Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 2013No. 39151-2011Published

1ConcurrenceJ. Jones, Justice

I concur in the result reached by the IPUC and affirmed by the Court. However, I am uncomfortable with the route taken by the IPUC in reaching its final resolution of this case, as the three orders issued by the IPUC are somewhat unclear, and rather in conflict, as to the elements of a legally enforceable obligation (LEO) and how a qualifying facility (QF) may obtain grandfathering status. Because these issues are of vital importance to both utilities and QFs, it is essential that they have understandable and predictable criteria for their planning and contracting activities. That is not what…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense CenterSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. Home Plate, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
  5. Weisel v. BEAVER SPRINGS OWNERS ASS'N, INC.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API