
17 stating that:
18
..we do not find that rejecting the Company's 2026 WMP on that basis [Washington State
19 focused plan] would serve the intent of the WSCA or the public interest. The WSCA
unambiguously tasks utilities with conducting a "reasonable balancing of mitigation cost
20 with the resulting reduction of wildfire risk. " Idaho Code � 61-1803(1). To that end, the
21 Company subjected its entire service territory to a risk model assessment for purposes o
prioritizing areas for mitigation activities.10
22
23
24
25 9 Order No. 37064 at p. 12.
to Id.
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-6

I The "intent of the WSCA" is to "protect Idaho residents and their property"11 —not Washington
2 residents and their property. The Commission's decision is foundationally flawed, unlawful,
3
unjust and not in Idaho's (as opposed to Washington's) public interest.
4
5 Missing from the Commission's analysis is even the barest reference to the fact that the
6 sole intended beneficiaries of the WSCA are "Idaho residents and their property."12 The WSCA
7 does not authorize the PUC to approve WMPs that are designed to benefit Spokane County,
8 Washington residents or Spokane County, Washington property. Indeed,the PUC is prohibited
9
by law from doing so. The Idaho Legislature (and the Idaho PUC by extension) may not enact
10
11 any law or issue any order that purports to govern what Avista does or does not do in
12 Washington State. According to the Idaho Supreme Court:
13 Prima facie, every statute is confined in its operation to the persons,property, rights, or
contracts, which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Legislature which enacted
14 it 13
15
The Court in In re Duncan's Death14 further explained:
16
Statutes are intended to apply and be confined in their operation to persons,
17 properties, and rights which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the law-making
18 power. One who claims the benefit of such law,for either person or property, beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the law-making power must rest such claim upon a statute
19 granting such extraterritorial right.
20 No law has any effect, of its own force beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its
21 authority is derived.
22
23
24 ". Idaho Code Section 61-1802.
12. Idaho Code Section 61-1802. Emphasis provided.
25 13 Walbridge v.Robinson,22 Idaho 236,240, 125 P. 812, 813 (1912).
26 14. 83 Idaho 254,261,360 P.2d 987,991 (1961).
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-7

I The Idaho Legislature has no legal authority to grant immunity to Avista for causing wildfires in
2 Idaho based on Avista's wildfire prevention measures taken in Washington State. Nevertheless,
3
the Commission conceded that Avista's WMP does just that in that it overwhelmingly protects
4
5
Washington State residents and their property. Yet Idaho residents are asked to pay the price—
6 in complete contravention of the intent and constitutional reach of the WSCA.
7 In sum, this is a case in which the Commission approved Avista's WMP "largely"
8 (indeed almost exclusively) based on out-of-state benefits to be paid by non-beneficiary in-state
9
residents. Payment in this instance, of course, is in the form of loss of the right to bring a
10
11 successful cause of action against Avista for wrongfully initiating or abetting a destructive
12 conflagration. This taking of Idahoan's property without corresponding compensation violates
13 fundamental due process rights in U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The Commission's extra-
14 jurisdictional action in approving Avista's WMP that"largely focuses on mitigation efforts
IS
outside of Idaho" is void ab initio as it is unconstitutional, unjust, unreasonable, not in the public
16
17 interest and beyond the jurisdictional reach of both the Idaho PUC and the Idaho Legislature. As
18 such it is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law and must be reversed on reconsideration.
19 B. The Commission Abrogated its Obligation to Incorporate the Comments of the State
Forester
20
21 1. The State Forester's Special Status Before the Commission
22 The State Forester enjoys a special and unique status in Commission proceedings to
23 consider the reasonableness of WMPs such as Avista's filing in this docket. Specifically,the
24
WSCA provides that:
25
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-8

I [I]t shall be presumed that the recommendations of the state forester, if any are provided,
2 are reasonable and appropriate. Stich recommendations shall be incorporated in the
decision of the commission unless the commission determines they are not just,
3 reasonable, and in the public interest, in which case the commission shall document its
reasoning in its order approving or rejecting the plan./5
4
5 Incorporating all uncontested recommendations made in the State Forester's comments into its
6 decision approving or rejecting Avista's WMP is not optional on the Commission's part.
7 Furthermore, even contested recommendations made by the State Forester must also be
8 incorporated into the Commission's decision unless the Commission specifically finds that they
9
are unreasonable, unjust and not in the public interest. Here, the Commission has either ignored
10
11 or rejected without justification every single one of the State Forester's relevant
12 recommendations. Each is addressed in turn below:
13 i. State Forester Objection/Recommendation No. 1
14 IDL [a.k.a. the State Forester] respectively requests that Avista provide additional
15 descriptive narrative details in their wildfire mitigation plan about the data utilized and
process that was used to produce their "risk" model.16
16
17 The State Forester did not request that the "additional descriptive narrative details" be provided
18 at some time in the future or be included in some unidentified WMP that has yet to be drafted
19 and filed. Her reference to "their wildfire mitigation plan" is a direct reference to Avista's
20 current WMP. That WMP is the subject of this docket and is the object of the State Forester's
21
concern. The State Forester's objections have not been addressed in the Commission's Order
22
23
24
25 1s Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3). Emphasis provided.
26 16. Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands at p. 1.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-9

I nor have they been found by the Commission to be unjust, unreasonable and not in the public
2 interest.
3
Instead of addressing the flaw, the Commission mischaracterized the State Forester's
4
5 objection by observing:
6 In response to IDL's recommendation that future WMP filings include narratives
describing inputs used for risk modeling, the Company represented it is currently
7 implementing an updated risk analysis methodology. . . which will include additional
details..."
8
9 The State Forester did not suggest that this flaw be held in abeyance and only addressed in
10 '!future WMP filings." In fact, the State Forester said just the opposite by observing that she is
I 1 concerned about"setting a precedent that does not "move the needle" on wildfire mitigation
12
efforts. "18 Clearly, the only way to set"a precedent"to move the needle on wildfire mitigation
13
14 efforts is to establish the precedential principle in the current plan.
15 It is not even clear from reading the Commission's ordering paragraphs whether it has
16 fully grasped the essence of the State Forester's recommendation. In an ordering paragraph at
17 the bottom of page 11 of the Commission's decision at sub-sentence#(3)the Commission
18
instructs Avista to (for future WMP submissions only) include:
19
20 (3) a detailed description of the risk modeling methodology and inputs used to determine
geographical risk areas.
21
22
23
24
25 Order No. 37064 at p. 8.
18.26 Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands at p. 1.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-10

I The State Forester's objection was not limited to risk modeling used just to determine
2 geographical risk areas. Either the Commission has missed the issue altogether or has
3
mischaracterized the State Forester's recommendation. Either way, the Commission's decision
4
5
is contrary to the record, violates the WSCA, is arbitrary and must be reversed on
6 reconsideration.
7 ii. State Forester's Objection/Recommendation No. 2
8 The State Forester complained that Avista's WMP:
9
did not provide a cost-benefit analysis for ...general mitigation categories
10
and that the failure to do so limits
11
12 understanding of the ramification of not completing mitigating activities/actions to the
utility and surrounding communities.19
13
The State Forester did not state that Avista's future WMPs should provide the missing cost-
14
15 benefit analysis. The State Forester's concern addresses the current WMP in the current docket.
16 She pointed out that: Avista's WMP "did not provide... ."20 The identified flaw is in the current
17 WMP but the Commission's Order only requires the flaw to be addressed in future WMPs
18
leaving the current filing defective.21 In order for the Commission to disregard the State
19
Forester's recommendation relative to the current WMP, it would have had to have found it to be
20
21
22
23
24
19. Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands at pp. 1—2.
25 20. Id. Emphasis provided.
26 21. Order No. 37064 at pp. 11-12 sub-sentence#(10).
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-11

I unjust, unreasonable and not in the public interest. No such findings appear in the Commission'
2 order, which renders it contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious and subject to reconsideration.
3
iii. State Forester Objection/Recommendation No. 3
4
In her recommendation No. 3, the State Forester criticized Avista's WMP for its failure
5
to:
6
include additional connection of activities to the influence of external wildfire impinging
7 on the system to clarify which actions are being taken to reduce damage for external
8 wildfire events on the system.22
9 Again, the Commission ignored the currency of the State Forester's objection to Avista's WMP
10 as filed, and instead only ordered that Avista's next WMP include "a description of actions
11 designed to reduce damage from external wildfire events. " The Commission's resolution of the
12
problem appears to be misdirected, e.g., requiring a mere "description of actions" as opposed to
13
14 creating "additional connection of activities. " Nevertheless,the Commission fails again to eithe
15 make the required findings (i.e., unjust, unreasonable and not in the public interest) or reject the
16 flawed WMP that is before it for either rejection or approval. The Commission's abrogation of
17 its obligations under the WSCA on this issue warrants reconsideration of the final order in this
18
matter.
19
20 iv. State Forester Objection/Recommendation No. 523
21 According to the State Forester, Avista's WMP is flawed because:
22
23
24
22. Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands at p.2.
25 23 Recommendation #4 is targeted at subsequent WMP's. Recommendations#6 and#7 do not relate to flaws in
Avista's WMP.
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-12

I In the [WMP] section covering inspection of vegetation, the qualifications appropriately
center around arboriculture standards.... However, IDL argues that these standards are
2 insufficient at addressing wildland fire related issues when looking at vegetation
3 mitigation as a mechanism to reduce wildfire risk. . . . IDL respectfully recommends that
the inspection qualification standards also include certification specific to wildland
4 fire.24
5 Two imperatives stand out in the State Forester's comments. First, the State Forester's finding
6
that Avista's WMP's vegetation management inspection standards are "insufficient at addressing
7
8 wildland fire related issues." This is a fatal flaw in Avista's WMP. Vegetation management is
9 obviously the key to any wildfire management plan—after all, vegetation is the fuel without
10 which there are no wildland fires. The second imperative that stands out in the State Forester's
11 recommendation is her conclusion that:
12
IDL respectfully recommends that the inspection qualification standards also include
13 certification specific to wildland fire."
14 While deferential and respectful, the State Forester's recommendation is neither optional nor
15
ambiguous —Avista's WMP is "insufficient at addressing wildland fire issues." The only way
16
17 to fix that flaw is to include "certification specific to wildland fire" with respect to vegetation
18 management.
19 As noted above,the Commission is required, by law, to incorporate the State Forester's
20 recommendation in its order. If the Commission does not do so, it must make a finding that the
21
State Forester's recommendation is unjust, unreasonable and not in the public interest. Idaho
22
23
24
25 24. Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands, at p.2.
21. Id.
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-13

I Code Section 61-1804(3) is unequivocal on these points. The Commission has made no such
2 findings and hence the State Forester's recommendations must be implemented by the
3
Commission.
4
5 Here, the Commission's decision making is muddied by the fact that its Staff s
6 Comments mischaracterize the State Forester's objections. Then, compounding the problem, the
7 Commission's Order cites to the Staff s mischaracterization to support its findings. Regardless,
8 there is no record upon which the Commission may reject the State Forester's recommendation
9
No. 5. According to Staff, the State Forester merely:
10
[R]ecommended the Company consider adding standards specific to wildland fire to
11 training and certification required for personnel doing vegetation management work.
12
Staff then stated it:
13
agrees with IDL that the Company should consider adding standards specific to wildland
14
fire... .26
15
16 Yet IDL (the State Forester) did not recommend merely that Avista consider adding standards—
17 she asserted that, "these [existing] standards [in Avista's WMP] are insufficient at addressing
18
wildland fire related issues" and recommended that "the inspection qualification standards also
19
20 include certification specific to wildland fire. "Z7 The State Forester did not equivocate in her
21 conclusion that inspection qualification standards must also include certification specific to
22
23
24
25 zb. Staff Comments at p.20.
26 27. Comments of the State Forester filed by the Idaho Department of Lands,at p.2.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-14

I wildland fire. Nowhere in her comments did the State Forester recommend that Avista merely
2 consider whether or not these standards are appropriate. She prefaced her recommendation with
3
the factual statement that Avista's current standards are "insufficient at addressing wildland fire
4
risk. ,21
5
6 In discussing the somewhat muddied record noted above, the Commission made the
7 remarkable statement in its Order that:
8 While the Commission is unopposed to IDL's [the State Forester]position that vegetatio
9 inspection practices and certification standards should address conditions specific to
wildfire risks, without further elaboration of the additional requirements envisioned by
10 IDL, we lack the basis to impose rigid obligations on the Company in excess of,and
possibly contrary to, what IDL acknowledge are established industry standards.29
11
12 The Commission's conclusion that it lacks the basis to impose rigid obligations on the Company
13 in excess of or contrary to industry standards is not supported in the record nor is it supported by
14 the terms of the WSCA. The Commission, in fact, is legally required to impose those obligation
15
(rigid or otherwise) if they are recommended by the State Forester. The only exception is when
16
17 the Commission makes the specific findings that the recommendations of the State Forester are
18 unjust, unreasonable and not in the public interest. No such findings have been made by the
19 Commission on this, or any other issue, in this docket.
20 The Commission is obligated to reject Avista's WMP based on its failure to find any of
21
the State Forester's recommendations as unjust, unreasonable and not in the public interest. All
22
23
24
25 28. Id.
26 29. Order No. 37064 at p. 12.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-15

I of the State Forester's recommendations are based on her findings that identified flaws needing
2 to be corrected in a WMP for it to meet the requirements of the WSCA. Therefore, the
3
Commission's Order approving the WMP is unreasonable, contrary to law and must be
4
reconsidered.
5
6 C. The Commission Ismores Uncontested Competent Evidence as to the Unreasonableness
of Avista's WMP
7
8 In approving Avista's WMP the Commission ignored or substantially mischaracterized
9 uncontested evidence as to several essential elements of its WMP that are either completely
10 missing or substantially lacking. It is fundamental that Commission orders must be supported
11 by substantial evidence. In addition, a Commission order cannot be based on evidence which
12
clearly does not support it.30 As explained in detail below,these failures by the Commission to
13
14 harmonize its Order and findings of fact with the evidence on the record make the Order illegal
15 and not in conformance with the law and therefore subject to reconsideration. According to the
16 Idaho Supreme Court:
17 [E]mbraced within ... the determination of the question as to whether it has regularly
18 pursued its authority, the findings of the commission must be based upon substantial
evidence; its findings not thus supported, or which are contrary to the evidence, cannot
19 be accepted by the court as a basis for upholding the conclusions of the commission.31
20
21
22
23
24
25 30 Applications of Intermountain Gas Co., 77 Idaho 188,202,289 P.2d 933,942(1955).
31 Id.
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-16

I Order 37064 contains multiple instances of the Commission having disregarded or misleadingly
2 revised uncontested evidence as to fatal flaws in Avista's WMP.32
3
For example, the Commission makes the following finding at p. 5:
4
Staff also believed that the WMP should include documentation of deficiencies found
5 through inspection and information regarding corrections.
6
Contrary to the implication inherent in the Commission's finding,the Staff did not use the
7
ambiguous phrase "should include" in the non-imperative sense. Instead, Staff s use of the
8
9 phrase "should include" is in the context of describing a critical flaw in Avista's WMP. Staff s
10 full statement on this topic provides:
11 The Company should identify deficiencies through its inspections and other related
12 activities. Monitoring and correcting inspection deficiencies according to their
respective priority is essential to protect safety and system reliability because a growing
13 backlog signals that additional resources or process changes are needed to keep risk
14 from escalating.escalating."
15 The use of the word"essential" was not accidental. Staff s Comments explain why this
16 information is essential and also explain the consequences of Avista's failure to include this
17 "essential" information in its WMP: to wit"a growing backlog signals that additional resources
18
are needed. "
19
20
This missing essential element in Avista's WMP is a compulsory element, the lack of
21 which renders the WMP fatally flawed. Thus, the Staff used the phrase "should include" in its
22
23
24
32. This legal standard is equally applicable to the flaws in the plan noted by the State Forester in the preceeding
25 section.
26 ss Staff Comments at p. 17. Emphasis provided.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-17

I imperative context. It must therefore be read as such along with the description of the flaw that
2 must be remedied as in: "you should pay your electric bill if you don't want service terminated"
3
or"you should pay your taxes." The Commission's dismissive characterization of the Staff s
4
observation that"Staff also believed that Avista should" alters its meaning by implying that
5
6 Staff s use of the word"should"was optional and not"essential to protect safety" as clearly
7 articulated in Staff s comments.
8 Thus, the Commission's finding that Avista's WMP is in the public interest and that it
9
serves the interests of the WSCA is contrary to the uncontested evidence offered by its own Staff
10
that, in fact, the PM is lacking an essential element that is necessary to protect "safety and
11 W
12 system reliability." For this reason, the Commission has not"regularly pursued its authority"
13 and its decision must be reversed on reconsideration.
14 Next, Staff criticizes the WMP's failure to include Quality Assurance Programs in two
15
separate sections of its Comments. First, Staff notes that an overall Quality Assurance program
16
17 is, as with Deficiency Monitoring, an essential,yet missing aspect of Avista's WMP. According
18 to Staff:
19 Similarly, a Quality Assurance (QA)program is essential because it verifies that
complete corrective work truly resolves the identified issue, ensuring safety, reliability,
20 and accountability in the utility's maintenance practices. Staff believes the Company
21 should describe the QA process for each inspection program in future WMP filings."
22
23
24
25
26 34. Staff Comments at p. 17.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-18

I Despite the fact that Quality Assurance programs are "essential," none are included in Avista's
2 WMP. Staff also identified a vegetation management"quality assurance program" as a missing
3
essential element of the WMP. Staff specifically called out the lack of a Quality Assurance
4
5
program for vegetation management and complained that this essential element of the WMP is
6 also missing:
7 Staff believes a [vegetation management] QA program is essential, as it verifies that
corrective work truly resolves the identified issue, ensuring safety, reliability, and
8 accountability. . .however it was not included within its WMP.35
9
Despite the fact that its Staff s Comments identified two separate QA programs as crucial
10
I missing ("essential") elements of Avista's WMP, the Commission ignored that fact and merely
12 observed that:
13 Staff recommended that the Company describe its vegetation management quality
14 assurance program in future WMP filings.
15 Yet, Staff did more than merely "recommend"that the QA program be described in future WMP
16 filings. It said that including that program is essential in this WMP and concluded that it was
17 missing. It is arbitrary for the Commission to ignore the key point made by its Staff—that
18
"essential" elements of this WMP are missing. An essential element in a WMP is an element
19
20
that should(in the imperative sense of the word) be included—period. It is not an optional or
21 elective element of the WMP. There is nothing in the record to support the Commission's
22 refusal to reject Avista's WMP based on its Staffs offered(and uncontested) evidence that
23
24
25
3s 26 Staff Comments at p. 19.
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-19

I Avista's plan is missing essential elements. Refusing to do so is arbitrary and unreasonable and
2 should be reconsidered.
3
Kicking the can down the road—i.e., ignoring essential flaws in this WMP filing in the
4
5 hope that at some time in the future those flaws will be addressed—is an abrogation of the
6 Commission's obligation to protect the public interest. Ignoring the fact that Avista's current
7 WMP has multiple essential (fatal) flaws is arbitrary, unsupported by the record and is capricious
8 -in short it is not in conformity with the law and must be corrected on reconsideration.
9
V.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, PotlatchDeltic Forest Holdings, LLC
12
respectfully requests the Commission grant reconsideration of its decision in Order No. 37064.
13
14 PotlatchDeltic requests reconsideration by written briefs and oral argument on the same.
15 PotlatchDeltic is, however, prepared to pursue reconsideration by whatever method the
16 Commission deems appropriate. The nature and quality of evidence PotlatchDeltic will offer on
17 reconsideration have been briefed infra.
18
Dated this 301h day of June 2026. O
19
Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-20

I
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 301" day of June 2026, a true and correct copy of the within
2 and foregoing POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR
3 RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 37064 CASE NO. AVU-E-2-15 was served by
electronic copy only, to:
4
5 Monica Barrios-Sanchez
6 Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
7 \/Ioiiica.barriossancliezlii.PLIC.i(lalio.gov
secretaryqZ,,puc.idaho.pov
8
9 Jeff Loll
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
to jeff.loll(@.puc.idaho.gov
11 Anni Glogovac
12 Avista Corporation
Anni.aloizovac'c%:avistacorp.com
13 Avistadockets c avistacorp.com
14 Elizabeth Andrews
15 Sr. Mgr. Revenue Requirements
Avista Corporation
16 Liz andrews(cDavistacorp.com
17 John A. Richards
18 J.J. Winters
Idaho Department of Lands
19 lwinters4iJd1.idaho&l
20 jichards c idl.idaho.gov
21
By:
22 Peter J. Richard on ISB # 3195
23
24
25
26
27 POTLATCHDELTIC FOREST HOLDINGS, LLC'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 37064 - IPUC DOCKET NO. AVU-E-25-15
28
-21