Opinion ID: 2465095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should This Appeal Be Dismissed for Lack of a Case or Controversy Between IPUC and ACHD?

Text: IPUC contends that this appeal should be dismissed because no justiciable controversy exists between it and ACHD. It reasons, Because Section 10 and Resolution 330 are substantially similar, Section 10 by its terms is not in effect for ACHD's projects. That argument is based upon the provision in Section 10 stating that it does not apply to relocations where the public road agency has adopted legally binding guidelines with provisions that are substantially similar to Section 10 for allocating utility relocation costs between the Company and other parties. Thus, as long as ACHD keeps its Resolution 330, that resolution will control the allocation of the cost of relocating the Company's utilities to third parties. IPUC also addresses various arguments made by ACHD, pointing out why they are without merit. A justiciable controversy must be `a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.' Harris v. Cassia County, 106 Idaho 513, 516, 681 P.2d 988, 991 (1984) (quoting from Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Connecticut v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617, 621 (1937)). This case presents a real and substantial controversy regarding the legality of the amended tariff. Specifically, ACHD contends that it infringes upon its exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a third party is required to reimburse a utility for all or a portion of its cost of relocating the utility's distribution facilities that are in a public right-of-way and exceeds the authority granted to IPUC by the legislature. IPUC believed that there was enough of a controversy regarding those issues that it adopted the amendments to Idaho Power's tariff. The resolution of those issues would not be an advisory opinion based upon a hypothetical state of facts. It will be based upon the law and the provisions of the tariff. Therefore, we will not dismiss the appeal.