20260908Bennet Lumber et al Reply.pdf

RECEIVED
September 08, 2026
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Tara Malek, ISB #8709
SMITH+MALEK, PLLC
Dba MALEK+MALEK
601 E. Front Ave, Ste. 304
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
P. [phone]
F. [phone]
E: service(&malekattorne s
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA Case No. AVU-E-25-15
CORPORATION'S APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2026 BENNETT LUMBER PRODUCTS, INC.,
WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN MANULIFE INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, MOLPUS WOODLANDS
GROUP, AND STIMSON LUMBER
COMPANY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioners Bennett Lumber Products, Inc. ("Bennett Lumber"), Stimson Lumber
Company ("Stimson"), Manulife Investment Management, and Molpus Woodlands Group,
(collectively, "Petitioners"), by and through counsel of record, Smith+Malek, PLLC, dba Malek
+Malek submit this Reply pursuant to Reconsideration Order No. 37106. Petitioners respectfully
urge the Commission to reverse its approval of Avista Corporation's (the "Company") 2026
Wildfire Mitigation Plan ("WMP") or condition its approval upon the immediate implementation
of the Idaho State Forester's core recommendations.
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 9, 2026, the Commission issued Final Order No. 37064, approving the
Company's 2026 WMR Under Idaho Code Section 61-1806(1), this approval immediately
provides the Company with a rebuttable presumption of non-negligence in case of future
wildfire-related litigation. This legal burden-shifting shield extends to any act or omission taken
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS, INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION- 1

in accordance with the plan that this Commission has approved so long as that plan is reasonably
implemented. Yet, in that very same order, the Commission acknowledged significant gaps in the
Company's application, and directed the Company to integrate thirteen distinct corrections in its
future WMP filings. The current order creates an untenable mismatch: it insulates the Company
from legal liability today while delaying safety-critical risk modeling, structural tracking, and
accountability measures for another time in the future.
The Company's August 31, 2026 filings as well as Staff's comments and clarifications do
not cure the deficiencies previously noted by Petitioners nor do they satisfy the requirements of
Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3). The Company admits that its approved 2026 WMP relied on an
obsolete risk model, lacks a formal timber valuation process, and contains no generalized
cost-benefit analysis for grid mitigations—confirming the exact deficiencies raised in
Petitioners' August 11, 2026 filing. Response to Order 37064; Avista Reply Comments to
Reconsideration Order 37064 ("Reply'). Finally, the Reply is devoid of any rebuttal to the
specific operational risks detailed by Petitioners' forestry experts in Petitioners' accompanying
declarations.
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Company concedes that for its 2026 WMP it relied on a risk model that is obsolete
and that its new model is incomplete.
In Petitioners' Response to Order 37064, Halli Hemingway, a Forestry/GIS Analyst with
Bennett Lumber Products, Inc. provided that the Company's 2026 WMP lacked descriptive
narrative details regarding how critical modeling inputs—such as fuel loads, vegetation density,
and terrain—are weighted or verified, and noted that the Company was replacing its system with
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION-2

a model still under development at the time of filing.Decl. of Halli Hemingway at f 12(a). In its
August 31 comments, the Company explicitly concedes and confirms these facts:
1. It acknowledges that for its approved 2026 WMP, it "used a static risk model in its legacy
Fire Weather Dashboard".Reply at 9.
2. It admits that its new system, the ATS Wildfire Risk Analysis and Management
(AWRAM) model, was only recently implemented and is "currently live".Reply at 8.
3. Crucially, it admits that it is still "in the process of evaluating this new model,
understanding its overall functions, determining the required processes and procedures,
and verifying outputs". Reply at 8.
In other words, the Company confirms that the model for its active, Commission approved 2026
WMP is an unverified, obsolete system, while its replacement remains an experimental
work-in-progress. Despite this, the Company argues that while its new model is unverified and
its legacy model is obsolete, its current plan is "...compliant with the current legislative and
regulatory requirements". This conclusion is irreconcilable with the facts in the record. Under
Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3), a plan cannot be deemed "compliant" or "just, reasonable, and
in the public interest" if its geographical risk assessments are built on an unverified foundation.
The Company has asked the Commission to adopt a rule where a utility is granted immediate
statutory protection against liability based on unverified and placeholder models. That was surely
not the Idaho legislature's intent in passing the Wildfire Standard of Care Act("WSCA").
B. The Company concedes that it has no clear and defined methodology to determine the
fair market value of removed timber.
Petitioners previously argued that the Company's plan failed to establish a formal,
consistent procedure to compensate timber companies for the removal of live, merchantable
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION- 3

timber outside maintained rights-of-way and that the absence of such information creates severe
financial uncertainty with downstream effects on Idahoans. Hemingway Decl. at f 12(b);
Stockwell Decl. at fr 19; Marolla Decl. at 12(b).
The Company agrees that it has no formal process and that this too, is a work in progress.
Indeed the Company provides that it is still "continuing to formalize its procedures" and will
only "refine a more formal process" in future iterations. Reply at 10. Delaying this standard to
future cycles leaves private property owners unprotected during the active fire seasons and there
has been no reason given as to why the Company has not formalized one.
C. The approved plan lacks a complete cost-benefit analysis and the Company makes no
argument to the contrary.
The State Forester requested that the Company provide a comparative cost-benefit
analysis to evaluate taking no action against the proposed costs for all mitigation categories. Mr.
Stockwell, Director of Inland Resources for Stimson Lumber Company noted in his Declaration
that without this, there is a severe risk that the Company is failing to prioritize the most effective
mitigation work in the highest-risk locations. Stockwell Decl. at $_ 18.
Here again, the Company concedes that this is an omission, admitting that while it
completed a cost-benefit analysis for undergrounding distribution facilities, all other general
mitigation categories (including vegetation management and grid hardening) "will be evaluated
using Avista's new risk model going forward". Reply at 10.
D. The Company and Petitioners both agree that the Idaho State Forester's
recommendations are reasonable and appropriate.
In its Reply, the Company states that it "does not contend that the Idaho State Forester's
recommendations are unreasonable or inappropriate". Under Idaho Code Section 61-1804(3), if
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION-4

the State Forester's recommendations are reasonable, the Commission must incorporate them
unless it explicitly documents how they are unjust or contrary to the public interest. Because the
Company concedes they are reasonable, and the Commission made no finding to the contrary,
their immediate exclusion violates the WSCA.
E. The Commission's Final Order in this instance is inconsistent with how it has previously
treated another work-in-progress plan.
The basis for the Commission's approval of Avista's WMP is irreconcilable with its
decision in Case No. COI-E-26-01, Order No. 37102, which denied Clearwater Power
Company's ("Clearwater") 2026 WMP. In the Clearwater docket, the Commission rejected
Clearwater's application because the utility omitted critical project-level details, costs, timelines,
and alternatives from its filing, and instead, Clearwater had attempted to rely on discovery
responses to fill in gaps. In that matter, Intervenors argued successfully that the Commission
"lacked authority to rewrite or supplement the WMP through Staff recommendations" or
discovery. Yet, as it relates to the Company's case, Staff noted that much of the Company's
project-level detail was "only provided during discovery", but the Commission chose to approve
the plan anyway noting that wildfire mitigation planning is an "evolving" and "iterative process".
Order 37064 at 11. The Company was permitted to defer thirteen critical categories—including
cost forecasts for internal labor, descriptions of situational awareness data, and cost-benefit
analyses—to future filings and to operate under an unverified risk model. Clearwater, a small
cooperative, was denied this flexibility and its plan rejected for similar data gaps.
III. CONCLUSION
The legislature's intent in passing the Wildfire Standards of Care Act is codified in
Section 61-1802 and provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]his chapter is designed to direct the
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION- 5

prudent use of resources by electric utilities to mitigate and respond to wildfire risk within the
costs that can be justified as just and reasonable in order to keep rates affordable to utility
customers and protect Idaho residents and their i2rogertv." (emphasis added). Under Idaho Code
Section 61-1804(3), the State Forester's recommendations are statutorily presumed reasonable
and appropriate, and shall be incorporated into the Commission's decision unless they are
explicitly documented as unjust or contrary to the public interest. The Commission made no such
finding and the Company has not argued that the recommendations are unjust or contrary to the
public interest. Accordingly, Petitioners request that the Commission reverse Final Order No.
37064 and either modify its approval of the Company's 2026 WMP to require the immediate
implementation of Idaho State Forester's recommendations or, to deny the approval of the
Company's WMP.
DATED this 8th day of September, 2026.
MALEK+MALEK
/s/Tara Malek
TARA MALEK
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION- 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of September, 2026, I caused to be served in
the manner noted below, a copy of the document to which this certificate is attached, on the
following counsel of record:
Commission Secretary ❑ By Hand Delivery
Monica Barrios-Sanchez ❑ By U.S. Mail
Jeff Loll ❑ By Overnight Mail
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission El By Facsimile
❑ By Email: secretaryOl)uc.idaho.gov
PO Box 83720 jeff.loll&j2uc.idaho.gov
Boise, ID 83720-0074
PotlatchDeltic Corporation ❑ By Hand Delivery
Peter J. richardson ❑ By U.S. Mail
Richardson Adams, PLLC ❑ By Overnight Mail
515 N. 27th St ❑ By Facsimile
Boise, ID 83702 ❑� By Email: neter&richardsonadams.com
Idaho Department of Lands ❑ By Hand Delivery
J.J. Winters ❑ By U.S. Mail
John A. Richards ❑ By Overnight Mail
300 N 6th St, STE 103 ❑ By Facsimile
Boise, ID 83702 0 By Email:jwinters&idl.idaho.gov
i rchards(&idl.idaho.zov
Avista Corporation ❑ By Hand Delivery
Anni Glogovac ❑ By U.S. Mail
Elizabeth Andrews ❑ By Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220-7342 El By Facsimile
By Email: liz.andrewskavistacoM.com
anni.glo og_vac&avistacoM.com
/s/ Peyton McMahon
PEYTON MCMAHON
BENNET LUMBER PRODUCTS,INC.,MANULIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP,
MOLPUS WOODLANDS GROUP,AND STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION- 7