Response to Petition for Reconsideration.tif

IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY’S 2025 VARIABLE ENERGY
RESOURCE INTEGRATION STUDY AND
PROPOSED UPDATE TO SCHEDULE 87
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-25-36
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S
ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS,
LLC’S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) pursuant to
Idaho Code § 61-626 and Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (“Commission”) Rule of
Procedure1 331.05, hereby submits this answer to the Petition filed on July 16, 2026, by
Idaho Winds, LLC (“Idaho Winds” or “Petitioner”) requesting reconsideration of
Commission Order No. 37076.
Idaho Winds’ Petition for Reconsideration should be dismissed as it fails to
demonstrate that Commission Order No. 37076 is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or
not conformity with the law. Procedural Rule 333.01. As more fully discussed below,
Commission Order No. 37076 in this matter is supported by substantial, competent
evidence in the record, and the Commission properly exercised and regularly pursued its
1 Hereinafter cited as Procedural Rule.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
authority in its determinations. Consequently, there is no basis for reconsideration of the
Commission’s final determination in Order No. 37076.
I. BACKGROUND
1. The instant case was initiated when Idaho Power filed its 2025 Variable
Energy Resource (“VER”) Integration Study (“2025 VER Study”) and proposed update to
Schedule 87, Intermittent Generation Integration Charges (“Schedule 87”) on December
26, 2025, in compliance with Order No. 36661 issued in Case No. IPC-E-25-07.
2. On April 13, 2026, Idaho Winds submitted comments in this case
recommending that the Commission direct Idaho Power to update the Base Portfolio used
in its 2025 VER Study to account for resource changes of high certainty that have
occurred since issuance of the latest Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”). Additionally,
Idaho Winds requested that the Commission direct Idaho Power to set integration charges
for renewing2 qualifying facilities (“QFs”) based on their original online date and
technology type or, if determined to be unfeasible for every QF, establish a single rate for
renewing QFs based on the average integration costs of the Base Portfolio.3 Until these
issues are addressed, Idaho Winds requested the Commission not approve the
Company’s 2025 VER Study.4
3. On April 16, 2026, Commission Staff (“Staff”) issued their comments in this
case. Staff recommended that the Commission acknowledge the Company’s compliance
with Order No. 36661, direct Idaho Power to file an updated Schedule 87 through a
2 Idaho Power notes that Idaho Winds uses different terminology than the Company in discussing a QF
entering into another contract upon the expiration of its existing contract. While Idaho Winds uses the term
“renew,” Idaho Power uses the term “replace” to describe this concept, as the new contract that is entered
into is not a “renewal” of the prior contract, it is a new contract with new applicable rates, terms, and
conditions.
3 Idaho Winds’ Comments at 7 (Apr. 13, 2026).
4 Id., at 1.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
compliance filing to reflect certain updates proposed by Staff, and have the Company
work with Staff as part of its next VER Study to analyze or address other identified issues.5
4. On April 30, 2026, the Company submitted its reply comments in this case,
agreeing with Staff’s recommendations that the Company file an updated Schedule 87
reflecting certain items noted in Staff’s comments and to work with Staff to address the
other issues contained within their comments prior to submitting its next VER Study.6 The
Company also acknowledged the concerns raised by Idaho Winds, but noted that
updating the Base Portfolio to reflect resource changes of high certainty was not feasible
given completion of the VER Study and associated analyses, despite utilizing unmodified
IRP outputs, currently requires the full six-month timeframe provided by Order No. 36661.
Finally, while the Company agreed with Idaho Winds that the percentage of replacement
QFs considered within the VER Study’s Base Portfolio has the potential to result in a
“double counting” of integration costs, Idaho Power noted that no QF projects’ contracts
were expected to expire prior to the next integration charge update and that the Company
intended to address the issue of whether forecasted QFs should be included in the Base
Portfolio through its work with Staff ahead of developing its next VER Study.7
5. On June 25, 2026, the Commission issued Order No. 37076, which, in
pertinent part, approved Schedule 87 with the modifications recommended by Staff;
ordered the Company to work with Staff prior to the next VER Study to analyze or address
the issues citied in Staff’s comments; and directed the Company to discuss with interested
parties, prior to its next VER Study, the VERs included in the Base Portfolio in the 2025
5 Staff Comments at 1-2 (Apr. 16, 2026).
6 Idaho Power Reply Comments at 6 (Apr. 30, 2026).
7 Id., at 5.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
VER Study, the Company’s method of calculating the base integration charges for
renewal QFs, and the issue of including forecasted QFs in the 2025 VER Study Base
Portfolio.
II. IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
6. The Petitioner requests the Commission reconsider Order No. 37076 and
address “[e]rrors with how Schedule 87 Integration Charges have been derived in the
2025 VER Study now rather than waiting for the next VER Study two years from now.”8
Idaho Winds also requests the Commission, “issue an order stating that renewal QFs
should not be required to pay the same Integration Charges as new QFs and approve
Idaho Winds’ proposed methodology for setting the integration charge for renewing QFs
based on the precedent set in Order 33357 regarding capacity payments for renewal
QFs.”9
III. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
7. At the outset, Idaho Winds fails to raise any new arguments in its Petition
and requests the same relief requested within its comments submitted on April 13, 2026,
and considered by the Commission when issuing Order No. 37076. Idaho Winds also
claims its argument that renewal QFs should pay Integration Charges based on their
original online date has not been formally addressed by the Commission.10 However, the
Commission has in fact addressed this issue by not only referencing this specific concern
when summarizing Idaho Winds’ opening comments,11 but also through its directive that
the Company:
8 Idaho Winds’ Petition for Reconsideration at 1-2 (Jul. 16, 2026).
9 Id., at 6.
10 Id., at 2.
11 Order No. 37076, at 5.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
“discuss with interested parties the VERs included in
the base portfolio in the 2025 VER Study, the
Company’s method of calculating the base
integration charges for renewal QFs, and the issue
of including forecasted QFs in the 2025 VER Study
base portfolio prior to the next VER Study (emphasis
added)”12
As previously discussed within the Company’s Reply Comments, replacement QF
contracts are, in effect, new contracts that should be subject to the applicable Schedule
87 integration charges at the time they are negotiated. While the Company looks forward
to further discussing this issue with interested parties ahead of submitting its next VER
Study, Idaho Power believes its approach of assessing current integration charges at the
time each QF project renegotiates its Energy Sales Agreement (“ESA”) is consistent with
the Commission’s rationale concerning the adjustment of avoided cost rates. Specifically,
within Order No. 33357 the Commission stated, “[b]y adjusting avoided cost rates more
frequently, avoided costs become a truer reflection of the actual costs avoided by the
utility and allow QFs and ratepayers to benefit from normal fluctuations in the market.” As
such, the Company’s practice of updating integration costs during replacement ESA
negotiations to reflect then-current system conditions and avoided costs helps ensure that
similar benefits are realized by both QFs and customers.
8. While the Company agrees with Idaho Winds that the percentage of
replacement QFs considered within the VER Study’s Base Portfolio has the potential to
result in a “double counting” of integration costs, this possible issue arises because of the
VER Study’s utilization of unmodified IRP-outputs and a requirement to include a non-
12 Id., at 8.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
zero QF contract renegotiation rate modeling assumption in the Preferred Portfolio during
the Company’s IRP process. Recognizing the VER Study’s reliance on the IRP’s
Preferred Portfolio, Order No. 37076 appropriately requires that the Company first discuss
with interested parties the VERs included in the VER Study’s Base Portfolio. The outcome
of such discussions will then inform assumptions included within Idaho Power’s 2027 IRP,
which the Company anticipates filing in June 2027.
9. In its Petition, Idaho Winds indicates it is currently in negotiations with Idaho
Power for a replacement ESA for its QF and that any inaccuracies in the calculation of
Schedule 87’s integration charges using the 2025 VER Study will directly impact the rates
paid to Idaho Winds through such QF’s replacement ESA, and that waiting until the next
VER Study to correct any such issues will lead to unjust and unreasonable rates. It is
important to note, however, that the existing ESA between Idaho Power and Idaho Winds
will not expire until 2031. Although Idaho Winds did request – and the Company has
provided – a Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act Indicative Pricing Proposal for their QF,
any decision by Idaho Winds to negotiate a replacement ESA for their QF prior to the
current contract’s expiration in 2031, to which the integration charges approved through
this proceeding would apply, is voluntary and entirely at Idaho Winds’ discretion.
Moreover, the Company expects to address the concerns raised by Idaho Winds and
Staff regarding the inclusion of forecasted QFs within VER Studies’ Base Portfolios prior
to developing its 2027 VER Study. To the extent Idaho Winds believes that the integration
charges derived from the Company’s 2025 VER Study will result in a material cost impact,
Idaho Winds may elect to defer negotiations for a replacement ESA until after the
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
Company completes its 2027 or 2029 VER Studies and associated Schedule 87
integration charge updates.
10. In consideration of the foregoing, Idaho Power believes the Commission’s
order requiring that the Company discuss with interested parties the VERs included in the
Base Portfolio in the 2025 VER Study, the Company’s method of calculating the base
integration charges for renewal QFs, and the issue of including forecasted QFs in the
2025 VER Study Base Portfolio prior to the next VER Study13 is just and reasonable and
conforms with the law.
IV. CONCLUSION
11. Idaho Winds’ Petition for Reconsideration should be dismissed as it fails to
comply with Procedural Rule 331. The Commission’s Order No. 37076 in this matter is
supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record, and the Commission properly
exercised and regularly pursued its authority in its determinations. Consequently, there is
no basis for reconsideration of the Commission’s final determination in Order No. 37076.
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of July 2026.
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
13 Order No. 37076 at 8.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER TO IDAHO WINDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of July 2026, I served a true and correct
copy of Idaho Power Company’s Answer to Idaho Winds, LLC’s Petition for
Reconsideration upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and
addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Erika K. Melanson
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg No. 8
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
FTP Site
X Email
[e-mail]
Idaho Winds, LLC
Irion Sanger
Sanger Greene PC
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, OR 97214
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
FTP Site
X Email
[e-mail]
Adam Rabin
Idaho Winds, LLC
5420 West Wicher Road
Glenns Ferry, ID 83623
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
FTP Site
X Email
[e-mail]
Stacy Gust
Regulatory Administrative Assistant