Kootenai Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co.

• Decision Date: 01 September 1995
• Docket Number: No. 21328,21328
• Citation: 127 Idaho 432,901 P.2d 1333
• Parties: KOOTENAI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Coeur d'Alene, April 1995 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1333

901 P.2d 1333

127 Idaho 432

KOOTENAI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21328.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Coeur d'Alene, April 1995 Term.

Sept. 1, 1995.

Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke & Miller, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant. Patrick E. Miller, argued.

Stephen M. Ayers, Coeur d'Alene, for respondent.

SILAK, Justice.

This action involves a dispute between two electric suppliers as to which may legally serve individual consumers within a light industrial park. 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 line" to establish a measuring point for determining entitlement to serve new consumers under the Idaho Electric Supplier Stabilization Act, I.C. § 61-332, et. seq. We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Coeur d'Alene Commerce Park (the Park) is a commercial subdivision located on Kathleen Avenue between Highway 95 and Ramsey Road in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The property is owned by David and Susan Schreiber and was being developed by Triad Development, Inc. (Triad), an Idaho corporation of whom the Schreibers, Patrick Acuff, Dean Haagenson and Robert Wheeler were shareholders. Triad was formed to develop the Park which is zoned for light industry. It is expected that when fully developed, businesses at the Park will collectively demand upwards of 72,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

Before the development of the Park, the land was bare ground on which no electric consumer was located. There were electric distribution lines or "service lines" (less than 69 kv) in the vicinity of the area which were subsequently extended into the Park. All of the service lines closest to the Park were owned by Respondent Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc. (KEC), and were within 1,320 feet of all parts of the Park.

Triad contacted both WWP and KEC regarding providing service to the Park in the spring of 1991. During Triad's negotiations with KEC, representatives stated that WWP could not serve the Park without a written waiver from KEC. After reviewing the development plan, KEC presented a proposal to Triad whereby Triad would pay approximately $38,000 to reimburse KEC its cost in extending its electric facilities to the development and running an electric "backbone" system throughout the Park. The proposal also provided that within five years, as consumers located within the Park, KEC would rebate a proportionate amount of the cost to Triad.

With respect to Triad's negotiations with WWP, WWP at first did not actively solicit Triad's business and advised Triad that KEC's service lines were closer to the Park than WWP's. Later, WWP advised Triad that if WWP provided service to the Park, and ran underground lines throughout the Park, there would be no charge to Triad. During this period, WWP did have two main power distribution lines, known as feeder lines, in the vicinity of the Park, but not located where they could compete for consumers of the Park. One feeder line, 112, primarily served a residential area known as Fairway Forest Subdivisions. The second line, 113, primarily served a commercial load. In 1991, WWP's engineering department was planning to install a service line known as a "feeder tie" in the Fairway Forest Subdivision area due to expected residential and commercial growth. A feeder tie is a power line which connects feeder lines. The feeder ties allow utilities to transfer electrical loads between feeder lines to prevent single feeder lines, and their substation supply points, from being overtaxed.

In March 1992, KEC sent a contract to Mr. Haagenson which set forth the terms by which KEC would install its facilities to and throughout the Park. Before it was signed, and apparently without Mr. Haagenson's knowledge, Patrick Acuff, on behalf of Triad, signed a contract with WWP. Shortly afterwards, WWP constructed an underground three-phase line to and through the Park in late March and early April 1992.

On April 28, 1992, KEC filed a complaint in district court against WWP seeking declaratory relief that under the Idaho Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (IESSA or Act), I.C. § 61-332, et seq., WWP is not entitled to provide any electric service within the Park. KEC alleged that WWP's "feeder tie" line, which runs through the Park, was installed in violation of the Act and therefore cannot be considered an "existing service line" for purposes of determining entitlement to serve new consumers. WWP answered stating that the "feeder tie" line was not installed in violation of the Act, and that WWP was also entitled to provide service to companies and businesses that build facilities in the Park.

After a bench trial in March 1994, the district court issued its Memorandum Opinion in favor of KEC, holding that WWP's feeder tie is not an "existing service line" under the Act, and that the feeder tie could thus not be used as a measuring point to determine whether WWP may supply electric service within the Park. WWP appeals.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the feeder tie was constructed to obtain an advantage under the IESSA.

2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the construction of the feeder tie was not for the purpose of supplying service to WWP consumers.

3. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that WWP's feeder tie cannot be used as a measuring point to determine which supplier may supply electric service to consumers within the Park.

III. ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact is well settled. Findings which are supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence will not be set aside on appeal. Margaret H. Wayne Trust v. Lipsky, 123 Idaho 253, 256, 846 P.2d 904, 907 (1993). The trial court's findings of fact will be liberally construed in favor of the judgment entered, and will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 547, 808 P.2d 1289, 1292 (1991). When the trial judge is the trier of fact, it is his or her province to weigh the conflicting evidence and testimony and to judge the credibility of witnesses. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho at 547, 808 P.2d at 1292; Pointner v. Johnson, 107 Idaho 1014, 1018, 695 P.2d 399, 403 (1985).

The standard of appellate review of a trial court's conclusions of law is also well established. The reviewing court is not bound by the legal conclusions of the district court and is free to draw its own conclusions from the facts presented. Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Ada County, 123 Idaho 410, 415, 849 P.2d 83, 88 (1993); Clark v. St. Paul Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 102 Idaho 756, 757, 639 P.2d 454, 455 (1981).

B. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

In applying IESSA, as with all statutes, if the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the Court need merely apply the statute without engaging in any statutory construction. Ada County Assessor v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 123 Idaho 425, 428, 849 P.2d 98, 101 (1993); Ottesen v. Board of Comm'rs. of Madison County, 107 Idaho 1099, 1100, 695 P.2d 1238, 1239 (1985). However, if it is necessary for the Court to construe the statute, then the Court will attempt to ascertain legislative intent. Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 571, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (1990). In construing a statute, this Court may examine the language used, the reasonableness of the proposed interpretations, and the policy behind the statute. Id. at 571-72, 798 P.2d at 30-31.

C. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT WWP'S FEEDER TIE WAS CONSTRUCTED TO OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE UNDER THE IESSA EVEN THOUGH IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE FEEDER TIE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR OTHER LEGITIMATE PURPOSES.

The purpose of the IESSA is expressed in I.C. § 61-332(B):

This act is designed to promote harmony among and between electric suppliers furnishing electricity within the state of Idaho, prohibit the "pirating" of customers of another supplier, discourage duplication of electric facilities, and stabilize the territories and customers served with electricity by such suppliers.

The term "pirating," as used under the IESSA, means providing electrical service to a customer who is receiving electricity from another electrical supplier or who had previously received electricity from that supplier. See S.L.1957, Ch. 133, § 1, p. 226; see also I.C. § 61-332B.

IESSA implements its purpose by establishing a set of rules for selecting which supplier, among competing electric suppliers, has the right to supply new consumers. These rules are provided in I.C. § 61-332C:

Rules for Selecting Electric Supplier for New Electrical Service Entrances-- In the event more than one electric supplier is willing and able to provide adequate electric service to a consumer at any new electric service entrance, the following rules shall govern:

1. If no electric supplier has an existing service line within 1,320 feet of the new service entrance the consumer shall have the right of choice of supplier.

2. If only one electrical supplier has an existing service line within 1,320 feet of the new service entrance that supplier shall have the right to serve the consumer at the new service entrance.

3. If more than one electrical supplier has an existing service line within 1,320 feet of the new service entrance the supplier whose existing service line is nearest the new service entrance shall have the right to serve the consumer at the new service entrance.

4. If more than one electric supplier has an existing service line within 1,320 feet of the new service entrance and the existing service lines are equidistant from the service entrance, or it cannot be determined by proof which service line is nearest...