20260914Reply Comments.pdf

1111P1117
RECEIVED
September 14, 2026
Avista Corp. IDAHO PUBLIC
1411 East Mission Ave., P.O. Box 3727 UTILITIES COMMISSION
Spokane, WA 99220-0500
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: 800-227-9187
September 14, 2026
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Re: Case No. AVU-E-26-05—Avista Utilities Reply Comments
Commission Secretary:
Avista Corporation, d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), respectfully submits these reply
comments in response to the Comments of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff(Staff) filed
on September 9, 2026,regarding its Power Cost Adjustment(PCA) filing. The Company appreciates
Staff s thorough and diligent review of its filing, including all associated audit responses, production
request responses, and supporting materials. In particular, the Company recognizes and appreciates
the substantial effort Staff devoted to the onsite audit as part of its evaluation of the filing.
While Staffs comments provide a comprehensive overview of the results of its audit, the Company
respectfully disagrees with Staff s Recommendation No. 2 that it be "required to mitigate the impacts
of the Palouse Wind Power Purchase Agreement on Idaho customers beyond existing methodologies
in its next general rate case." What would be more appropriate, in our view, is a requirement for
Avista to provide support for the long-standing Palouse Wind contract, and how it fits in our power
supply portfolio, in our next general rate case. While Palouse Wind may have been out of the money
in this PCA year,that has not always been the case, especially when the Company has absorbed 10%
of Idaho's share of Palouse Wind for more than a decade.Ultimately,the PCA is designed to compare
actual net power supply costs with authorized net power supply costs as an indicator of the Company's
prudent management of its overall resource portfolio. It is not intended to determine which resources,
or at what price, should be included in net power supply expense. And it is in a general rate case
where a more formal record can be developed to determine if there should be mitigation beyond what
is already provided.
Sincerely,
/s/ Patrick EHrbar
Patrick Ehrbar
Director of Regulatory Affairs