DUFFIN.docx

January 15, 1999
Mr. M.  Patrick Duffin
Beard St. Clair Gaffney McNamara
2105 Coronado
Idaho Falls, ID 83404-7495
Dear Mr. Duffin:
This is in response to your letter of inquiry dated January 13, 1999, regarding the authority of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission under the Telecommunications Act of 1988, Idaho Code, Title 62, Chapter 6.  
Because the fact scenario you describe in your letter involves a dispute largely outside the jurisdiction of the IPUC, I am unable to respond to most of your questions.  Even before enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1988, the Commission did not get involved in damage claims resulting from an alleged breach of contract by a private utility.  Breach of contract actions between a utility and a single customer may be filed in an appropriate district court, and normally are not within the purview of the IPUC.  Accordingly, the Commission has not determined the legal effect on a breach of contract claim, if any, of tariffs or price lists filed with the Commission for informational purposes pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-606.  Nor has the Commission determined what effect, if any, the filed rate doctrine would have in a civil breach of contract action.  Those questions would be litigated by the parties in their district court case.
In response to your first two questions, please find enclosed a relevant discussion contained in Commission Order No. 25933, p. 14, regarding the filing of tariffs and price lists pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-606.  In response to your question number 3, the IPUC on rare occasions has had an opportunity to consider Idaho Code § 62-605(5) in regard to services previously regulated pursuant to Title 61, Idaho Code.  I have enclosed for your review two Commission orders in which the Commission was asked to review under its authority provided in Section 62-605(5) the quality, availability, terms and conditions of services previously subject to Title 61.
Finally, in regard to your question number 9, Idaho Code § 62-616 does not by its terms purport to provide the exclusive remedy for a breach of contract claim.
Given the limited jurisdiction of the Commission in the situation you describe, I am sure you can understand why it is not possible for me to more specifically answer the questions presented in your letter.  However, if I can provide further clarification on the matters discussed in this letter, or if you have any questions regarding the enclosed orders, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Weldon B.  Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
WBS/vld
Enclosure