20261019Final_Order_No_37200.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 19,2026
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 WILDFIRE )
MITIGATION PLAN ) ORDER NO. 37200
On December 9, 2025, Avista Corporation ("Company") applied to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission("Commission")requesting an order approving its 2026 Wildfire Mitigation
Plan ("2026 WMP") ("Application"). The Commission granted intervention to PotlatchDeltic
Forest Holdings, LLC ("PotlatchDeltic"). Order No. 36888.
On February 4, 2026, the Commission provided notice that the Application would be
processed under Modified Procedure and set comment deadlines. Order No. 36927. Commission
Staff ("Staff') and PotlatchDeltic filed comments, to which the Company replied. The
Commission also received two public comments from the Idaho Department of Lands ("IDL"),
one filed timely and the other filed after the deadline.
On June 9, 2026,the Commission issued Final Order No. 37064 approving the Company's
2026 WMP and ordering the Company to revise future WMPs "in a manner consistent with the
directives of this Order." Order No. 37064 at 13. On June 30, 2026, PotlatchDeltic and Bennett
Lumber Products, Inc., et al. ("Bennett Lumber") (collectively, "Petitioners) each filed petitions
for reconsideration of Order No. 37064.
On July 28, 2026, the Commission issued Order No. 37106 granting reconsideration and
setting a briefing schedule to supplement the record. On August 11,2026,the Petitioners each filed
comments supplementing their petitions pursuant to the scheduling order. On August 31,2026,the
Company and Staff filed comments responding to the Petitioners. On September 8, 2026,
PotlatchDeltic filed a motion to strike Staff s response ("Motion") and, in the alternative, a reply
to Staffs response. PotlatchDeltic also filed a reply to the Company's response on September 8,
2026. On the same day, Bennett Lumber filed a reply in support of its position on reconsideration.
On September 21, 2026, Staff filed an answer to PotlatchDeltic's motion to strike ("Answer").
We now issue this Order to reaffirm Order No. 37064, deny PotlatchDeltic's Motion, and
decline the request to rescind our decision to issue a final order on reconsideration based on written
submissions.
ORDER NO. 37200 1

POTLATCHDELTIC'S SUPPLEMENT
PotlatchDeltic's comments supplementing its petition for reconsideration
("PotlatchDeltic's Petition") reiterated and incorporated by reference the arguments contained in
its Petition and in its initial comments. PotlatchDeltic's Response to Reconsideration Order No.
37106 at 4, n. 7.
PotlatchDeltic's Petition contended that the Commission's approval of the Company's
2026 WMP was unlawful and unreasonable for three primary reasons: (1) the Commission
exceeded its authority by approving a plan that primarily benefits Washington residents at the
expense of Idaho residents; (2) the Commission failed to comply with the Wildfire Standard of
Care Act's ("WSCA") requirements concerning implementation of the State Forester's
recommendations;' and (3) the Commission disregarded or mischaracterized substantial,
uncontested evidence demonstrating fatal deficiencies in the 2026 WMP. PotlatchDeltic's Petition
at 2.
First, PotlatchDeltic argued that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to approve a WMP that
primarily benefits Washington residents.Id. at 4. PotlatchDeltic stated that the uncontested record
indicates that approximately 90 percent of the Company's wildfire mitigation expenditures under
the 2026 WMP are devoted to grid hardening efforts, yet the 2026 WMP budget provides
approximately $26.5 million for distribution grid hardening and wood-pole management in
Washington compared to only $300,000 in Idaho, with the Idaho expenditure limited to
engineering work rather than physical hardening. Id. at 4-5. PotlatchDeltic argued that Idaho
customers receive little mitigation benefit while bearing the burden of the 2026 WMP's liability
protections, conflicting with the WSCA's stated purpose of protecting "Idaho residents and their
property." Id. at 5 (quoting Idaho Code § 61- 1802). PotlatchDeltic further argued that the
Commission is legally prohibited from exercising extraterritorial regulatory authority, which
would include authorizing immunity in Idaho based on mitigation activities undertaken in
Washington. Id. at 7-8.
Second, PotlatchDeltic argued that the Commission failed to follow the WSCA's
requirements regarding the IDL's recommendations. Id. at 8. Idaho Code § 61-1804(3) provides
that the State Forester's recommendations must be incorporated into the Commission's decision
' IDL comments were submitted on behalf of Idaho Stated Forester, Julia Lauch. IDL Comments at 1; IDL
Supplemental Comments at 1.
ORDER NO. 37200 2

unless the Commission determines that the recommendations are unjust, unreasonable, and not in
the public interest and documents its reasoning. Id. at 8-9. PotlatchDeltic argued that the
Commission neither appropriately implemented nor sufficiently justified its reasons for failing to
implement IDL's recommendations concerning: (1) risk-modeling information; (2) cost-benefit
analysis; (3) mitigation of external wildfire impacts; (4) and vegetation management inspection
qualification standards. Id. at 9-16. As to the first three at-issue IDL recommendations,
PotlatchDeltic argued that the Commission's directives that the Company implement the
recommendations in future WMPs rather than as a condition of approval of the 2026 WMP were
inconsistent with the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-1804(3).Id. at 9-12. PotlatchDeltic further
argued that even in instructing the Company to include these recommendations in future plans,the
Commission mischaracterized the scope of IDL's recommendations regarding risk modeling
information and mitigation of external wildfire impacts.Id. at 10-12.As to IDL's recommendation
concerning vegetation management inspection qualification standards,PotlatchDeltic claimed that
the Commission's explanation for declining to adopt the recommendation(either as a condition of
approval for the 2026 WMP or as a requirement for future WMPs)was unsupported by the WSCA
and insufficient to meet the Commission's obligation under Idaho Code § 61-1804(3).Id. at 15.
Third, PotlatchDeltic claimed that the Commission "disregarded or misleadingly revised"
substantial, competent, and uncontested evidence from its own Staff identifying flaws in the 2026
WMP. Id. at 16-17. PotlatchDeltic's Petition focused on Staff's characterization of the 2026
WMP's lack of process for monitoring and documenting inspection deficiencies and corrective
actions, and its lack of quality-assurance programs.Id. at 17-20. PotlatchDeltic contended that the
Commission improperly characterized Staff's statements that these elements "should"be included
as optional recommendations, despite Staff describing the elements as "essential" to safety,
reliability, and accountability. Id. PotlatchDeltic argued that deferring correction of missing
"essential elements" to future filings while approving the 2026 WMP constitutes arbitrary and
capricious decision-making. Id. at 20.
BENNETT LUMBER'S SUPPLEMENT
Bennett Lumber's comments supplementing its petition for reconsideration argued that,
given the importance of IDL's recommendations to wildfire risk reduction and the statutory
significance of an approved WMP, the Commission should modify its approval by requiring the
2026 WMP to incorporate IDL's recommendations. Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No.
ORDER NO. 37200 3

37064 at 1, 7. Bennett Lumber supported its position with declarations from three forestry
professionals—employed by Bennett Lumber—each with experience in forest products and
timberland management in Idaho and neighboring states. Id. at 2; Stockwell Decl. at 1-2;
Hemingway Decl. at 1-2; Morolla Decl. at 1-2.
Bennett Lumber emphasized the legal significance of IDL's recommendations, reiterating
that Idaho Code§ 61-1804(3)requires the Commission to consult with the State Forester regarding
WMP elements concerning vegetation management and fuel reduction and that the statute
establishes a presumption that the State Forester's recommendations are reasonable and
appropriate. Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No. 37064 at 2. Bennett Lumber also invoked
the statutory language providing that the State Forester's recommendations "shall be incorporated
into the Commission's decision unless the Commission determines that they are not just,
reasonable, and in the public interest"and documents its reasoning.Id. at 3. According to Bennett
Lumber,the Commission has not articulated a persuasive reason for deferring the implementation
of IDL's recommendations to future WMPs rather than requiring immediate implementation as a
condition of approving the 2026 WMP.Id. at 4.
Bennett Lumber continued by offering that implementing IDL's recommendations in the
2026 WMP matters because an approved WMP provides the Company with statutory liability
protection.Id. at 3.Bennett Lumber argued that by allowing the Company to receive that protection
under the 2026 WMP while directing it to implement the State Forester's recommendations in
future wildfire mitigation plans, the Commission created a gap between the protections afforded
to the Company and the mitigation measures actually required in the 2026 WMP. Id.
According to Bennett Lumber and its experts, in its current form(i.e. sans implementation
of IDL's recommendations), the 2026 WMP "lacks critical components necessary to prevent, or
effectively respond to, catastrophic fire events."Id. at 4. Bennett Lumber's experts agreed that the
State Forester has specialized expertise, statewide wildfire data, and fire-behavior modeling
resources that private landowners do not possess. Stockwell Decl. at 3; Hemingway Decl. at 3;
Morolla Decl. at 3. They considered the State Forester's recommendations reliable, reasonable,
and in the public interest, believing that failure to incorporate the recommendations creates
significant risks to landowners, communities, utility customers, and Idaho's natural resources.
Stockwell Decl. at 3, 6; Hemingway Decl. at 3-5; Morolla Decl. at 3, 5-7.
ORDER NO. 37200 4

Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No. 37064 and its experts' declarations detailed what
they consider deficiencies in the 2026 WMP resulting from the failure to include IDL's
recommendations. Bennett Lumber (1) challenged the lack of transparency concerning the
Company's wildfire-risk modeling, arguing the absence of sufficient detail prevents landowners
from assessing the accuracy of the Company's risk modeling and its corresponding mitigation
decisions; (2) contended that the Company should be required to establish a formal process for
determining the fair market value for the removal of merchantable timber to aid landowners in
making business decisions and to avoid conflicts; and (3) argued that the 2026 WMP requires a
clear cost-benefit analysis for mitigation categories to ensure that the Company prioritizes the most
effective mitigation measures in the highest risk areas. Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No.
37064 at 4-6. Bennett Lumber additionally argued that the Commission should require the
Company's vegetation inspection personnel to obtain wildfire-specific qualifications. Id. at 6.
While Bennett Lumber's supplement did not expressly address IDL's recommendation
regarding mitigation efforts directed at impacts from external wildfire events, IDL "strongly
encourag[ing]" the Company to incorporate feedback from county planning fire groups, or the
recommendations contained in IDL's late-filed comments,2 the declarations filed with the
supplement specifically addressed these additional recommendations. Both Andrew Stockwell of
Stimson Lumber Company and Patrick Morolla of Manulife Forest Management believed the 2026
WMP should include a clarification of actions to reduce damage from external wildfire events,
incorporate feedback from county fire planning groups,and address the recommendations in IDL's
late-filed comments, including risk modeling data inputs and descriptions for system components,
vegetative height layer, soils layers,and damaging wind events. Stockwell Decl. at 3, 5-6;Morolla
Decl. at 3-4.
According to Bennett Lumber, though the specific costs of implementing IDL's
recommendations may be difficult to quantify, whatever the cost is modest compared to the cost
of a significant wildfire. Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No. 37064 at 6.
2 Bennett Lumber presumably implied that the Commission should require the Company to implement the
recommendations from IDL's late-filed comments as a condition of approval of the 2026 WMP when it referenced
IDAPA 31.01.01.013,which provides that the Commission's Rules of Procedure shall"be liberally construed to secure
just, speedy and economical determination of all issues presented to the Commission."Bennett Lumber's Response
to Order No. 37064 at 3.
ORDER NO. 37200 5

STAFF'S RESPONSE
Staff s response addressed only portions of Petitioners' supplements referencing Staff s
initial comments. Staff s Response to Petition for Reconsideration at 3. Specifically, Staff sought
to clarify its intent when using the words "should" and"essential" in its comments, the usage that
was scrutinized in PotlatchDeltic's Petition. Id. According to Staff, PotlatchDeltic misinterpreted
the intent of Staffs analysis and recommendations. Id.
Staff explained that its use of"should"and"essential"in recommending that the Company
describe its identification and monitoring of inspection deficiency backlogs was intended to apply
to future WMPs as part of an iterative improvement process, rather than to indicate that Staff
considered the recommendation a minimum requirement for approval of the 2026 WMP. Id. at 3-
4. Staff argued that neither the WSCA nor the Commission's WMP Guidelines require the
Company to include inspection deficiency backlogs in the 2026 WMP as a condition of approval.
Id. at 4. Staff offered the same explanation regarding its use of the word"essential"to describe its
recommendations that the Company include quality-assurance processes for inspection and
vegetation management programs. Id. at 4-5. Staff believed that the Commission correctly
considered its recommendations in Order No. 37064. Id. at 5.
COMPANY'S RESPONSE
The Company argued that the Petitioners failed to show that Order No. 37064 approving
the Company's 2026 WMP was unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or contrary to law. Company
Reply Comments to Reconsideration Order No. 37106 at 3. The Company also purportedly
responded to the recommendations contained in IDL's late-filed comments of May 20, 2026,
which were referenced in the declarations included with Bennett Lumber's supplemental
comments on reconsideration.3 Id. Because the Commission granted reconsideration to
supplement the record, the Company argued that the Commission should consider its responses
rather than treating IDL's late-filed recommendations as unrebutted. Id.
The Company first addressed the Petitioners' assertions regarding relevant legal standards,
including PotlatchDeltic's contention that its Petition was "uncontested" because no parties filed
an answer opposing reconsideration under Commission Rule of Procedure 331, IDAPA
3 The Company's response comments on reconsideration did not explicitly address IDL's recommendations regarding
infrastructure details(type, condition, and age);vegetative layer height; soil type; and damaging wind events as risk
model inputs.
ORDER NO. 37200 6

31.01.01.331, and Bennett Lumber's interpretation of the WSCA's requirements with respect to
IDL's recommendations. Id. at 4-7. The Company argued that, in Commission proceedings,
neglecting to file an answer to a petition for reconsideration does not constitute an admission of
the assertions contained therein and does not waive a party's ability to participate if reconsideration
is granted. Id. at 4. The Company also rejected the notion that a WMP must incorporate all IDL
recommendations to gain Commission approval under the WSCA. Id. at 6. The Company argued
that Idaho Code § 61-1803 requires a utility to develop and implement a plan that balances
wildfire-risk reduction with customer costs and system reliability but does not require adoption of
every stakeholder recommendation. Id. According to the Company, the WSCA tasks the
Commission with determining whether the 2026 WMP satisfies the requirements of Idaho Code §
61-1803, not whether additional mitigation measures could be adopted. Id. Nevertheless, the
Company stated that it does not contend that IDL's recommendations were unreasonable or
inappropriate.Id. at 7.
In response to Petitioners' concerns about insufficient disclosure of modeling inputs, the
Company reported that its new ATS Wildfire Risk Analysis and Management ("AWRAM")
wildfire-risk model is now operational.Id. at 8. The Company explained that the 2026 WMP used
its static legacy risk model, which considered factors such as fuel types, topography, community
risk,historical outage performance, severe fire danger index, fire preparedness, and the percentage
of overhead spans in treed areas. Id. at 9. The Company used the baseline risk established by the
model with "real-time wind, temperature, and humidity data to calculate the dynamic Fire Risk
Index used to assess operational decisions."Id. The Company stated that it discussed its modeling
approach with both an IDL representative and Staff during review of the 2026 WMP. Id. The
Company maintained that,though the AWRAM will include additional factors and allow for more
detail in future wildfire mitigation plans, the inputs from its legacy risk model complied with the
applicable requirements for its 2026 WMP.Id. at 9-10.
The Company acknowledged the Petitioners' concern regarding the absence of a formal
procedure for compensating landowners when merchantable timber is removed. Id. at 10. The
Company reiterated that it is continuing to formalize procedures to ensure appropriate payment
when its wildfire mitigation efforts require tree removal while impressing that it does not intend
to apply fair-market timber valuation requirements to vegetation management conducted within
existing easements or rights-of-way. Id.
ORDER NO. 37200 7

In response to Bennett Lumber's assertion that the 2026 WMP failed to include a cost-
benefit analysis for mitigation categories, the Company stated that it completed a cost-benefit
analysis of distribution-system undergrounding and explained that it will use the new risk model
to evaluate other mitigation measures, including vegetation management and grid hardening. Id.
at 10-11.The Company expressed its intention to provide additional information concerning these
analyses in future wildfire mitigation plans.Id. at 11.
The Company opposed IDL's and the Petitioners'recommendations of requiring additional
wildfire-specific qualifications for vegetation-management personnel. Id. at 11. The Company
maintained that its existing contractor qualifications comply with industry standards, including
American National Standards Institute A300, the National Electrical Safety Code, and North
American Electric Reliability Corporation's vegetation-management requirements. Id. The
Company argued that these standards adequately address vegetation clearance, pruning, system
safety, and tree-to-wire ignition risks. Id. The Company distinguished utility vegetation
management from landscape-scale hazardous fuels treatment and argued that imposing
qualifications associated with the latter would not materially improve utility vegetation
management activities while potentially reducing contractor availability and increasing costs. Id.
at 12.
The Company agreed with IDL and the Petitioners that county-level coordination is
valuable but argued that it is already occurring even though the 2026 WMP does not establish a
formal consultation process for every Idaho county.Id. at 12-13. The Company described existing
coordination with Latah, Bonner, and Nez Perce Counties, IDL, local governments, landowners,
and other stakeholders, including participation in Community Wildfire Protection Plan activities
and fuels-reduction projects.Id. The Company argued that this existing coordination demonstrates
that local input is incorporated into its wildfire-mitigation efforts. Id. at 13.
Similarly, the Company contended that the 2026 WMP already addressed activities
intended to reduce impacts from wildfires originating outside its corridors, facilities, or rights-of-
way. Id. The Company argued its mitigation efforts including situational awareness, emergency
response planning, vegetation management, grid hardening, fire-resistant steel poles, fire mesh,
infrastructure-resiliency measures,and coordination with fire agencies and county planning groups
address both utility-related ignition risk and the impacts of external wildfire events.Id.
ORDER NO. 37200 8

POTLATCHDELTIC'S REPLY
A. Motion to Strike
PotlatchDeltic argued that the Commission should strike Staff s response,which was titled
"Response to PotlatchDeltic's Petition for Reconsideration," from the record because it was filed
nearly two months after the deadline to answer a petition for reconsideration established by
Commission Rule of Procedure 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331. PotlatchDeltic Motion at 3.
PotlatchDeltic also contended that the Commission should not treat Staffs response as mislabeled
comments that were responsive to supplements, consistent with Order No. 37106, because
PotlatchDeltic did not file any substantive supplements to the record. Id. at 6-7.
B. Reply to Staff
As an alternative to its Motion, PotlatchDeltic believed Staffs response—which it
characterized as "backtrack[ing], recant[ing], and self-contradict[ing]" in relation to Staffs initial
comments—invalidated the Commission's decision to proceed via modified procedure.4
PotlatchDeltic's Reply to Staff s Response at 7, 9. PotlatchDeltic argued that Staff s explanation
of its earlier comments created a "factual dispute" that could not be resolved through written
submissions. Id. at 9-10. According to PotlatchDeltic, a witness can be "held accountable for his
or her statements" only through examination and cross-examination at a hearing.Id. at 10.
PotlatchDeltic further argued that Staffs initial comments regarding the"essential"nature
of descriptions of the Company's identification and monitoring of inspection deficiency backlogs
and quality-assurance processes for inspection and vegetation management programs were
unambiguous and that Staffs response recanted its original position by turning missing essential
elements in mere suggestions for improvement. Id. at 8-11. PotlatchDeltic contended that Staff s
shifting position called into question Staffs credibility "relative to its other assertions relative to
the viability of[the Company's 2026] WMP in general—including its conclusion that the [2026]
WMP ought to be approved."Id. at 12.
C. Reply to Company
PotlatchDeltic reasserted its position that its Petition was "uncontested" and that the time
to answer petitions for reconsideration under Commission Rule of Procedure 331, IDAPA
31.01.01.331, had long since passed. PotlatchDeltic Reply to Company's Response at 2-3.
4 Presumably, PotlatchDeltic's repeated references to "modified procedure" mean the reconsideration schedule for
written submissions the Commission established in Order No. 37106 in lieu of a hearing.
ORDER NO. 37200 9

PotlatchDeltic stated that the Commission should not tolerate the Company's "conceit" in
believing that it is immune from the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Id. at 3.
PotlatchDeltic also reiterated its belief that the 2026 WMP suffered from three fatal flaws.
Id. at 5. First, PotlatchDeltic argued in approving a WMP primarily for the benefit of Washington
residents, the Commission violated the United States and Idaho Constitutions because of a lack of
due process and the extra jurisdictional reach of the Company's WMP. Id. PotlatchDeltic then
restated its arguments that the Commission failed to adhere to its statutory obligation to incorporate
IDL's recommendations and that the Commission ignored uncontested evidence demonstrating
the unreasonableness of the 2026 WMP before observing that the Company did not attempt to
challenge these positions. Id. at 6. According to PotlatchDeltic, the Company "is estopped from
challenging any of the assertions and conclusions contained in PotlatchDeltic's Petition for
Reconsideration."Id. at 6.
Finally, PotlatchDeltic argued that the Company's response on reconsideration failed to
justify the Commission's decision not to require IDL's recommendations to be incorporated into
the 2026 WMP.Id. at 7.PotlatchDeltic reiterated its position that IDL's comments were"ignored".
Id. at 8. PotlatchDeltic challenged the Company's assertion that the WSCA does not require
adoption of each recommendation by interested stakeholders, stating that Idaho Code§ 61-1804(3)
expressly requires adoption of the State Forester's recommendations absent a finding that the
recommendations were unjust,unreasonable, and not in the public interest.Id. at 8-9.
BENNETT LUMBER'S REPLY
Bennett Lumber believed that neither the Company's nor Staff s reconsideration response
comments cured what Bennett Lumber deemed"deficiencies"with the Company's 2026 WMP or
satisfied the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-1804(3). Bennett Lumber's Reply in Support of
Reconsideration at 2. Rather, according to Bennett Lumber, the Company's filing acknowledged
many of the concerns raised by Bennett Lumber and failed to address "the specific operational
risks detailed by [Bennett Lumber's] forestry experts in Petitioners' accompanying declarations."
Id. at 2.
According to Bennett Lumber, the Company conceded that the risk model used for the
2026 WMP is unverified and obsolete, lacking details regarding how inputs including fuel loads,
vegetation density, and terrain are weighted or confirmed. Id. at 2-3. Bennett Lumber stated that
such a plan cannot comply with WSCA requirements. Id. at 3. Bennett Lumber also argued that
ORDER NO. 37200 10

the Company conceded that the 2026 WMP contained no formal process to determine the fair
market value of removed merchantable timber without explaining why it has failed to implement
a process. Id. at 3-4. Bennett Lumber contended that the Company again conceded that the 2026
WMP omitted a comparative cost-benefit analysis for all mitigation categories, other than
undergrounding distribution facilities.Id. at 4.
Bennett Lumber further argued that the Company agreed with Petitioners that IDL's
recommendations were reasonable and appropriate. Id. According to Bennett Lumber, the
Commission violated the WSCA by excluding IDL's recommendations from the 2026 WMP
without a finding that the recommendations were unjust or contrary to the public interest. Id. at 5.
Finally,Bennett Lumber argued that the Commission's decision to approve the 2026 WMP
was inconsistent with its decision in Order No. 37102 (Case No. COI-E-26-01), denying
Clearwater Power Company's wildfire mitigation plan and noting that the Commission could not
fill in gaps in the WMP with necessary information provided during discovery.Id. at 5.By contrast,
Bennett Lumber contended the Commission approved the 2026 WMP despite Staff noting that
much project-level detail was `only provided during discovery.' Id.
STAFF'S ANSWER TO POTLATCHDELTIC'S MOTION
Staff contended that the Commission should deny PotlatchDeltic's Motion, as Staff s
response, however titled, appropriately responded to the substantive arguments included in
PotlatchDeltic's Petition, which were incorporated by reference into PotlatchDeltic's supplement
to the record pursuant to scheduling Order No. 37106. Staffs Answer 2-4. According to Staff, its
filing was not a procedural challenge to PotlatchDeltic's Petition under Commisison Rule of
Procedure 331.05, IDAPA 31.01.01.331.05, but rather a timely response to PotlatchDeltic's
supplement, consistent with Order No. 37106.Id. at 3.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over the Company's Application and the issues in this
case under Title 61 of the Idaho Code including, Idaho Code §§ 61-501, -502, and -503. The
Commission is empowered to investigate rates, charges,rules,regulations,practices, and contracts
of all public utilities and to determine whether they are just, reasonable, preferential,
discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and to fix the same by order. Idaho Code
§§ 61-501, -502, and-503.
ORDER NO. 37200 11

The Commission is required to review a utility's wildfire mitigation plan to ensure it
satisfies the minimum requirements of the WSCA. Idaho Code § 61-1804(1). In conducting its
review, the Commission considers the protection of public health, safety, and welfare; the
feasibility of the wildfire mitigation plan and the cost of its implementation; and the extent to
which the wildfire mitigation plan minimizes wildfire risk and provides for an effective response
to potential wildfire events. Idaho Code § 61-1804(1)(a)—(c). The Commission is obligated to
incorporate the State Forester's recommendations in its decision regarding a filed wildfire
mitigation plan absent a Commission determination that such recommendations "are not just,
reasonable, and in the public interest...."Idaho Code § 61-1804(3).
Reconsideration affords parties an opportunity to bring to the Commission's attention any
matter previously determined and provides the Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake
before the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court. Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public
Utilities Comm'n, 1980, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242. Any person or public utility has the right
to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined in a Commission order. Idaho
Code § 61-626(l). The Commission has discretion to determine the appropriate procedure and
schedule once we have granted reconsideration. IDAPA 31.01.01.332.
Having reviewed the record on reconsideration, we reaffirm our decision in Order No.
37064 approving the Company's 2026 WMP. Additionally, we deny PotlatchDeltic's Motion and
decline its request that we rescind our decision to issue an order on reconsideration based on
written submissions.
A. We Reaffirm our Approval of the Company's 2026 WMP
After reviewing the record, the Commission maintains that (1) the wildfire mitigation
efforts identified in the 2026 WMP satisfy Idaho Code § 61-1803(3)(a)—(g)'s minimum
requirements; (2) the 2026 WMP is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; (3) the
2026 WMP can be feasibly implemented at a reasonable cost; (4) the 2026 WMP adequately
minimizes wildfire risk and proposes to respond to fires that occur; and (5) Order No. 37064
appropriately accounted for the State Forester's recommendations.
Collectively, Petitioners advanced four distinct arguments in support of their contention
that the Commission should reverse or modify Order No. 37604: (1) the Commission lacked
jurisdiction to approve the 2026 WMP due to significant mitigation activities described in the plan
set to take place in the state of Washington rather than Idaho; (2)the Commission failed to adhere
ORDER NO. 37200 12

to the WSCA's requirement to incorporate the State Forester's recommendations into its decision;
(3)the Commission ignored or mischaracterized uncontested evidence presented by its own Staff;
and(4)the decision to approve the 2026 WMP is inconsistent with other recent Commission orders
regarding WMPs. We address each of these arguments in turn.
1. The Commission Did Not Exercise Extraterritorial Authority by Approving
the 2026 WMP
The Commission rejects PotlatchDeltic's assertion that in approving the 2026 WMP we
purported to regulate activities occurring in Washington. PotlatchDeltic's argument improperly
conflated consideration of out-of-state activities with the extraterritorial exercise of regulatory
authority. Rather, we determined that the Company, as a multi jurisdictional utility, reasonably
"subjected its entire service territory to a risk model assessment for purposes of prioritizing areas
for mitigation activities," and apportioned its mitigation efforts accordingly. Order No. 37064 at
12. The Commission reviewed a plan submitted by an Idaho-regulated electric utility to determine
whether the plan satisfies Idaho's statutory requirements for mitigating wildfire risk.
PotlatchDeltic's framing of the planned expenditure disparity between jurisdictions
ignored the fact that the Company budgeted nearly $19,000,000 in 2026 for grid hardening,
operations and emergency response, situational awareness, and vegetation management measures
in Idaho.5 2026 WMP, Appendix B at 1-2. PotlatchDeltic made no showing that the Company's
Idaho efforts were insufficient or that the Company's prioritization of areas for mitigation efforts
were inconsistent with the relative risks associated with those areas. Instead, PotlatchDeltic relied
on simply comparing the planned expenditures for one aspect of the plan—distribution grid
hardening (which it then conflated with all grid hardening)6—in Idaho and Washington and
suggesting that the Company had motive to ensure the difference to claim that the Commission
5 PotlatchDeltic's argument that Idaho residents receive no benefit from mitigation efforts undertaken in Washington
also ignored the obvious facts that the Company's service territory straddles miles of predominantly forested areas on
both sides of the Idaho/Washington border and wildfires are unconstrained by political land borders.
6 PotlatchDeltic overlooked transmission grid hardening when it inaccurately claimed that"under the plan approved
by the Commission,no grid hardening takes place Idaho."PotlatchDeltic's Petition at 5. In reality,in addition to the
$300,000 that PotlatchDeltic acknowledged the Company budgeted for planning and engineering for distribution grid
hardening activities in Idaho,the 2026 WMP allocated$3,500,000 for transmission grid hardening efforts in Idaho—
compared to $0 for such efforts Washington—and another$400,000 for transmission line inspection and equipment
replacement in Idaho (compared to $600,000 for such inspections and replacement in Washington). 2026 WMP,
Appendix B at 1-4.We further observe that all cost recovery of distribution grid hardening(for which the Company
budgeted more in Washington) will be directly assigned to customers in the state where the activities occurred. By
contrast,the cost recovery of transmission grid hardening(for which the Company budgeted more in Idaho)will be
allocated between the two states.
ORDER NO. 37200 13

lacked jurisdiction to approve the 2026 WMP. The mere fact that a multi jurisdictional utility
allocated a portion, or even a majority, of its wildfire mitigation planned expenditures to activities
in another state does not preclude the Commission from approving a WMP under the WSCA.
In quickly dismissing the express legislative intent of the WSCA concerning affordable
electric power,'PotlatchDeltic speculated without evidence that"the cost of those reduced electric
rates is greater risk of fire,higher insurance premium costs and uncompensated damages for utility
caused wildfires." PotlatchDeltic's Petition at 6. PotlatchDeltic failed to explain, or even attempt
to explain, how the nearly $19 million in Idaho-specific wildfire mitigation efforts included in the
2026 WMP would in any way increase the risk of fire, and again relied solely on a comparison to
the plan's Washington distribution grid hardening budget to suggest, without further elaboration,
that the plan's Idaho-specific efforts were insufficient.
With its speculation concerning insurance premiums and the potential legal consequences
of the statutory presumption created by an approved WMP, PotlatchDeltic seemingly asked the
Commission to usurp the Legislature's constitutional role and nullify the WSCA by rejecting
submitted plans on policy grounds outside the scope of the statutory scheme. We decline to do so.
2. Order No. 37604 Properly Accounted for the State Forester's
Recommendations
Idaho Code § 61-804(3)mandates that all recommendations of the State Forester"shall be
incorporated in the decision of the commission unless the commission determines they are not just,
reasonable, and in the public interest, in which case the commission shall document its reasoning
in its order approving or rejecting the plan." Petitioners contended that Order No. 37604 violated
Idaho Code § 61-804(3) because it required the Company to implement certain State Forester
recommendations in future plans rather than the 2026 WMP and because the Commission failed
to provide sufficient reasoning for declining to implement other State Forester recommendations
altogether. We disagree with Petitioners' statutory interpretation and application.
7 Bennett Lumber's supplemental comments on reconsideration also only briefly addressed cost concerns associated
with the 2026 WMP in a concessive prefatory clause: "While quantifying the specific costs involved with the State
Forester's recommendations is complex,when compared to the catastrophic potential damage to landowners it remains
reasonable." Bennett Lumber's Response to Order No. 37064 at 6. However, in a single paragraph statutory section
describing the intent of the WSCA,the Legislature uses the word"affordable"in relation to electric rates four separate
times. Idaho Code § 61-802. We believe that the Petitioners' position toward cost concerns distorted not only the
legislative intent of the WSCA but the priorities of many of the Company's Idaho customers.While this proceeding
saw no involvement from any of the Company's residential customers, by contrast, the Company's most recent
proceeding before the Commission seeking an increase in customer rates(Case No.AVU-E-26-01)garnered 77 public
comments,almost exclusively from residential customers opposing the proposed rate increase.
ORDER NO. 37200 14

All but one of IDL's timely recommendations were incorporated in Order No. 37604.
Specifically, we directed the Company "to make revisions to future WMP submissions" in the
form of including: "a detailed description of the risk modeling methodology and inputs used to
determine geographical risk areas";8 "a cost-benefit analysis for each general mitigation action
category"; "a description of actions designed to reduce damage from external wildfire events";9
"establish a formal process for determining the fair market value of timber"; "input from county
fire planning groups." Order No. 37604 at 11-12.
In arguing that requiring implementation of the State Forester's recommendations in all
future plans, rather than the instant plan, failed to satisfy Idaho Code § 61-804(3), Petitioners
effectively sought to add requirements to the statute. Under Petitioners' proposed standard, the
Commission would not only have to incorporate the State Forester's recommendations into its
wildfire mitigation plan decisions but also withhold approval of wildfire mitigation plans that
otherwise satisfied all statutory conditions and require companies to revise and resubmit their plans
whenever the State Forester had recommendations for approval. Such a requirement could either
add significant expense to the process, ultimately borne by customers, or, through perverse
disincentive, discourage the State Forester from participating in the process out of concern that her
recommendations could require the Company to revise an otherwise approvable wildfire
mitigation plan, potentially exacerbating the concern over rising electricity rates. We find this
reading inconsistent with both the plain statutory text and the stated legislative intent of the WSCA.
Importantly, all available evidence suggests that IDL disagrees with Petitioner's
interpretation as to the WSCA's requirement to implement the State Forester's recommendations.
In Case No. COI-E-26-01, another recent wildfire mitigation plan proceeding before the
Commission, IDL's May 29, 2026, comments expressly stated: "IDL has reviewed the risk
8 PotlatchDeltic claimed that Order No. 37064 mischaracterized IDL's recommendation concerning risk modeling by
specifying that the description of the methodology and inputs should explain how they were used to determine
geographical risk areas.PotlatchDeltic's Petition at 10-11.According to PotlatchDeltic,IDL's recommendation"was
not limited to risk modeling used just to determine geographical risk areas." Id. at 11. However, PotlatchDeltic
provided no clarification as to what it believed risk modeling in the Company's 2026 WMP is used for beyond
geographical risk assessments.
9 PotlatchDeltic also claimed that Order No. 37064 mischaracterized IDL's recommendation regarding actions
intended to reduce damage from external wildfire events on the system.IDL recommended that the Company"include
additional connection of activities to the influence of external wildfire impinging on the system to clarify which actions
are being taken to reduce damage from external wildfire events on the system."Again, PotlatchDeltic offered no
explanation as to how it believed the Commission's directive would practically differ from IDL's recommendation
and instead simply assumed that the absence of a verbatim recreation of IDL's recommendation meant that the
Commission had failed to accurately implement the recommendation.
ORDER NO. 37200 15

modeling as provided in the submitted Wildfire Mitigation Plan by Clearwater Power and presents
the following as considerable shortcomings that IDL recommends must be addressed before plan
approval." In several wildfire mitigation plan proceedings, IDL's comments—filed both before
(e.g. in this docket, and Case Nos. PAC-E-25-22, and CO7-E-25-01) and after (e.g. in Case Nos.
C I 0-E-26-01, and C I I-E-26-01) May 29, 2026—made no such definitive statements about the
weight the State Forester's recommendations were intended to carry. IDL also did not petition for
reconsideration in this (or any other) docket on the grounds that the Commission had failed to
implement its recommendations. Nor did IDL express support for Petitioner's statutory
construction arguments, despite being included on the service list for both petitions for
reconsideration in this matter. From these facts, we conclude that when IDL believes it is
imperative that the State Forester's recommendations be implemented in a wildfire mitigation plan
prior to approval, its comments explicitly state as much. Here, in the absence of such definitive
statements, IDL's comments suggest that IDL intends to defer to the Commission's discretion
regarding timing requirements for implementation.
While Order No. 37064 documented our reasoning for declining to adopt the State
Forester's recommendation concerning vegetation management inspection certifications, both
Petitioners apparently believed the reasoning failed to comply with Idaho Code § 61-804(3)
because we did not quote the "are not just, reasonable, and in the public interest" statutory
language. For Petitioners' benefit, we reiterate and expound upon our reasoning here. As we
previously stated:
While the Commission is unopposed to IDL's position that vegetation inspection
practices and certification standards should address conditions specific to wildfire
risks,without further elaboration of the additional requirements envisioned by IDL,
we lack the basis to impose rigid obligations on the Company in excess of, and
possibly contrary to, what IDL acknowledges are established industry standards.
However, we strongly encourage the Company to explore opportunities to address
IDL's concerns about vegetation inspections overlooking fire ignition and
propagation potential.
Order No. 37604 at 12. Though PotlatchDeltic found this statement "remarkable," we maintain
that it would not be just, reasonable, or in the public interest to implement a requirement under
which either the Commission or Company must guess at the specific certifications IDL believes
Company personnel should obtain, and should the guess be incorrect, Company personnel must
go back to gain additional certifications—all at the Company's customers' expense.
ORDER NO. 37200 16

Bennett Lumber's suggestion that we should disregard the comment filing deadlines and
adopt requirements based on the recommendations contained in IDL's late-filed comments would
amount to an inappropriate application of Commission Rule of Procedure 13, IDAPA
31.01.01.013, regarding liberal construction of the Commission's rules. As we previously
explained: "We note that the Company had no opportunity to respond to the recommendations
contained in IDL's supplemental comments, filed on May 20, 2026. Accordingly, we will not
expressly require the Company to incorporate those recommendations in future WMPs." Order
No. 37064 at 12. We maintain that binding a public utility's use of resources based on late-filed
comments to which the Company had no opportunity to respond would not be just, reasonable, or
in the public interest. Commission Rule of Procedure 13 is more appropriately applied to instances
such as the possibly mislabeled Staff filing that was the subject of PotlatchDeltic's Motion, as
discussed below. While we decline to impose additional requirements on the Company's 2026
WMP based on late filed comments, we expect another wildfire mitigation plan filing from the
Company and would invite parties to file comments or testimony that include ways to improve
that wildfire mitigation plan at the appropriate time.
3. Order No.37064 Properly Considered Staffs Comments,and the Commission
is not Bound by Staffs Recommendations
While accusing the Commission of twisting the meaning of certain Staff recommendations,
PotlatchDeltic itself discounted the crucial context of Staff s comments. Specifically,
PotlatchDeltic argued that Staff s recommendations concerning documentation of inspection
deficiency backlogs and quality-assurance processes for inspection and vegetation management
programs reflected Staffs belief that the Commission should reject the 2026 WMP in the absence
of those components, while failing to acknowledge Staff s broader, express recommendation that
the Commission approve the 2026 WMP.10 With that context, the Commission is confident that
Staff s individual recommendations were meant to describe methods for improving future wildfire
mitigation plans, as reflected in Order No. 37064, not to supersede its overall recommendation to
approve the 2026 WMP.
io While arguing the"essential"nature of monitoring deficiency backlogs,PotlatchDeltic also neglected to include the
portion of Staff's comments that clearly established that the Company was already conducting the monitoring and
Staff directly stated that its recommendation was meant to apply to future WMPs: "The Company provided this data
in response to Staff Production Request No. 48. Staff believes the Company should include the data below for the
three previous years in future WMP filings...."Staff Comments at 17(emphasis added).
ORDER NO. 37200 17

Even if, contrary to the record, the Commission were to accept PotlatchDeltic's argument
concerning the intent of Staff s recommendations (rather than Staff s own explanation), the
Commission is not required to adopt each, or in fact any, of Staffs recommendations.
PotlatchDeltic clearly understood this, as it argued that the Commission should reject Staffs
overall recommendation of approving the 2026 WMP. PotlatchDeltic advanced a paradoxical
standard under which the Commission must accept Staffs individual recommendations—as
interpreted by PotlatchDeltic—while simultaneously rejecting Staffs overall recommendation.
We reject this standard.
4. Distinguishing the Record in This Matter from That in Case No. C01-E-26-01
Bennett Lumber's comparison of the record in this case to that in Case No. COI-E-26-01
was misplaced. The Commission's findings in Order No. 37102, in relevant part, concerned
"material omissions" that the Company sought to resolve through information provided during
discovery. Order No. 37102 at 13-14. Order No. 37102 should not be read to necessitate a finding
that the wildfire mitigation plan under consideration fails to meet the minimum requirements
anytime the applicant provides some project-level detail only in response to discovery requests.
Moreover, as discussed above, IDL's comments in Case No. COI-E-26-01 stated: "IDL
has reviewed the risk modeling as provided in the submitted Wildfire Mitigation Plan by
Clearwater Power and presents the following as considerable shortcomings that IDL recommends
must be addressed before plan approval."Again, IDL made no such definitive recommendation in
this case.
B. Denial of PotlatchDeltic's Motion
Staffs at-issue filing responded to the arguments contained in PotlatchDeltic's Petition,
which, as Staff pointed out, were incorporated by reference into PotlatchDeltic's supplement to
the record in accordance with scheduling Order No. 37106 and was not an answer to
PotlatchDeltic's Petition under Commission Rule of Procedure 331.05, IDAPA 31.01.01.331.05.
Therefore, Staffs filing was timely.
We reject PotlatchDeltic's argument that it did not file any supplement to the record
pursuant to Scheduling Order No. 37106 to which Staff could respond. Under Idaho Code § 61-
626(2), the Commission has discretion to "specify how the matter will be reconsidered...." Order
No. 37106 set a schedule for written submissions. PotlatchDeltic filed comments on
ORDER NO. 37200 18

reconsideration pursuant to this schedule on August 11,2026which,as Staff noted,incorporated
by reference PotlatchDeltic's Petition. Staff filed a response consistent with Order No. 37106.
The Commission's decision-making benefits from a complete, clear record, and we invoke
Commission Rule of Procedure 13, IDAPA 31.01.01.013, regarding liberal construction of the
Commission's rules. No party was prejudiced by Staffs possibly mislabeled filing, which
complied with the schedule set in Order No. 37106.
C. Rejection of PotlatchDeltic's Implied Request for a Hearing
PotlatchDeltic used its characterization of Staff s recommendations concerning
documentation of inspection deficiency backlogs and quality-assurance processes for inspection
and vegetation management programs, and Staff s resulting explanation, to question Staff s
credibility and serve as a basis to renew its request for a technical hearing. We do not find
PotlatchDeltic's position compelling.
We agree with PotlatchDeltic that "[t]he record speaks for itself." PotlatchDeltic Motion
at 3. PotlatchDeltic was afforded multiple opportunities to file written submissions responding to
and challenging Staffs positions, and those of the other parties to the case, as well as the
opportunity to participate fully in the discovery process. The Commission clearly understands
PotlatchDeltic's positions and those of Staff and can sufficiently assess the credibility of those
positions based on the record presented.
Given PotlatchDeltic's framing of the record in this case, we have no doubt that it would
dispute the intention and meaning of oral testimony the same as it has for written submissions.
Despite claiming it requested a hearing to clarify Staff s position, within the same filing,
PotlatchDeltic moved to strike Staff s explanation of the disputed wording from the record based
on technicality. This calls into question the sincerity of PotlatchDeltic's request.
PotlatchDeltic failed to explain how a technical hearing would serve to prevent competing
interpretations of wildfire mitigation plan approval standards or why the Commission would be
unable to draw its own conclusions from written submissions, as it would from oral testimony.
PotlatchDeltic did not meet its burden to"explain[] why written comments alone are insufficient."
IDAPA 31.01.01.202.O1.c.
Moreover, PotlatchDeltic's unreasonable delay and maneuvering ensured that the
reconsideration timeline would not allow for the hearing it sought. As explained above, within its
initial comments filed April 16, 2026, Staff included both the contested recommendations
ORDER NO. 37200 19

concerning specific mitigation measures and a broader recommendation that the Commission
approve the 2026 WMP. If PotlatchDeltic perceived any inherent contradiction in these positions
that necessitated exploration through oral examination, it already had the opportunity to include
this argument in its Petition, which it filed on June 30, 2026. Instead, in requesting the process it
sought on reconsideration, as required by Commission Rule of Procedure 331, IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03,PotlatchDeltic merely stated: "PotlatchDeltic requests reconsideration by written
briefs and oral examination on the same. PotlatchDeltic is, however, prepared to pursue
reconsideration by whatever method the Commission deems appropriate." PotlatchDeltic's
Petition at 20. Although PotlatchDeltic had long been aware of the alleged contradiction in Staff's
position, its Petition did not convey the urgency regarding the need for oral examination that
PotlatchDeltic later asserted in its September 8,2026, submission.Under Idaho Code § 61-626(2),
the Commission has just 13 weeks after the date for filing petitions for reconsideration to conduct
a hearing. PotlatchDeltic's reply filing in which it implicitly sought a hearing was submitted
exactly ten weeks after the deadline for filing reconsideration. Because PotlatchDeltic's reply was
filed in the alternative to its unnecessary Motion to Strike Staff s response, Staff was then due
another two weeks to file its Answer to the Motion under Commission Rule of Procedure 57.03,
IDAPA 31.01.01.57.03. By that time, it would not have been feasible to schedule and conduct a
hearing.
D. Conclusion
The Commission appreciates Petitioners' participation in this proceeding and their
contributions to a robust record. The Commission also recognizes Petitioners' particularized
business concerns regarding the WSCA. Nevertheless, the Commission is tasked with evaluating
the 2026 WMP against the statutory criteria, including whether the plan satisfies the minimum
statutory requirements; describes mitigation efforts consistent with the public health, safety, and
welfare; can be feasibly implemented at a reasonable cost; and adequately minimizes wildfire risk
while providing for an appropriate response to fires that occur. Having considered the record in its
entirety,the Commission finds that the 2026 WMP satisfies each of these criteria and consequently
reaffirms Order No. 37064.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Order No. 37064 is reaffirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Order No. 37064 shall remain in full force and effect.
ORDER NO. 37200 20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PotlatchDeltic's Motion to Strike is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PotlatchDeltic's implied request for a hearing is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by this Order
may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho within 42 days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and
the Idaho Appellate Rules.Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 191h day of
October 2026.
G
EDWARD LODGE, PR IDENT
Ir-It- �ft�
J R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
DAYN HA IE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
o i a anchez
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\AV U-E-25-15_WMP\orders\AV UE2515_Recon_FO_jl.docx
ORDER NO. 37200 21