20260821Negotiated Rulemaking Written Summary.pdf

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING—WRITTEN SUMMARY
Pursuant to I.C. § 67-5220(3)(f), the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)provides the
following written summary of unresolved issues, key information considered, and conclusions
reached during and as a result of the negotiated rulemaking in Case No. RUL-U-26-01.
Background
Idaho Code 67-5292 requires that each rule chapter that is in effect on July 1, 2026, shall be
reviewed by the legislature on a staggered,periodic schedule between July 1, 2026, and June 30,
2034, and on a similar schedule each eight(8)years thereafter. The review schedule shall be
established by the office of the administrative rules coordinator.
DFM published a schedule for agencies to review their rules. IDAPA 31.01.01 Rules of
Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission is scheduled for review this year.
Procedural Overview
At its May 26, 2026, decision meeting, the Commission directed Commission Staff(Staff) to
open a new docket designated as RUL-U-26-01. The Commission authorized Staff to conduct
negotiated rulemaking consistent with I.C. § 67-5220.
June 11, 2026 Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting
The negotiated rulemaking meeting was attended by the following persons:
- Avista: Pat Ehrbar and Shawn Bonfield
- Intermountain Gas: Jacob Darrington
- Idaho Power Company: Donnavan Walker and Ashley Herrera
- Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp: Joe Dallas, Mitchell Harbick, Anne DeMers
- Westerberg,Aston & Associates: Jacob Sauer
- DIM: Brenda Nunley
- Commission Staff. Taylor Thomas, Chris McEwan, Donn English, Travis Culbertson,
Allison Moore, Adam Rush, Stephen Goodson, Kelsea Ross, Erika Melanson, Jeff Loll,
The table below summarizes the discussion at the June 11, 2026, meeting. Regarding the
"Resolution" column, Staff s Commission-delegated authority allows Staff to consider
stakeholder recommendations and resolve the recommendations to the extent necessary to
prepare a new draft of IDAPA 31.01.01. The three-member Commission will review the first and
second drafts of IDAPA 31.01.01. The Commission may also choose to modify Staffs proposed
draft of IDAPA 31.01.01 as it thinks best.
Under the "Resolution" column, "Resolved"means Staff has reached a conclusion regarding the
stakeholder recommendation. "Unresolved"means Staff has not yet reached a conclusion.
1

Stakeholder Rule Number(s) Stakeholder Resolution
Recommendation
Commission IDAPA Idaho Power supported Resolved. Idaho Code § 61-307 requires that
Staff 31.01.01.125 retaining mandatory notice notice be given to the public for any change in
requirements for both rates. The statute does not specify whether the
Should utilities increases and decreases. notice requirement applies only to increases or
be required to to decreases. Therefore, the Commission will
notify customers Intermountain Gas supported retain the original rule as written.
when rates utility discretion.
decrease, or
should that be left Avista supported utility
to utility discretion.
discretion?
Commission IDAPA No objections from parties. Resolved.
Staff 31.01.01.151
Current rule
requires
Commission
decisions within
30 days. Should
the Commission
extended the
deadline to 90
days?
Commission IDAPA Staff proposed Combining Resolved. Staff incorporated additional
Staff 31.01.01.234 and duplicate sections regarding changes to 234.01 to include language around
.259 assertion of the right against hearings.
self-incrimination during
Self- hearings and discovery.
Incrimination
rule Idaho Power suggested that
consolidation. to ensure the rule text
explicitly references both
hearings and discovery to
avoid relying solely on
section headings because
headings may not be
considered substantive.
2

Intermountain IDAPA Requested consideration of Unresolved. Staff believes that a form of public
Gas 31.01.01.141.08 eliminating newspaper notice is necessary for securities issuance.
publication requirements for When considering options such as customer
Securities securities issuance notices,press releases, or posting on the
issuances notices. applications because: 1) company's website, Staff believes that
Newspaper circulation has publication in a newspaper may provide the
declined; 2) Publication costs best public visibility in this situation, though
continue to increase, and 3) we are not opposed to other options.
No non-staff party has
intervened in such
proceedings during his 11
years with the company.
Rocky IDAPA Formal customer complaints Unresolved. The Commission maintains
Mountain 31.01.01.54 that do not state a valid legal comprehensive informal complaint procedures
Power claim. Suggested under Rules 21-26 and IDAPA 31.21.01.09
Customer strengthening informal and .401. These provisions collectively ensure
complaints. complaint screening that customers have a clear avenue to seek
procedures. review of Staff s informal determinations and
may pursue further consideration through the
Commission's formal complaint process.
Rocky IDAPA Observed that Idaho requires Unresolved. Staff proposes to leave this section
Mountain 31.01.01.67.03 attorneys to provide an as is. It provides justification for why
Power attestation when confidential information is marked confidential and helps
Confidential information is submitted protect confidential information from public
attestations. during discovery. view when attestation is provided.
Rocky IDAPA Consider changing rules Resolved. The Commission has changed the
Mountain 31.01.01.231.02.c requiring testimony CPI CPI language to require specific font that is not
Power limit. focused on a CPI limit.
Required font.
3