House approves bill limiting state contracting with politically governed out-of-state grid operators
March 26, 2025 | 2025 House Legislative Sessions, 2025 Legislative Sessions, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Idaho House on March 25 approved House Bill 4 15, a measure aimed at preventing contracts with governmental entities whose governance structure could give another state political control over transmission facilities inside Idaho.
Lede and context: The sponsor, a representative from District 3, said the bill is narrowly tailored to preserve Idaho authority over transmission: “Idaho should be regulating our electric activities through a fair structure and not California politicians,” the sponsor said during opening remarks, citing concerns about CAISO governance.
Why it matters: Backers pointed to a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) staff assessment and a CAISO filing with FERC that contemplated large transfers of Idaho wind-powered megawatts into a California-controlled market. Supporters said state-level governance must not be ceded to entities whose directors are appointed by another state’s governor. The sponsor noted CAISO’s interest in as much as 1,000 megawatts of Idaho wind capacity and a referenced total of 4,062 megawatts contemplated in filings, figures supporters used to underline the scale of the issue.
Debate highlights: Opponents argued the bill would politicize transmission policy and limit reliability and cost-saving benefits from grid interconnection. A representative from District 31 warned that restricting transmission contracting could reduce opportunities to trade power, lower costs, and improve reliability; he pointed to other Western regions’ experience and warned that politics should not drive grid design.
Vote and next steps: The House approved the bill 46 ayes, 23 nays, 1 abstention. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
Implementation limits: Sponsor and supporters said the bill does not restrict private contracts with investor‑owned utilities or independent transmission providers; it targets contracting with governmental entities whose governance is politically controlled, as described in the bill.
Outlook: Supporters framed the bill as protecting Idaho’s ratepayers and grid sovereignty; opponents cautioned it could constrain future transmission builds and regional market participation, risks they said could raise costs or reduce reliability.
Lede and context: The sponsor, a representative from District 3, said the bill is narrowly tailored to preserve Idaho authority over transmission: “Idaho should be regulating our electric activities through a fair structure and not California politicians,” the sponsor said during opening remarks, citing concerns about CAISO governance.
Why it matters: Backers pointed to a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) staff assessment and a CAISO filing with FERC that contemplated large transfers of Idaho wind-powered megawatts into a California-controlled market. Supporters said state-level governance must not be ceded to entities whose directors are appointed by another state’s governor. The sponsor noted CAISO’s interest in as much as 1,000 megawatts of Idaho wind capacity and a referenced total of 4,062 megawatts contemplated in filings, figures supporters used to underline the scale of the issue.
Debate highlights: Opponents argued the bill would politicize transmission policy and limit reliability and cost-saving benefits from grid interconnection. A representative from District 31 warned that restricting transmission contracting could reduce opportunities to trade power, lower costs, and improve reliability; he pointed to other Western regions’ experience and warned that politics should not drive grid design.
Vote and next steps: The House approved the bill 46 ayes, 23 nays, 1 abstention. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
Implementation limits: Sponsor and supporters said the bill does not restrict private contracts with investor‑owned utilities or independent transmission providers; it targets contracting with governmental entities whose governance is politically controlled, as described in the bill.
Outlook: Supporters framed the bill as protecting Idaho’s ratepayers and grid sovereignty; opponents cautioned it could constrain future transmission builds and regional market participation, risks they said could raise costs or reduce reliability.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting