Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 61-332 (2026)

Purpose of electric supplier stabilization act.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Purpose of electric supplier stabilization act.

(1) This act includes sections 61-332 through 61-334C, Idaho Code, and shall be referred to herein as "this act" and may be cited and referred to as the "Electric Supplier Stabilization Act."

(2) This act and its amendments are designed to promote harmony among and between electric suppliers furnishing electricity within the state of Idaho, prohibit the "pirating" of consumers of another electric supplier, discourage duplication of electric facilities, actively supervise certain conduct of electric suppliers as it relates to this act, and stabilize the territories and consumers served with electricity by such electric suppliers.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1965–2011 · leading case: Kootenai Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., 901 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kootenai Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., 901 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 8× “The appellant, the Washington Water Power Company (WWP), seeks reversal of the district court’s decision that its “feeder tie” should not be considered an “existing service fine” to establish a measuring point for determining entitlement to serve new consumers under the Idaho…”

Snake River Valley Elec. Ass'n v. Pacificorp, (Including Utah Power & Light Co., a Div.), & State of Idaho, Defendant-Intervenor, 238 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “The district court granted summary judgment to PacifiCorp, agreeing that the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (“ESSA”), Idaho Code § 61-332 et seq. (1999), expressly authorizes PacifiCorp’s refusal, and, as such, the state action immunity doctrine bars SRVEA from recovering…”

Snake River Valley Elec. Ass'n v. Pacificorp, (Including Utah Power & Light, a Div.), State of Idaho, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee, 357 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “In January 1998, Idaho moved for partial summary judgment on state action immunity grounds, contending that it actively supervised the policies underlying the Idaho Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (“ESSA”).”

Unity Light & Power Co. v. City of Burley, 445 P.2d 720 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 3× “Unity instituted the present action seeking damages from Burley for pirating of customers and also seeking injunctive relief to restrain the city from interfering with Unity’s operation as an electric cooperative association within the areas annexed to the city.”

Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 730 P.2d 930 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 4× “Several issues are before us on appeal: Whether the IPUC had jurisdiction to decide the issues raised and whether the case presented a controversy ripe for resolution; whether the IPUC correctly rejected the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (ESSA) (I.C. § 61-332 et seq.) as…”

Cambridge Tel. Co. v. Pine Tel. Sys., Inc., 712 P.2d 576 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 2× “The Commission’s decision is additionally fortified by giving appropriate attention and deference to legislative policy as evidenced by the enactment of I.C. § 61-332, et seq., the statement of purpose being: Purpose of electric supplier stabilization act.”

Snake River Valley Elec. Ass'n v. PacifiCorp, 228 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “judgment to PacifiCorp, agreeing that the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (“ESSA”), Idaho Code § 61-332 et seq. (1999), expressly authorizes PacifiCorp’s refusal, and, as such, the state action immunity doctrine bars SRVEA from recovering under the federal antitrust statutes.”

Rural Elec. Co. v. City of Burley, 403 P.2d 580 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 12× “Rural Electric maintains that the City is “pirating” customers previously served by Rural Electric, in violation of I.C. §§ 61-332, 61-333 and 61-334. The sections of Idaho Code under consideration read: “61-332.”

Ada Cnty. High. Dist. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 253 P.3d 675 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 5× “Idaho Code § 61-332 states, “This act includes sections 61-332 through 61-334C, Idaho Code, and shall be referred to herein as ‘this act’ and may be cited and referred to as the ‘Electric Supplier Stabilization Act.”

Ada Cnty. High. Dist. v. IPUC & Idaho Power (Idaho 2011). · cites it 5× “Idaho Code § 61-332 states, “This act includes sections 61-332 through 61-334C, Idaho Code, and shall be referred to herein as ‘this act’ and may be cited and referred to as the ‘Electric Supplier Stabilization Act.”

— Idaho Code § 61-332(B) — 1 case

Kootenai Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., 901 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1995). “The appellant, the Washington Water Power Company (WWP), seeks reversal of the district court’s decision that its “feeder tie” should not be considered an “existing service fine” to establish a measuring point for determining entitlement to serve new consumers under the Idaho…”

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.