Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 61-501 (2026)
Investment of authority.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Investment of authority.
The public utilities commission is hereby vested with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the provisions of this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 639 P.2d 442 (Idaho 1981).
Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 639 P.2d 442 (Idaho 1981). “The Commission contends that its authority to supervise and regulate utilities pursuant to I.C. § 61-501 [1] and its authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure pursuant to I.”
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 629 P.2d 678 (Idaho 1981). “Utah Power challenges numerous methods used by the Commission to reach that result. The Public Utilities Commission is statutorily vested with jurisdiction to regulate rates charged by public utilities furnishing services, products or commodities in the State of Idaho.”
Idaho Fair Share v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 751 P.2d 107 (Idaho 1988). “(emphasis added) Title 61, Chapter 5 of the Idaho Code details the matters that are within the authority of the Commission: The public utilities commission is hereby vested with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public utility in the state and to do all…”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Env't All., 591 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1979). “” The Commission contends that the statutory language of I.C. § 61-501, when read in the abstract, arguably could be construed as granting authority to the Commission to regulate public utilities comparable to the police power of the legislature.”
Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 571 P.2d 753 (Idaho 1977). “In addressing the question of whether this dispute is one for the courts or the commission, we first observe several general tenets which guide the proper assignment of this matter into one body or the other. First, it will be remembered that the commission is vested with the…”
Sanchez v. State, 141 P.3d 1108 (Idaho 2006). “§§ 61-501 and 601, which empowered the agency to regulate every public utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the provisions of the public utilities law, including adopting rules of practice and procedure.”
Grever v. Idaho Tel. Co., 499 P.2d 1256 (Idaho 1972). “For reasons set out above plaintiffs should have initiated their action in the administrative agency and must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking court relief.”
Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 729 P.2d 400 (Idaho 1986). “Now, Idaho Power wants the Commission to interpret the contract and find that, based on our Afton I/III decision, its preferred payment option is in effect.”
Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 693 P.2d 427 (Idaho 1984). “I.C. § 61-501 provides: "Investment of authority.”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 917 P.2d 766 (Idaho 1996). “PacifiCorp is also a state regulated utility within the meaning of PURPA See PURPA §§ 3(4), (17), and (18); 16 U.S.CA. § 2602(4), (17), (18) (West 1985).”
Empire Lumber Co. v. Washington Water Power Co., 755 P.2d 1229 (Idaho 1988). “401 (a) (1980), further provides: Such [state] implementation may consist of the issuance of regulations, an undertaking to resolve disputes between qualifying facilities and electric utilities under subpart C (arrangements between electric utilities and qualifying cogeneration…”
AW Brown Co., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 828 P.2d 841 (Idaho 1992). “I.C. §§ 61-501, 61-129; Grever v. Idaho Telephone Company, 94 Idaho 900 , 499 P.”
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.