20260731Comments_18.pdf

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Iny Day-Truppi
Submission Time: Jul 30 2026 4:05PM
Email: my day [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 631 Halley Dr
Haney, ID 83333
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "We urge the IPC to DENY Idaho Power's request for new natural gas power
plants anywhere is Idaho but specifically near Mountain Home or Twin Falls. No more
energy"solutions" based on fossil fuels which are costly both to the environment and to our
citizens. Concentrate on energy solutions that keep our air and water and natural lands
clean. Just say NO to new fossil fuel projects. Respectfully submitted by Iny Day-Truppi,
part of an eight-generation southern Idaho family with now-hundreds of Idaho voters."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:Adam Richens
Submission Time: Jul 30 2026 4:11 PM
Email: adam(a)arichens.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 16967 N Wessex Ln
Nampa, ID 83687
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I'm writing as a Boise/Nampa-based engineer to comment on Idaho Power's
applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the South Hills (222
MW, Twin Falls County) and Peregrine (430 MW, Elmore County) natural gas plants,
targeted for commercial operation in 2029 and 2030 respectively.
My concern here isn't primarily about combustion emissions. I suspect those concerns will
already have a significant number of public comments. My purpose here is to raise
concerns about capital allocation and long-term ratepayer risk,viewed as a straightforward
levelized-cost problem.
Utility-scale solar and wind, especially paired with battery storage, are already at or below
the levelized cost of new natural gas generation in the Mountain West, even before
factoring in gas price volatility and fuel-supply risk. That cost gap has been widening for
over a decade, and every credible forecast (NREL's Annual Technology Baseline, Lazard's
1

LCOE analysis, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook) shows it continuing to widen through 2030, as
solar, wind, and storage costs keep falling while gas turbine capex and fuel costs either
hold flat (unlikely) or climb.
South Hills and Peregrine won't come online until 2029 and 2030. By the time they're
operating, they'll be competing against a generation mix where the clean alternatives are
cheaper still, over a 30-40 year asset life stretching toward 2060-2070.That's a long
amortization schedule to commit to a technology that's already the costlier option today.
Ratepayers, not shareholders, ultimately absorb the downside if these plants end up
underutilized as peaking assets, or if future fuel price shocks or carbon policy push their
economics further out of line.
I recognize the case made for gas: it's dispatchable on demand in a way that wind and solar
alone aren't, and it can ramp quickly to cover shortfalls. The comparison Idaho Power
should be asked to justify isn't"gas vs. no new capacity"—it's gas vs. a solar-plus-storage-
plus-wind portfolio sized to the same firm capacity and reliability requirement. Storage is
increasingly filling that dispatchability role at falling cost, and that comparison, done
rigorously, is the one that should decide this case.
None of this requires taking a position on climate policy, although in an ideal evaluation,
that would be a major consideration as well. It's a financial planning question: is it prudent
to commit Idaho ratepayers to four decades of cost recovery on generation technology
that's already priced out of the market, and will be more so by the time it comes online?
Building these plants now is a bet against a cost trend that has been remarkably consistent
for over a decade and Idaho, not Idaho Power's shareholders, holds the bag if that bet is
wrong.
I'd ask the Commission to require Idaho Power to present a transparent, apples-to-apples
levelized-cost comparison of these gas plants against a renewables-plus-storage
alternative sized to the same capacity and reliability need, including full fuel-price risk,
before approving these CPCNs. I don't believe that comparison has been made
transparently here, and Idaho ratepayers deserve to see it before this level of long-term
capital commitment is locked in."
Thank you for your consideration.
Adam Richens
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

From: Laurie Paine <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2026 11:26 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I am a 30 year resident of Boise and I raised my two kids here. Great value, the great
outdoors, clean air and rivers and protected land for all kinds of outdoor fun. I need to do
the right things to keep what we have and adding gas plants is not it. My son has asthma
and has to leave the house the past five days in a wildfire smoke.We don't need more
pollution. We need more green energy options.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
Laurie Paine
3193 S Rookery Ln Apt 2
Boise, ID 83706
[e-mail]
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

From: Isabelle Young<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 12:08 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Please focus on more sustainable energy! I'd love nuclear! A well-maintained and
constructed nuclear power plant outclasses any gas plant- providing cleaner, safer, and
healthier energy. Not only that but it would provide higher paying jobs with stronger safety
measures.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
Isabelle Young
11163 W Netherland Dr
Boise, ID 83709
1 isabelleyoung1 C«bgmail.com
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Andrew Byde
Submission Time: Jul 30 2026 5:15PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 14011 N Rainy Pl
Boise, ID 83714-2304
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "Dear Commissioners:
I support Idaho Power's application for the South Hills and Peregrine natural gas power
plants. Idaho's population and economy continue to grow, and our electrical system must
have enough dependable generation to serve homes, farms, businesses and critical
infrastructure during periods of peak demand and extreme weather.
The proposed plants will provide up to 652 megawatts of dispatchable generation
beginning in 2029 and 2030 using modern, efficient natural gas technology.These facilities
represent a practical, cost-effective investment that will help keep electricity affordable
while providing the reliability that Idaho families and businesses depend on. Compared to
older fossil-fuel generation, modern natural gas plants have significantly lower emissions
and produce large amounts of electricity from a relatively small physical footprint.
Wind and solar have an important role in Idaho's energy mix, but they are intermittent
resources that cannot produce electricity on demand. When the wind is not blowing or the
sun is not shining, the grid must rely on dispatchable generation or expensive backup
resources. As renewable penetration increases, additional transmission, storage and
backup generation are required to maintain reliability, adding costs that are ultimately
borne by customers.
Idaho should also learn from the experience of other states that have relied more heavily
on intermittent renewable generation. Many now pay substantially higher electricity rates
while continuing to depend on natural gas and other dispatchable resources to maintain
grid reliability. Idaho has long benefited from affordable, reliable electricity, and these
projects will help preserve that advantage rather than risking the higher costs and reliability
challenges experienced elsewhere.
A reliable electrical system requires a balanced portfolio of hydroelectric power,
renewables, conservation, storage and dependable dispatchable generation.The South
Hills and Peregrine projects provide that balance by delivering clean, reliable and
affordable electricity when Idahoans need it most. For example, Idaho's average residential
5

electricity rates area pproxi mate ly one-third of California's, demonstrating the importance
of maintaining an energy policy that prioritizes reliable, cost-effective generation while
avoiding the significant costs associated with overreliance on intermittent resources.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to approve Idaho Power's
application."
Sincerely,
Andrew Byde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Christina Oliver
Submission Time: Jul 30 2026 6:18PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1928 E F St
Moscow, ID 83844
Name of Utility Company: Avista
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I'm requesting Idaho Public Utilities Commission to deny IPC's request for
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity(case number IPC-E-26-04)for the
Peregrine and South Hills methane power plants.
Instead of gambling on gas plants during an accelerating energy transition, IPC could
increase investments in implementing solutions such as improved customer energy
efficiency and load flexibility, rooftop solar electricity generation, and battery power
storage:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Luke Oliver
Submission Time: Jul 30 2026 6:18PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1928 east f street
Moscow, ID 83843
Name of Utility Company: Avista
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "There's nothing positive about these gas plants. They're expensive, risky, dirty,
and unnecessary. Idaho Power should invest in real energy solutions that actually benefit
6

our state. And the Idaho Public Utilities Commission needs to do its job by holding Idaho
Power accountable and saying no to these gas plants.
In this day and age—with advancements in alternative energy sources that have led to low
costs, fast installations, and reliable performance—it would be truly laughable to invest in
building old-fashioned gas-fired power plants.These plants would require building new gas
pipelines in Idaho,waiting years to secure the right equipment, and locking us into paying
volatile gas prices for decades to come. Not to mention adding even more air pollution at a
time when Idahoans are already struggling to breathe.
Idaho Power can always increase investments in proven strategies for helping our state use
energy in smarter ways. Large-scale approaches, like requiring data centers and other
industries to use energy at specific times of day and build their own energy sources; along
with system-wide programs like Idaho Power's Irrigation Peak Rewards and A/C Cool
Credit, which save as much energy as a gas plant could produce. If Idaho Power expanded
these strategies, it could help avoid building new power plants and support Idahoans with
more efficient facilities and lower power costs. These are Idaho-based investments that
benefit Idaho's economy. Gas plants just funnel money to out-of-state gas companies.
if Idaho Power really needs more electricity sources, it can choose to build solar
infrastructure and battery plants instead of gas plants. Idaho Power's forecasts show that it
primarily needs extra power during peak hours of high demand, when everyone is running
their A/C, irrigation, and businesses during the heat of the summer. Batteries offer the
same quick-ramping power capabilities as gas plants, but without the need to rely on a
risky, pricey and polluting fuel source, and Idaho Power's own bids show that costs for new
battery projects are on par with new gas plants. Especially with a public commitment to be
coal- and gas-free in less than 20 years, Idaho Power's choice to invest in new gas
infrastructure instead of clean energy sources is baffling.
In short, it's clear that Idaho Power's new gas plants are not in the public interest, and our
state's PUC should deny their approval."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Thomas Koto <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 7:41 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Please reject Idaho Power's proposal for gas plants in Idaho to meet anticipated energy
needs for Al centers. Idahoans shouldn't shoulder the costs for these projects. Burning
more fossil fuels fails on so many levels. We are experiencing increasing negative effects
from climate change and these plants and data centers will significantly contribute.
Thank you for your consideration
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
7

It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
Thomas Koto
3920 Esten Ave
Boise, ID 83703
tkoto78@ maiL.com
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at member.care(asierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Tabot Tietjen
Submission Time: Jul 31 2026 10:28AM
Email: ttietjen515 gmaiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2712 S Perrault Way
Boise, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of
new gas power plants in Idaho. As a resident of Boise, I am deeply concerned about the
environmental, economic, and public health impacts of relying on fossil fuels like gas.
Instead, I urge you to prioritize investments in wind, solar, and battery energy storage as
sustainable, cost-effective, and forward-thinking solutions for our energy needs.
I urge you to:
8

Reject proposals for new gas power plants and instead support policies that prioritize
wind, solar, and battery storage.
Invest in community-led renewable energy projects, ensuring that local voices and
benefits are centered.
Accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy by setting ambitious, enforceable targets
for renewable energy adoption.
The future of energy is renewable, and the time to act is now. I stand ready to support
efforts that align with this vision and hope you will join me in advocating for a sustainable
energy future for Idaho.
Thank you for your time and consideration:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Gene McGill
Submission Time: Jul 31 2026 10:46AM
Email: geneemcgill abgmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2430 W Cherry Lane
Boise, ID 83705
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I believe that Idaho Power's proposed new gas power plants are not in the
public interest. There are alternative clean energy power solutions that should be
implemented before building power plants that require burning fossil fuels that create
more carbon dioxide pollution. I would suggest the proposal to build new gas power paints
is in direct conflict with the stated goal to reduce and eventually elimiate fossil fuel
generated electrity. Idaho Power should investigate alternative power conservation and
storage solutions before investing in expensive capital projects that will significantly raise
the rates for all of it's customers and add to green house gas climate issues. Idaho Power's
justication for building new gas plants is to meet future demand coming from Big Tech, like
new data centers and Micron. Rather than impose higher costs for all rate payers, Big Tech
should be required to create their own power solutions as part of the return on investment
analysis used to justify their expansion plans. Please encourage Idaho Power to go in a
different direction that building new gas power plants. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9

From: Olivia Meister<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 11:24 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Please please please invest in clean energy for your people.The air is already so smoky and
polluted, imagining that mixed with pollution from two gas plants in our state makes me
sick. Please don't do this to the people and wildlife who live here.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
Olivia Meister
6674 W IRVING ST
Boise, ID 83704
[e-mail]
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: John Freeman
Submission Time: Jul 31 2026 11:49AM
Email: John [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9209 w Brogan Dr
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I am not in favor of building further natural gas plants. We need to focus on
building cleaner energy sources and regulating the power use of things like Al data centers
instead.The last thing Idaho needs right now is the higher temperatures brought by
greenhouse gases. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Laurie Kuntz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 1:17 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Given the hazardous air quality from wildfires that idahoans have been enduring for weeks
every summer now, including right now, we absolutely need to move away from fossil fuels.
Idaho power should be focusing on solar and wind power plants, not gas powered.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
11

Sincerely,
Laurie Kuntz
516 N MCCOY BRIDGE RD
MOUNTAIN HOME, ID 83647
Laurie [e-mail]
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:wyatt striefel<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 1:37 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Everything is on fire and there was no snow, we don't need more emissions. Your
grandchildren will have to live through the future you are deciding on.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
wyatt striefel
22327 BIG LOON WAY
Caldwell, ID 83607
wjstriefel@outlool<.com
12

[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at member.careCa)sierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nancy Kuntz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 2:51 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I firmly believe that we should not do gas powered plans, as solar power is more
sustainable and better for the environment in the long run. Idaho has perfect weather for
Lots of solar energy.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kuntz
2808 Gold Haven
Caldwell, ID 83605
[e-mail]
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
13

associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:jp jordan
Submission Time: Jul 31 2026 2:45PM
Email: iiordan(a-)eltech.net
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5846 s orchid way
boise, id 83716
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-26-04
Comment: "I had to check the calender. New power that's not renewable? Concerning this
is even on the table when there are so many better options than NG."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kylee Kerr<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 4:49 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 Gas Plants Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I've lived her mywhole and have personally witnessed our environment's slow
deterioration. Do the right thing and do not aid in that process. Let us have the clean Idaho
we a ll love.
Please reject Idaho Power's request to construct two new gas plants in southern Idaho.
These gas plants are expensive and risky, with fluctuating and increasing fuel costs into the
future, and are simply not in the public interest.
It is not certain that Idaho Power needs to build these plants as they rely on an uncertain
forecast of energy demands in 2030.
It is unclear Idaho Power can actually operate these gas plants because the pipelines are
full and building new lines is outside of the Company's power to control the timeline or
costs.
Battery storage is more affordable, keeps energy dollars in-state instead of importing gas
supplies, is quick to install, and does not pollute our air. Please put the onus on Big Tech to
build their own expensive energy facilities, and tell Idaho Power to focus on building
affordable, clean, and stable energy projects that don't pollute our air and raise our bills.
14

Sincerely,
Kylee Kerr
7255 w colonial st
boise, ID 83709
koolkmk11 @gmail.com
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual
associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at
Sierra Club at member.care(c-Osierraclub.org or [phone].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15

From: Steve Hubble <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 4:43 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-26-04 - City of Boise Public Comment
Please see the attached comments from the City of Boise in response to IPC-E-26-04.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Hubble
B O I S E Climate Action Senior Manager
T Public Works
Office: [phone]
shubble(&cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
cityofboise.org

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
B O I S E MAYOR: Lauren McLean I DIRECTOR: Stephan Burgos
C 1 T V O F T R F,F.S
Submitted Electronically
July 31, 2026
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
SUBJECT: IPC-E-26-04; City of Boise Public Comment
The City of Boise ("City") appreciates the opportunity to comment on docket IPC-E-26-
04 regarding a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the proposed
Peregrine and South Hills natural gas facilities. While the City acknowledges the
challenges Idaho Power faces with additional generation needed to address load
growth, the proposed natural gas addition puts both the City's clean electricity/climate
goals and Idaho Power's goal of 100% clean electricity by 2045 at risk.
Idaho Power's 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) identified the inclusion of 550MW of
new natural gas capacity in the Preferred Portfolio. With city participation in the prior
IRP Advisory Committee, we have frequently advocated for the inclusion of additional
risk analysis with Idaho Power's long-term resource planning, as reflected in our
comments submitted with IPC-E-25-23 ("Idaho Power Company's 2025 IRP"). It is
possible, with the inclusion of this additional risk analysis, that the 2025 IRP may not have
selected natural gas facilities to be the lowest cost, lowest risk generation resources.
BOISE CITY HALL:150 N.Capitol Boulevard I MAIL:P.O.Box 500,Boise,Idaho 83701-0500 1 P:208-608-7150 1 TTY:711
BOISE CITY COUNCIL:Meredith Stead(President), Kathy Corless(President Pro Tem),Jimmy Hallyburton,Jordan Morales,Colin Nash,Luci Willits
CITYOFBOISE.ORG/PUBLICWORKS