Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 61-315 (2026)
Discrimination and preference prohibited.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Discrimination and preference prohibited.
No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage. No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of service. The commission shall have the power to determine any question of fact arising under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1976–2011 · leading case: Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 571 P.2d 753 (Idaho 1977).
Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 571 P.2d 753 (Idaho 1977). “Thus, the commission contends that the contract interpretation and the issuance of credit cards created an unreasonable discrimination in favor of Burlington Northern, thus bringing the controversy under the purview of I.C. § 61-315. However attractive such a proposition may…”
Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Intermountain Gas Co., 597 P.2d 1058 (Idaho 1979). “U & I argues that Schedule LV-1 is ambiguous, that Intermountain’s application of Schedule LV-1 is improper, and that *375 Inter mountain’s interpretation results in unjust rate discrimination against those gas customers served by Schedule LV-1 in violation of I.C. § 61-315. 7…”
Grindstone Butte Mut. Canal Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 627 P.2d 804 (Idaho 1981). “Our legislature has also in I.C. § 61-315 prohibited a public utility from granting any preference or advantage or subjecting any consumer to any prejudice or disadvantage.”
Idaho State Homebuilders v. Washington Water, 690 P.2d 350 (Idaho 1984). “ No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage. No public utility shall establish or…”
Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 253 P.3d 684 (Idaho 2011). “Does the Line Installation Allowance Result in Unlawful Discrimination between New Customers in and outside of Subdivisions or between New and Existing Customers? Building Contractors alleges that the new line extension allowance of $1,780 per single-phase transformer violates…”
Agric. Prods. Corp. v. Utah Power & Light Co., 557 P.2d 617 (Idaho 1976). “I.C. § 61-315. 8 The Commission could legitimately alter a contract which perpetuated or created any “unreasonable difference” as to rates.”
Grindstone Butte Mut. Canal Co. v. Idaho Power Co., 574 P.2d 902 (Idaho 1978). “Idaho Code § 61-315 provides: “No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.”
Bunker Hill Co. v. Washington Water Power Co., 561 P.2d 391 (Idaho 1977). “A mere difference in rates, it was held, is not necessarily an “unreasonable difference” of the sort forbidden by I.C. § 61-315. Applying these principles, we there held: “Before the Commission may authorize a rate increase to bring Agricultural Products up to the level of…”
Bldg. Contractors Ass'n of Sw. Idaho, Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 1259 (Idaho 1996). “Section 61-315 of the Idaho Code prohibits either preferential or discriminatory treatment of ratepayers by public utilities.”
In Re Jay Hulet's Complaint Regarding Idaho Power Co.'s Irr. Buy-Back Prog., 65 P.3d 498 (Idaho 2003). “Further, in foreclosing a late bid from Hulet, the Commission asserted that it was adhering to the mandate of I.C. § 61-315, which prohibits a public utility from making or granting a preference or advantage to any person and treating Hulet's bid in the same manner as it had…”
Hulet v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 65 P.3d 498 (Idaho 2003). “Further, in foreclosing a late bid from Hulet, the Commission asserted that it was adhering to the mandate of I.C. § 61-315, which prohibits a public utility from making or granting a preference or advantage to any person and treating Hulet’s bid in the same manner as it had…”
The Bldg. Contractors Assoc. of SW Idaho v. IPUC & Idaho Power (Idaho 2011). “Does the Line Installation Allowance Result in Unlawful Discrimination between New Customers in and outside of Subdivisions or between New and Existing Customers? Building Contractors alleges that the new line extension allowance of $1,780 per single- phase transformer violates…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.