Opinion ID: 1172988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tenth Amendment

Text: PURPA § 210(f) provides that each State regulatory authority shall ... implement such [FERC] rule ... for each electric utility for which it has ratemaking authority. FERC interpreted this provision to require that: Such [State] implementation may consist of the issuance of regulations, an undertaking to resolve disputes between qualifying facilities and electric utilities arising under Subpart C, or any other action reasonably designed to implement such subpart. 18 C.F.R. § 292.401 (1980). Idaho Power argues that PURPA and its implementing FERC regulations as applied in this instance violate the tenth amendment. In FERC v. Mississippi, supra , the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of whether PURPA violated the tenth amendment. [13] The Court addressed the very provision with which we are here concerned: Section 210's requirement that `each State regulatory authority shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, implement such rule (or revised rule) for each electric utility for which it has ratemaking authority,' 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(f)(1) (emphasis added) is more troublesome. The statute's substantive provisions require electricity utilities to purchase electricity from, and to sell it to, qualifying cogenerator and small power production facilities. § 824a-3(a). Yet FERC has declared that state commissions may implement this by, among other things, `an undertaking to resolve disputes between qualifying facilities and electric utilities arising under [PURPA]' 18 C.F.R. § 292.401(a)(198). In essence then, the statute and the implementing regulations simply require the Mississippi authorities to adjudicate disputes arising under the statute. Dispute resolution of this kind is the very type of activity customarily engaged in by the Mississippi Service Commission.... ... . The Mississippi Commission has jurisdiction to entertain claims analogous to those granted by PURPA, and it can satisfy § 210's requirements simply by opening its doors to claimants. That the Commission has administrative as well as judicial duties is of no significance. Any other conclusion would allow the States to disregard both the preeminent position held by federal law throughout the Nation, ... and the congressional determination that the federal rights granted by PURPA can appropriately be enforced through state adjudicatory machinery... . 102 S.Ct. at 2137-38 (emphasis added). The Commission, similar to the Mississippi Commission, has jurisdiction to entertain claims analogous to those granted by PURPA and it can satisfy § 210's requirements simply by opening its doors to claimants as was done here. The Idaho Public Utilities Law gives the Commission the power to determine utility rates, the power to resolve complaints against utilities such as the Afton complaint herein, and the power to review and establish utility contracts. As was the case in FERC v. Mississippi, the Commission's actions in this case are similar to its everyday ratemaking functions which necessarily entail reviewing contracts and transactions which affect those rates. I.C. § 61-307. Contracts entered into by public utilities with CSPPs or decisions by utilities not to contract with CSPPs have a very real effect on the rates paid by consumers both at present and in the future. We hold that the Commission acted within its authority in requiring Idaho Power to contract with Afton and the decision of the Commission is therefore affirmed. Given our holding in this case, we find it unnecessary to address the other arguments raised by the parties. Costs to respondent. No attorney's fees on appeal. DONALDSON, C.J., and BISTLINE, J., concur.