Opinion ID: 1378173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: idaho power appeal

Text: (a) Permissibility of Idaho Power's Collateral Attack of Order No. 15121 The Commission argues that Idaho Power should have challenged the adoption of the intervenor funding rules in Order No. 15121 by direct appeal from that order. The Commission contends that the instant appeal from Orders Nos. 15518 and 15742 amounts to an impermissible collateral attack of Order No. 15121. We disagree. Although I.C. § 61-625 provides that [a]ll orders and decisions of the commission which have become final and conclusive shall not be attacked collaterally, its proscription is inapplicable to this case. As the court recognized in Utah-Idaho Sugar v. Intermountain Gas Co., 100 Idaho 368, 374, 597 P.2d 1058 (1979), an administrative order may generally be collaterally attacked when the issuing agency lacks jurisdiction over the matter considered... . Idaho Power challenges the Commission's authority to promulgate intervenor funding rules, and such alleged error under the foregoing rule does render Order No. 15121 of the Commission vulnerable to collateral attack. (b) Authority of Commission to Issue Orders 15121, 15518 and 15742 Under State Law The next question to be considered is whether the Commission has authority under state law to adopt intervenor funding rules, and make an award of attorney fees and costs, in connection with PURPA proceedings. 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.C. § 61-601 [2] encompass the authority to promulgate intervenor funding rules. We decline to follow the construction of these statutes as advocated by the Commission in view of the long line of authority in this state holding that (1) the Commission has only that jurisdiction conferred to it by the legislature and (2) attorney fees may be awarded only where specifically provided by statute or contract. Because the Commission was created by statute, the Commission has no jurisdiction other than that which the legislature has specifically granted to it. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). Accord, United States v. Utah Power & Light Company, 98 Idaho 665, 570 P.2d 1353 (1977); Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Idaho 692, 571 P.2d 753 (1977). The Commission therefore exercises limited jurisdiction, with nothing being presumed in favor of its jurisdiction. Id. As the court stated in Washington Water Power Company, supra, [a]s as general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the statutes reposing power in them and they cannot confer it upon themselves, although they may determine whether they have it. If the provisions of the statutes are not met and compliance is not had with the statutes, no jurisdiction exists. (Emphasis added.) 99 Idaho at 879, 591 P.2d at 126. A review of Idaho Code Ch. 5, title 61, reveals the complete absence of any section which would empower the Commission to either adopt rules governing compensation for consumer intervenors in proceedings related to PURPA or to actually award any such compensation in the form of attorney fees or costs. It is true that I.C. § 61-501 empowers the Commission 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 the public utilities law, and it is equally true that I.C. § 61-601 empowers the Commission to adopt rules of practice and procedure to so carry out the spirit and intent of the provisions of the public utilities law. However, it would be inappropriate to construe those provisions to authorize the Commission to compensate consumer intervenors in the absence of a specific statute to that effect. This is especially true in light of the general rule that attorney fees cannot be recovered in an action unless authorized by statute or by express agreement of the parties. Kidwell v. Fenley, 96 Idaho 534, 531 P.2d 1179 (1975); Mecham v. Nelson, 92 Idaho 783, 451 P.2d 529 (1969). See, 20 C.J.S. Costs § 218, p. 455. The court has taken the same position on the power to grant costs. The right to recover costs is statutory, and no cost can be granted without statutory authorization. Henderson v. Cominco American, Inc., 95 Idaho 690, 518 P.2d 873 (1973); Harrison v. Pence, 79 Idaho 377, 318 P.2d 1096 (1957). See I.C. § 12-101. This authorization is for the courts, not the Commission. The Idaho Legislature has authorized the award of attorney fees in only a few clearly defined circumstances. Idaho Code §§ 12-120 and 12-121 allow the courts to set attorney fees in civil damage suits under certain conditions. Notably, by adopting IRCP 54(e)(1), the court has restricted the award of attorney fees under § 12-121 to those cases brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. The legislature has allowed for attorney fees in other very limited contexts: for the wrongful dishonor of a check under I.C. § 28-3-510A; under the Consumer Protection Act, I.C. § 48-608(3); recovery by personal representative for services on behalf of a decedent's estate under I.C. § 15-3-710; I.C. § 32-704 delineates the responsibility for a spouse's attorney fees in a divorce proceeding; attorney fees for unreasonable refusal to honor insurance claim under I.C. § 41-1839; for violation of state securities law, I.C. § 30-1446; in actions for wages due to an employer, I.C. § 45-605; in actions involving proceedings brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I.C. § 72-803. See, Reasonable Attorneys Fees in Idaho, 11 Idaho Law Review 279 (1975). From the foregoing statutes, it is clear that the Idaho legislature has provided for the award of attorney fees specifically when it so intends, and only when it so intends. The same is true for costs. It follows therefore that the broad language of I.C. §§ 61-501 and 601 do not empower the Commission to award any compensation in the form of costs for consumer intervenors in PURPA related proceedings. The Commission argues in the alternative that the cases of Kerr v. Department of Employment, 97 Idaho 385, 545 P.2d 473 (1976), and White v. Idaho Forest Industries, 98 Idaho 784, 572 P.2d 887 (1977), stand for the proposition that an administrative agency may, on its own initiative and without statutory authorization adopt narrowly tailored rules providing for an award of attorney fees or other costs to participants appearing in proceedings before the agency. We disagree. Both Kerr and White arose from claims for unemployment compensation presented to the Department of Employment, appealed to the Industrial Commission and then appealed to this court. In both cases this court awarded payment of attorney fees pursuant to a regulation of the Department of Employment providing for attorney fees for claimants who are successful upon appeal before this court. 97 Idaho at 387, 545 P.2d at 475; 98 Idaho at 788, 572 P.2d at 891. However, in neither Kerr nor White did the court determine that the Department of Employment's administrative regulation allowing for attorney fees and costs rested on the enabling legislation of that administrative agency. Nor did the court address the question whether an administrative agency could by its own rule or regulation and in the absence of specific statutory authority allow for the award of attorney fees or other costs. The Commission admits this fact in its brief; and in our view this admission is the crux of the matter. A review of the briefs submitted in both Kerr and White reveal that no challenge was made by the parties concerning an award of attorney fees; the reason being that the attorney fees in those cases were paid, not by the employers, but by the Department itself, out of its own funds. Thus viewed, Kerr and White have no bearing on the issue presented in this case of whether the Commission has authority to award attorney fees and costs to intervenors against a utility. Additionally, it is to be noted that the statutory framework involving the Department of Employment in Kerr and White differs significantly from the statutory framework involving the Commission in this case. In White the Department of Employment regulations provided for the award of attorney fees to attorneys representing claimants on appeal to the state Supreme Court from a decision which reversed a prior decision in their favor. In Kerr the court awarded attorney fees without reference to any department regulation. However, under the employment security laws, Idaho Code Title 72, providing the statutory backdrop for the appeals in both White and Kerr, there appears to be implied statutory authority for an allowance of attorney fees and costs in proceedings before the Industrial Commission, Department of Employment or an appeal to the courts. I.C. § 72-1375(b) is illustrative of such authority: No individual claiming benefits shall be charged fees or costs of any kind in any proceeding under this act by the commission, the director, any of its or his employees or representatives, or by any court or any officer thereof... . Any individual claiming benefits in any proceeding before the director or the commission or his or its representatives or a court may be represented by counsel or other duly authorized agent; but no such counsel or agent shall either charge or receive for such services more than an amount approved by the commission... . See also I.C. § 72-804 (employer shall pay reasonable attorney fees in addition to other compensation where such employer has unreasonably contested claim, unreasonably discontinued payment of compensation, etc.). Thus, the court's awarding of attorney fees in both Kerr and White was the result of a statutory framework designed for the peculiar needs and circumstances of claimants for unemployment compensation benefits. Such protections, including the award of attorney fees, are clearly statutory. These two cases therefore do not provide any support for the contention that the Commission may promulgate rules for attorney fees based on the broad language of I.C. § 61-501 and 601. Similarly, the cases of Consumers Lobby v. Public Util. Com'n, 25 Cal.3d 891, 160 Cal. Rptr. 124, 603 P.2d 41 (1979), and Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Util. Com'n, 195 Colo. 130, 576 P.2d 544 (1978) (en banc), do not support the Commission's contentions. These cases involve, respectively, the utilities commissions of California and Colorado. In Consumers Lobby the court addressed the issue whether the state utilities commission had authority to award attorney fees and costs to public interest participants in quasi-judicial reparation proceedings. The California court concluded that its utilities commission has jurisdiction to award attorney fees in quasi-judicial reparation proceedings but not in quasi-legislative rate making proceedings. The crucial difference between Consumers Lobby and this case is that the California utilities commission  is a state agency of constitutional origin with far-reaching duties, functions and powers. (Cal. Const. art. XII §§ 1-6). 160 Cal. Rptr. at 132, 603 P.2d at 49. By contrast, the Idaho Commission is strictly a statutory creation under I.C. § 61-201. In California the utilities commission is in effect a co-ordinate branch of government under the state constitution with far greater powers than the Idaho Commission. This fundamental difference between the statutes makes Consumers Lobby inapposite. Mountain States, supra, is likewise inapposite because the Colorado Commission, like California's, has a broad constitutional base of authority: Colorado Const. Art. XXV has granted to the Commission authority to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity... . This is a legislative function ... and, until the General Assembly restricts it, the Commission has as much authority as the legislature possessed prior to the adoption of Article XXV in 1954. 596 P.2d at 547. The court went on: The power to authorize the award of attorneys' fees and other legal costs in cases tried before administrative bodies is generally accepted as a fundamental legislative prerogative. Under our constitution, the legislative authority in public utility matters has been delegated to the PUC and the legislature has not by any statutory enactment restricted it in the matter of awarding attorney fees and other legal costs. Id. In Colorado the commission has even broader constitutional powers than the California commission. Thus, neither Consumers Lobby nor Mountain States, supra, has relevance to the scope of the Idaho Commission's legislative grant of powers. Finally, we consider the contention that the Idaho legislature has implicitly approved the passage of the intervenor funding rules by way of non-objection to them, pursuant to I.C. §§ 67-5217 and 5218. These two statutory provisions provide a procedure for legislative review of all rules promulgated by any state agency. Relevant to this case is the provision in I.C. § 67-5218 that failure [of the legislature] to report [on rules submitted to it for review] shall constitute legislative approval of the rules as submitted. That section further provides that [e]very rule promulgated within the authority conferred by law and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code, shall be in full force until the same is rejected, amended or modified by the legislature. (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed that the legislature took no action with regard to the Commission's intervenor funding rules. However, by the very terms of I.C. § 67-5218, in order for the legislature's non-objection to the rules to constitute legislative approval of them, the Commission in the first instance must have been acting within its grant of authority in promulgating the rules. Inasmuch as we have determined that the Commission is without authority under state law to promulgate intervenor funding rules allowing costs and attorney fees, the legislative failure to object to their promulgation is an irrelevant consideration as to the validity of the rules. (c) Authority of Commission to Issue Orders Nos. 15121, 15518 and 15742 Under Federal Law The next issue to be considered on appeal is whether Congress intended through its enactment of PURPA to confer on the Commission the authority to promulgate intervenor funding rules and to make such awards in PURPA-related proceedings independent of any state authority to so act. While both the Commission and Idaho Power agree that the federal standards set forth in PURPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2621-2627, are not binding upon state utility commissions, the two parties disagree as to whether § 2632 of Title 16, U.S.C., concerning intervenor funding, was intended to require state utility commissions to award intervenor funding despite a lack of authority under state law to so act. Simply stated, the Commission argues that Congress intended to preempt this field of regulation, while Idaho Power argues the contrary. For the reasons discussed below, we are in agreement with the argument advanced by Idaho Power. The provisions in PURPA relating to intervention and judicial review are set forth in 16 U.S.C. §§ 2631-2634. Section 2632(a)(1) provides in part that if no alternative means for assuring representation of electric consumers is adopted under § 2632(b) and if an electric consumer substantially contributed to the approval, in whole or in part, of a position advocated by such consumer in a proceeding concerning such validity, and relating to any standard set forth in subchapter II of this chapter, such utility shall be liable to compensate such consumer ... for reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs incurred in preparation and advocacy of such position. While section 2632(a)(2) states that an electric consumer entitled to fees and costs may collect them from the utility by bringing a civil action unless the state utility commission has adopted a procedure for making such awards; the question of the validity and hence the ability of an electric consumer to bring such an action is not before the court and any comment thereon would be dicta. In our opinion the language of 16 U.S.C. § 2632 does not require; nor, more importantly, does it confer any authority upon the Commission. Congress has left to the discretion of the Commission, assuming preexisting State authority, or to the legislature in the case of § 2632(b), whether it will act or not. Such permissive language is irreconcilable with the applicability of the doctrine of federal preemption in this instance. The construction of § 2632 adhered to today is consistent with the fundamental rule that statutes must be construed as a whole, without separating one provision from another. First Am. Title Co., Inc. v. Clark, 99 Idaho 10, 12, 576 P.2d 581 (1978); Norton v. Department of Employment, 94 Idaho 924, 500 P.2d 825 (1972); Stucki v. Loveland, 94 Idaho 621, 495 P.2d 571 (1972). In this context it is to be observed that sections 2621(a), 2621(c)(1), 2623(a)(1), 2623(a)(2), 2624(a) and 2627(b) all recognize the state utility commissions' power to continue to apply state law in the regulation of electric utilities. The only construction of § 2632 which is consistent with the aforementioned statutory provisions is that § 2632 requires utilities to pay consumer intervenors' fees and costs only in PURPA-related proceedings conducted by state utility commissions which have independent state authority to award intervenor funding. This construction is the only way to reconcile § 2632 with the strong language in §§ 2621-2627 that makes state law an integral part of ratemaking for electric utilities. Under this construction of § 2632, the Commission had no authority to issue Orders Nos. 15518 and 15742 purporting to require Idaho Power to pay the intervenor's attorney's fees and other costs in Case No. P-300-13, nor did the Commission have the authority to adopt intervenor funding rules in Order No. 15121. Given this determination, there is no reason to reach the challenges of Idaho Power concerning the constitutionality of § 2632. As the court stated in Curtis v. Child, 95 Idaho 63, 68, 501 P.2d 1374 (1972), [it] will not pass on questions of constitutionality unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to determine the merits of the case.