20181114Leroy Exhibit 15.pdf

ldaho Public Utilities Commission
Office ol the,SocretarY
ocT I 't 2018 04ur /], tl,tr;v r t- 0 ,(ur$r,fcolfl. 0l/t
frx rq-fii- !16rBoise, ldaho
rD
D.{\'lDH,LEROY David Mever. General CounselA r r o R \- E Y ot t hh.tacoffiation
P.O.Box3727
Spokane, WA99220-3727
October 16,2010
ENGAGEMENT LETTER
Dear David:
This letter will confirm that Avista Corporation has engaged this Office to provide an
independent legal opinion as to whether the provisions of Idaho Code Section 6l-327 apply to,
prevent or permit the transaction pending before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission upon the
Joint Application For an Order Authorizing Proposed Transaction filed September 24,2018 in
Cases Numbered AVU-E-l7 and AW-G-17-05. Drawing upon mybackground of 47 years as a
public and private lawyer in this jurisdiction, I will consult all relevant sources, including but not
limited to PUC filings, transcripts and orders, statutory language, legislative history and case
authorities, as well as negative and positive public commentary to timely render a written opinion
in the standard format used by this office for such questions.
For this service, I will bill at the rate of $400 per hour, with paralegal services at $ I 50 per
hour. I will not request an advance retainer at this
copy of this letter, that these terms are agreeable.
Please confirm by a signed, returned
David H
Agreed, Avista Corporation, by
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 1, Page 1 of 1
Emphasizing Criminal Defense, Divorce, Trials and Goyernrnent Law
P.O. Box 193, Boise, Idaho 83701 [phone] FAX [phone]
04ur 0, tl,tr;vr( 0 /{ur$rfco[fl. our
frx ?q^,tti- ltf t
rD
DA\'lDH,LEROY A r r o R N E y ",,- .flfl,";,1[;ffi;r:,n'ral counsel
P.O.Box3727
Spokane, WA99220-3727
October 16,2070
ENGAGEMENT LETTER
Dear David
This letter will confirm that Avista Corporation has engaged this Office to provide an
independent legal opinion as to whether the provisions of Idaho Code Section 6l-327 apply to,
prevent or permit the transaction pending before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission upon the
joint Application For an Order Authorizing Proposed Transaction filed September 24,2018 in
Cases Numbered AVU-E- I 7 and AVU-G- I 7-05. Drawing upon my background of 47 years as a
public and private lawyer in this jurisdiction, I will consult all relevant sources, including but not
limited to PUC filings, transcripts and orders, statutory language, legislative history and case
authorities, as well as negative and positive public commentary to timely render a written opinion
in &e standard format used by this office for such questions.
For this service, I will bill at the rate of $400 per hour, with paralegal services at $ 150 per
hour. I will not request an advance retainer at this
copy of this letter, that these terms are agreeable.
Please confirm by a signed, refumed
David H.
Agreed, Avista Corporation, by
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 1, Page 1 of "l
Emphasizing Criminal Defense, Divorce, Trials and Goverrunent Law
P.O. Box 193, Boise, Idaho 83701 [phone] FAX [phone]
rn
DAVIDH.LEROY ATTORNEY AT LAW
LEGAL OPINION OF DAVID H. LEROY
TO: DAVID MEYER,COUNSEL FOR REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS, AVISTA , SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
FROM: DAVID H. LEROY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BOISE, IDAHO
DOCUMENT: LEGAL OPINION REGARDING THE APPLICATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF IDAHO LAW
DATE: OCTOBER 26,2018
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Do the provisions of Idaho Code Section 6l-327 respecting the prevention of the transfer
of electric power facilities to any out of state government or municipal corporation or subdivision
thereof require the idaho Public Utilities Commission to deny the Application of Hydro One
Limited and Avista Corporation proposing the sale of Avista to Hydro One, a Canadian investor
owued, publicly traded corporation, through a wholly owned subsidary, Olympus Equity, LLC, a
Delaware corporation, as Avista continues to be a Washington state corporation under the
jurisdiction and regulatory control of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission?
ANSWER:
No. The provisions of tdaho Code Section6l-327 do not apply to the proposed
ffansaction. The words of the statute refer to states of the United States and do not prevent
minority shareholdingby a Canadian Province of a parent company of the Avista utility. The
legislative history of the statute also demonstrates that the entities which were intended to be
prohibited from owning Idaho electric powsr facilities were municipal public utility districts
based in neighboring states, such as Washington. Because neither Hydro One nor Olympus
Equity, LLC not Avista is such an entifi nor a government entity at all, the transaction complies
with the requirements for approval.
AUTHORITIES AND MATERI.ALS CONSULTED:
Page 1 Exhibir No. 1s
case Nos. AVU-E 17o€/Avifii:;
Schedule 2, Page 1 of 16
Emphasizing Criminal Defense, Divorce, Trials and Government l-aw
P.O. Box 193, Boise, Idaho 83701 [phone] FAX [phone]
A. ADMINISTRATTVE SOURCES
1. The Joint Application For an Order Authorizing Proposed Transaction in Case
Number AW-E-17-09, AVU-G-17-05 with 9 Appendices thereto, September 24,2018
2. T\e Supplemental Testimony of K. Collins Sprague for Avista Corporation before the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission, September 24,2018
3. Transcript of Public Hearing before the Idaho PUC, Sandpoint, Idaho June 13, 2018
4. Transcript of Public Hearing before the Idaho PUC, Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, June 14,
201 8.
5. Transcript of Public Hearing before the Idaho PUC, Moscow, Idaho, June 12, 2018
6. Decision of the Idaho PUC, ln Re PacifiCorp, Case No.PAC - E-99-1 April 15, 1988
7. Order Number 22468 of the Idaho PUC, In the Matter of Idaho Power Company,
seeking to Migrate Case IPC - E - 89-3, April 1, 1989
8. Decision of the tdaho PUC, In Re Idaho Power, Case No. IPC-E-92-9, Order No.
24676, January 27,1993
9. Order Number 25241of the Idatro PUC, ln Re Application of Idaho Power for
Authorityto Sell, CaseNo. PC-E-93-20, November 1, 1993
10. Final Order 28213 of the Idaho PUC, Joint Application of PacifiCorp and Scottish
Power, PLC, Case No. PAC-E-99-1 November 15, 1999
11. Final Order 28505 of the Idatro PUC, [n Re United Water Idaho Inc., Case No.UWI -
W-00-1, September 5, 2000
12. Decision of the Idaho PUC, In Re Transfer and Sale of Assets to the United States
Departrnent of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Order No.33501 April 13, 2016
13. Avista and Hydro One Joint Comments In Support Before the Idaho PUC, filed Jtrne
20,2019
B. LEGISLATTVE HISTORY
1. Journal of the Idaho House of Representatives, January 22,1951,page75
2. Journal ofthe idaho State Senate, January 22,1951,page 78
Page2 Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 2 of 16
3. Session Laws 1951, Chapter 3, Section l,page 4
4. Report of the Attorney General of Idaho, 1951-1952 "The Washington Water Power
Case," pages 10-11
5. The Idaho Statesman, Boise,Idaho "Bill Passes Banning Public Utility Sales to
Govemmental Agencies" January 23,1951, page 6
6. Session Laws 1982, Chapter 7, Section l, page 10
C. COURT CASES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
1. Idaho Power Co.mpany-v. State. By and Throueh the De,partrnent of Water Resoufces.
et al, 104 Idaho 515, 661 P 2d741(1983)
2. Cross-Appellant's Brief of the Public Utilities Commission, filed December 11, 1980,
in the above case.
3. Brief of Respondents Mud Flat Canal Company, et al, filed March 17, 1981 in the
above case.
4. Thompson v. State,2018 WI944 Qd Ct App)
5. KGF Development-LlC v. City of Ketchum, 149 Idaho 524,236P 3d 1284 (2010)
6. 'U.S. v. Paulsr, 857 F 3d 1073 (USCCA 10'h Cir, 2Ol7)
7. U.S. v. Corr,543F2d 1042 (USCCA 2nd Cir, 1976)
8. In Re Decision on Joint Motion to Certiff Question of Law to the Idaho Supreme
Court.2018 WL 472145 (Id. Sup Ct.)
D. STATUTES
1. Idaho Code Sectio n 6l-327
2. Idaho Code Sectio n26-2702(8), definition of "control"
3. Idaho Code Section 30-1701 (8), definition of "control"
E. OTHER SOURCES
1. Letter of the Idaho PUC to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, U.S. Security and Exchange
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-0g/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, LeroY Law
Schedule 2, Page 3 of 1 6
Page 3
Commission re: PacifiCorp and Scottish Power, PLC Merger, February 4,2000
2. Black's Law Dictionary, 10s Edition (2014)
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
I.
THE STATUTE AT ISSUE
ln pertinent parts, Idaho Code 61-327 provides:
"Section 6l-327. ELECTRIC UTILITY PROPERTY - - ACQUISITION
BY CERTAIN PUBLIC AGENCIES PROHIBITED - - No title to or
interest in any public utility property located in this state which is used
in the generation, transrnission, disfribution or supply of electric power or
energy to the public or to any portion thereof, shall be tansferred or
transferable to or acquired by, directly or indirectly, by and means or
device whatsoever, any government or municipal corporation,
quasi-municipal corporation, or governmental or political unit, subdivision
or corporation, organized or existing under the laws of any other state; or
any person, firm, association, corporation or organization acting as trustee,
nominee, agent or representative for, or in concert or arrangement with,
any such govemment or municipal corporation quasi-municipal corporation,
or govemmental or political unit, subdivision or corporation; or any
company, association, organization or corporation, organized or existing
under the laws of this state or any other state, whose issued capital stock,
or other evidence of ownership, membership or other interest therein, or
in the property thereof, is owned or conholled, directly or indirectly by
any such government or municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation,
or govemme,ntal or political unit, subdivision or corporation; or any company,
association, orgaruzation or corporation, organized under the laws of any
other state, not coming under or within the definition of any electric public
utility or an electrical organization as contained in chapter 1,
title 61, Idaho Code, and subject to the jurisdiction, regulation and control
of the public utilities commission of the state of Idaho under the public
utilities lawofthe state . . . . . . ".
THE IPUC HISTORIC VIEW OF THE TEXT AND STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE
In a Cross-Appellant's Brief filed by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) in the
1983 Idaho Power Case, that state agency before whom this application is now pending, tracking
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 4 of 16
T.
Page 4
the law's text, segmented Idaho Code 61-327 into three sections for discussion and analysis
purposes.
At page 50 of the Brief, the Commission recounts that an operating properfy kansfer by
any means whatsoever of title or interest to a utility company is covered by the statute. At page
51, the statutory focus on the class of entities to which such property MAY NOT be tansferred is
discussed. Per the Commission:
"This part of the section prohibits transfer of an electric utility's operating
properfy to any governmental or municipality entity or any entity organized
or controlled by a governmental or municipality entity. It further prohibits
transfers in concert or lurangement with any person or representative acting
for or representing a govemment or municipal corporation or govemmental
or political unit."
Finally at page 52,the Commission offers this conclusion as to one other class of
prohibited recipients:
"The final part of this section prohibits transfer of any interest of any electric
utility's operating property to an entity organized under the laws of any other
state unless that entity is an electric public utility subject to the jurisdiction
of the Commission. This prohibition, like the prohibition against transfer of
operation property to govemmental or political entities or in concert or
arrangement with govemmental or political entities or their representatives,
is absolute."
Over the intervening years, the IPUC has not firrther elaborated upon its view of this
statute, as far as is known. ln a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
February 4,2000, over the signature of St€phanie Miller, Administator of the Utilities Division,
the IPUC explained that a foreign utility company's acquisition of a locally managed utility
which did not compromise state retention of regulatory authority was acceptable to it. No
mention was made of Idaho Code 61-327.
THE AVAILABLE LEGISLATTVE HISTORY OF IDAHO CODE SECTION 61-327
The statute first saw construction as House Bill26 during the 1951 Regular Session of the
Idaho State Legislature. Although no committee notes or formal position papers or tanscripts
are extant, four sources do give some background on the issue. The Report of the Attorney
General, 195l-1952 by Robert E. Smylie, pages l0-11, explains the necessity for the statute and
the legal aftermath which subsequently followed, thusly:
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-'1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 5 of 1 6
u.
Page 5
"The i951 Legislature enacted a statute which forbade acquisition by
a municipal corporation of another state of facilities for the generation
or transmission of electrical energy in ldaho. The statute was patently
aimed at preventing acquisition by Public Utility Districts of the State
of Washington of the operating properties of the Washington Water
Power Company located in North Idaho. The enactment of the statute
was productive of the most time consuming litigation in which the office
has been engaged in the period reported in this report. Our eflorts were
directed at the problem of securing enforcement of the new statute.
The Washington Water Power Company was then a wholly owned
subsidiary of American Power and Light Company. ln1942,the
American Company had been ordered by the Securities & Exchange
Commission of the United States to divest itself of its operating
properties, including the Washington Company. ln 1951, the
American Washington Companyto the Washington State Public
Utility Districts. Certain citizens of the Public Utility Districts
undertook to restrain the purchase by the Districts on the ground that
acquisition of the Idaho properties by the Washington Districts was
beyond their power. The Washington State Courts so held and
enjoined the sale and purchase as then proposed.
Thereupon, we urged the Securities & Exchange Commission to
enforce its 1942 order of dissolution by taking mandatory action
against the American Company. We suggested that the proper
method of accomplishing a divestiture of the Washington Company
was by distribution of the Washington Company common stock to
the stockholders of the American Company, pro rata as their ownership
in the American Company appeared.
After a series of hearings the Securities & Exchange Commission
ordered that such divestiture occur not later than January 1,1952
unless plans were then in process of completion which would
effect some other disposition of the Washington Company. Just
prior to the deadline, the American Company filed a plan for another
sale of the Washington Company to the Public Utility Districts and to
an Idaho Corporation not yet formed. It developed that no contract of
sale had been entered into between the proposed parties and that the
Idaho corporation, while non-profit in character, would in effect by
another holding company for the operating property. We felt
compelled to resist this plan and made appropriate representation to
the Securities & Exchange Commission. An order was entered setting
the American plan for sale and, the plan for divestiture by distribution
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-0g/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 6 of 16
Page 6
down for hearing.
The Public Utility Districts thereupon sought a restraining order in the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fo the Ninth Circuit against holding the
hearing. We joined the Securities Commission in seeking to have the
restraining order dissolved and the petition for review of the Commission's
action dismissed. The Court agreed with this position, dismissed the
petition for review and dissolved the reskaining order. The Commission
thereupon ordered the hearing. The American Company then filed a plan
for dishibution in accordance with our initial suggestion to the Commission.
That diskibution was finally accomplished on August?l,1952 and the
Washington Company is now an independent operating utility, without
holding company controi of any kind. The purposes of the I 95 1 statute
have been rendered effective. We entered the litigation at the Federal
administrative level in order to avoid long, difficult and costly litigation
in our own State Courts, and in the several United States Courts."
The action by the Idaho Legislature in reaction to the perceived utility sale threat was
compressed into a singie day 67 years ago. Two official journals report the detail:
The Journal of the Idaho House of Representatives for January 22,1951 at page 75
indicates that the body suspended its rules, "this being a case of urgency," and passed the House
Bill26 by a tally of 47 ayes, 7 nays, and 5 excused. On that same day, the Senate, under like
emergency procedures, adopted the Bill without amendment voting 37 in favor, 3 no and 4
excused. (Journal of the Idaho State Senate, January 22, 1957, page 78) Governor [.en Jordan
signed it into law the next day.
The final history source is a local newspaper. Although no floor debates were therr
officially recorded, an article published in the Idaho Statesman the next day, written by Political
Editor John Corlett, vividly details the swift and vigorous battles in both houses. Significantly,
the primary purpose of the Bill was not to prevent a loss of regulatory supervision. Rather, a
threatened loss of tax revenues mostly motivated the bill.
"The public utility measure came up in the House after a noon hour
recess and after Dernocratic and Republican members held separate
caucuses. Suspension of the rules was oked by 51 to 3 vote.
It immediately became obvious that Rep. Jesse Vetter, the veteran
Democrat from Kootenai, was prepared to scrap. Twice he objected
to moves for unanimous consent to have the clerk stop reading the
lengthy bill and have it entsred on the record as read in fulI. And so
the house sat quietly as Chief Clerk C. A. Bottolfsen droned through
the seven closely-typed pages. Then Rep. David Doane (K- Ada)
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-17-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, LeroY Law
Schedule 2, Page 7 ot 16
PageT
assistant Republican floor leaders, opened the debate for the bill's
supporters. He explained that the major purpose was to protect power
users of Idaho, particularly those in North ldaho, 'to be sure that the
electric utility properties be owned in Idaho and not escape taxation."
He told the house that there was now pending negotiations between
the Washington Water Power company and the PUD group from
Washington for the sale of the former's north Idaho properties.
"How soon they are going through with the deal, we don't know,"
said Doanne, "but it is essential that this bill be passed right away." . . . .
Closing debate, Doanne emphasized that his interest in the bill was
dictated by his conviction that the measure was to the interest of the
state. He said that if the north Idaho properties were sold before the
legislature could stop it, the state would lose at least $460,000 in
revenues. . . .
In the Senate, Sen. E.J. Soelbert (R-Butte), the majority floor leader,
Iaunched the debate by saying there was "great urgency" for passage
of the measure because of negotiations now in progress in New York
City.
"If the sale is made prior to passage of this bill, Idaho would stand to
lose heavily in taxes. If the Washington Water Power company were
tansferred to the tax-exempt PUDs in Washington, the state of Idaho
would stand to lose a lot of money."
(Idaho Statesman, January 23,1951, page 6)
These verbatim and attributed comments reported by the local newspaper constitute the
only debate detail extant, as far as is known. No official legislative summaries or transcripts of
floor dialog were kept by the Idaho Legislature in 1951. In fact, no such written materials are
produced by this State even today.
THE IDAI{O SUPREME COURT APPROACH TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Any ruling which the Idaho Public Utilities Commission makes will potentially be
reviewed by an appeal to ldaho's highest court. Idaho regulatory bodies commonly make initial
interpretations of statute within their realm of authority and expertise. If appealed, our courts
scrutinize the agency holding with some deference. However, the judiciary has the ultimate
tV
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 8 of 16
Page 8
responsibility to construe legislative language to determine the law. J.R. Simplot Company. lnc.
vs Idaho State Tax Commission, 120 Idaho 849, 820 P 2d 1206 (1991) Therefore, the taditional
rules applied on appeal by the Idaho Supreme Court to scrutinize and discern statutory meaning
become relevant to this predictive opinion. Appellate precedent in Idaho holds:
"This Court exercises free review over the application and construction
of statutes. Where the language of a statute is plan and unambiguous,
this Court must give effect to the statute as written, without engaging
in statutory construction. The language of the statute is to be gtven
its plain, obvious, and rational meaning. If the language is clear and
unambiguous, there is no occasion for the court to resort to legislative
history or rules of statutory interpretation. When this Court must
engage in statutory construction because an ambiguity exist, it has the
duty to ascertain the legislative intent and give effect to that intent. To
ascertain such intent, not only must the literal words of the statute be
examined, but also the context of those words, the public policy behind
the statute and its legislative history. It is incumbent upon a court to
give an ambiguous statute an interpretation which will not render it a
nullity. Constructions of an arnbiguous statute that would lead to an
absurd result are disfavored."
(Summarized in Thompson v. State, 2018 WL944 649, (CtApp. Page 4, citations
omitted)
Put another way:
"The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and "give
effect to legislative intent. Statutory interpretation begins with
the literal words of the statute, which are the best guide to
determining legislative intent. The words of a statute should be
given their plain meaning, unless a contrary legislative purpose is
expressed or the plain meaning creates an absurd result. If the
words of the statute are subject to more than one meaning, it is
ambiguous and we must construe the statute "to mean what the
legislature intended it to mean. To determine that intent, we
exarrine not only the literal words of the statute, but also the
reasonableness of proposed constructi ons, the public policy
behind the statute, and its legislative history.o'
KIG Development-Ll-C. vs City of Ketchum. 149 Idaho 524 527-528 236 P3d 1284
(201 0) (citations omitted)
These principles can and should be applied to the pertinent issues facing the IPUC as it
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 9 of 16
Page 9
considers trro critical questions arising from Idaho Code Section 6l-327
V.
T}IE CONCEPT OF "STATE"
As to the pending Application, it is clearly a relevant issue as to whether the language of
Idaho Code Section 6l-327 was intended to bar govemment organizations such as the Province
of Ontario from being involved in Idaho public utility transactions, since Hydro One was
fomrerly a provincial entity and the Canadian entity will rsmain a shareholder of approximately
43% of shares outstanding in a parent entity, after the proposed transaction is concluded.
Of sigruficance, it appears that the Idaho PUC has not previously been concerned with
examining the tlpe or nature of shareholders owning equities in foreign-related utilities operating
in Idaho. This is understandable in modern, worldwide corporate terms, as the IPUC itself has
explained:
" With the increased globalization of economies and cultures, the concept
of an "American" company is becoming more obscure. Today's increasingly
competitive markets require businesses to search far and wide for materials,
labor, and business opportunities. Large businesses whose stock is publicly
traded in this county are often owned, at least in part, by foreign interests.
Similarly, U.S. corporations and individuals often engage in the acquisition
of or partnership with foreign businesses. [n short, corporate mergers
make the news almost daily.
It was oftear expressed during the public hearings in this case that the
"countq/" of Scotland should not be allowed to take over an "American"
corporation. ln fact, Scottish Power no more constitutes the Scottish
government than PacifiCorp constitutes the government of the United
States. PacifiCorp is an Oregon corporation whose stock is publicly
traded and owned by people living throughout the country, and the world.
Not one of PacifiCorp's current members of the board of directors lives
in ldaho.
Both Scottish Power and PacifiCorp are investor-owned businesses
engaging in precisely the type of economic posturing that many large
business must consider as an option to remain competitive in today's
marketplace. It just so happens that they operate in an indusbry that is
governmentally regulated. We find that the denial of the merger in this
case simply by virtue of the fact that Scottish Power is incorporated in
another country would put this Commission on very tenuous legal
footing. The constitutional and statutory structure under which this
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 1 0 of 1 6
Page 10
Commission functions and pursuant to which we must review this
merger does not allow such a ruIing.
lndeed, the founding document of this country potentially prohibits such
discrimination. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitutiorg
known as the "Commerce Clause," vests in the United States Congress
the power "to regulate cofirmerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states." The fundamental principle embodied in the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS - a component of the General
Agreernent on Tariffs and Trade (GAT"|) is that foreign countries who
are signatories to the agreement will have "most favored nation" status
in their dealings with the United States. This means that the United
States is not permitted to discriminate against service providers who are
citizens of other states or foreign countries. Thus, if any state has a law
on its books giving favored treatmeirt to its own citizens, that law will be
pre-empted bythe GATS trea!r."
(See Final Order, 2813, Joint Application of PacifiCorp and Scottish Power,
November 75,7999, pages 34-35.)
United Kingdom corporate reglstry records indicate that at or about the time of the 1998
approval by the IPUC of Scottish Power's acquisition of PacifiCorp at least 18 governmental
entities owned more than 52,000,000 shares of stock in the oversees entity. It was not a
regulatory issue at that time.
Likewise, the stock ownership composition of Suez Water ldaho, Inc., a Boise watsr
distribution utility, formerly known as United Water, and its relationship with its foreign parent,
Suez Lyonaise des Eaux, a French multinational corporation appears not to have been a subject
of examination when that entity last appeared before the Commission. (See Final Order 28505,
In Re. United Water Idaho, Inc., Septembo 5, 2000)
The 1951 era text written by the Idaho Legislature fairly tightly refers to "any government
or municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or govemmental or political unit
subdivision or corporation, organized or existing under the laws of any other state." Ownership
of Idaho utility operating properties by such units is banned. The phrase is repeated three times
in the statutory language.
Giving the terms their plain, simple and ordinary meaning, as is required by Idaho law,
and noting that all of the described subsidiary units mentioned are typically organized under
American state law as lesser units of the sovereign, the "state" referenced to in Idaho Code
Section 61-327 means a state of the United States. It was not intended, nor does it without
impermissable broadening, refer to a foreign nation or any subdivision thereof.
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, LeroY Law
Schedule 2, Page 1 1 of 16
Page 1 1
This shaightforward conclusion is made even more evident, if the principles of legislative
history are utilized. In the context of 1951, as explained above, the targets were our sister state
of Washington and its potentially problematic quasi-municipal corporations called "public utility
districts." The problem detected and prevented in a legislative rush was a threatened loss of tax
revenue, should private utility operating property located within Idaho become public-entity
owned, and thus exempt from taxation. To a lesser degree, a potential loss of unfettered
regulatory control by the IPUC was also of concern. Washington state and its lesser entities are
the emblematic examples of what these words mean. They clearly confirm that the term'ostate"
must be simply and plainly meant.
Although no Idaho case law interprets this section, as to this phrase, Idaho Pqwer
Companyv. State. 104Idaho 515,661 P 2d,741(1983) references the statute and confirms that
water rights in contiguous Oregon and Washington are not utility operating property within the
slsaning of the statute.
It is also worth noting that even under federal law the term "state" is often narrowly
construed.
" The govenrment argues that the term "State" in Section 921 (a)(33)'s
definition section should be interpreted to mean "State and local," so
that a municipal misdemeanor conviction would constitute a misdemeanor
under state law. In so arguing, however, the government completely
ignores the fact that Section 921 and 922 clearly and consistently
differentiate between states and municipalities and between state laws
and municipal ordinances. These sections, like the rest of the Gun
Control Act, repeatedly use the phrases "State and local" or "State or local"
when reference is made both to states and municipalities, and the
government cites to no other provision in this statute where the word
"State" is even arguably meant to encompass both state and local
goverffnents or laws. The statute's repeated use of the term "local" in
juxtaposition with the term "State" would not be necessary if Congress
intended for the term "State" to refer both to the state and to all of the
political subdivisions within it." If we were to interpret the term "State"
in this manner, then much of the statute's language would be unnecessary
and superfluous, contary to the "settled rule that a stafute must, if possible,
be construed in such fashion that every word has some operative effect."
On the other hand, if we were to interpret the term "State" to mean
something different in Section 921 (a)(33) than it means in all of the
proceeding and following subsections, then we would be disregarding
another "normal rule of statutory construction," the rule that identical
words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same
meaning. The govemment provides no persuasive reason why we should
depart from either of these well-established principles of statutory
Exhibit No.'15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 12 ot 16
Page 12
interpretation in this case."
U.S. v. P_auler, 857 F3 10731075-1076 (USCCA. 1Oft Cn.2Ol7)
Thus, Idaho Code 61-327 is not intended nor designed to apply to the Province of
Ontario. Even were it to so do, the Idaho Public Utility Commission has not tlpically examined
or previously been concerned about foreign govemments holding minority stock ownership in
utility corporations operating in Idaho.
TI{8, CONCEPT OF "CONTROL"
The IPUC staffhas expressed concern about the statutory references to the term
"controlling interests" in 6l-327 as possibly being an impediment to this transaction, the
argument being that if the govemrnent of the Province of Ontario will hold approximately 43%
of the stock outstanding in Hydro One, it has or may have "eflective control" of the enterprise
and its downstream utility operating properties. Recent Canadian political events have impacted
the governance of the entity, highlighting the existence of this issue for review.
Indeed, there are extant United States Securities and Exchange Commission regulations
which discuss such an indirect control concept. Further, American federal courts have discussed
the potential breadth of the term:
"While there is no statutory definition of "control," its concept is not a
narrow one. Its determination is a question of fact which depends upon the
totality of circumstances including an appraisal of the influence upon
management and policies of a corporation by the person involved." Control
may be excerted in other ways than by a vote stock ownership being only
one aspect or control. A person may be in control even though he does not
own a majority fo the voting stock."
U.S. v. Corr, 543 F 2d 1042,1050 (USCCAZ,1976) (citation omitted)
ln statutes other than that orte at issue here, Idaho law too has indirect corporate control
definitions in specific purpose laws enforced by other regulatory agencies besides the IPUC.
" Control means . . . A person who, directly or indirectly owns of record
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-17-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 13 of 16
VI.
Page 13
Various Idaho statutes, where the L,egislature actually intended a law to apply to
certain national extraterritorial aspects, specifically mention the word "province," as well as the
word "state." (See for example Idatro Code Sections 19-5202,41-340,41-1003, 4t-3228,63-
2401,67-7801 and 72-218) Presumably, the 1951 Legislature could have done the same
or beneficially holds with power to vote or holds proxies with
discretionary authority to vote, twenty percent (20%) or more of the then
outstanding voting securities issued by a corporation shall be rebuttably
presumed to control that corporation."
Idaho Code Section 26-2702 (8), Title 26, Banks and Banking, Chapter 27, Business and
Industial Development Corporations, enforced bythe Idaho Deparknent of Finance This statute
was not adopted until 1989, some thirty eight years after the law in question.
"Confol," "contolling," "contolled by''or "under common control with"
means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or to
cause the direction of the managonent and policies of a person, whether
through the ownership of voting securities, by contact or otherwise. A
person's beneficial ownership of ten per cent (10%) or more of the voting
power of a corporation's outstanding shares entitled to vote in the election
of directors creates a presumption that the person has control of the
corporation. A person is not considered to have conhol of a corporation
if the person holds voting power, in good faith and not for the purpose of
avoiding the provisions of this chapter, as an agent, bank, broker, nominee,
custodian or trustee for one (l) or more beneficial owners who do not
individually or as a group have control of the corporation."
Idaho Code Section 30-1701 (8), Title 30, Corporations, Chapter 17, Business
Corporation Act, and generally overseen by the Idaho Secretary of State and enforced by private
action. The law was passed in 1988.
Neither of those two code section definitions are automatically transportable into ldaho
Code 61-327 under Idaho law.
"However, such definitions in any section of the Idaho Code are not typically
or universally applied to or utilized to inform or construct other unrelated
section of Idaho's laws. Statutory definitions provided in one act do not
apply for all purposes and in all contexts, but generally only what they
mean where they apply in the same act
ln Re Decision on Joint Motion to Certifu Qrestion of Law to the Idaho Supreme Court.
2018 WL 4721,45 (Id. Supreme Court, Docket No. 45187)
Therefore, the proper and best reasoned Idaho approach for illuminating the meaning of
the concept of control as found in 6l-327 is to begin with the literal words of the statute and their
plain, usual and ordinary meaning as a whole. The statutory phrase in question is "owned or
controlled."
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 14 of 16
Page 14
Black's Law Dictionary defines the following ttree terms:
A. "CONTROL. The direct or indirect power to govern the management and
policies of a person or entity, whether through ownership of voting
securities, by confract, or otherwise; the power or authority to manage,
direct, or otherwise, the power of authority to manage, direct or oversee
B. CORPORATE CONTROL. Corporations. 1. Ownership of more than 50% of
the shares in a corporation. Also termed effective control; working
control. 2. The power to vote enough of the shares in a corporation to
determine the outcome of matters that the shareholders vote on.
C. WORKING CONTROL. 1. The effective control of a corporation by a person
or group who owns less than 50% of the stock control."
Black's Law Dictionary, 10s Edition, 20l4,page403 (emphasis added)
Thus, corporate control, in the most ordinary, plain usage means "majority shareholding."
ln the context of the historic issues of 1 95 1 , as faced by the Idaho Legislature, the two
words chosen by the lawmakers, "owned or controlled" were clearly intended to mean the same
ffrg, not alternatives or shades of distinction. It was the threatened complete divestiture of the
utility operating properties and the corporate entity which confrolled them which caused the
emergency action, driving the adoption of this statute. No discussion of o'working contol" of a
corporation was contemplated nor intended by the phrase "directly or indirectly," even though
such issues may arise in modern corporate governance. Idaho Code 61-327 should be interpreted
to prohibit majority control of a utility's stock, not prevent some theoretical, hypothetical,
speculative or subjective concept of corporate influence by lesser ownership. The loss of
taxation which worried the local legislators in l95i was driven by the threatened sale of 100% of
the ownership of the involved utility, [n fact, the title to and control of and taxability of the
tangible assets of the utility was the actual issue, not stock ownership.
It is also worth noting that the IPUC, as far as I can determine, has never gone behind
majority ownership numbers to predict some SEC-type concept of indirect corporate influence,
as contrasted with the simple majority ownership test envisioned by Idaho Code 61-327. Neither
Hydro One nor Olympus Equity nor Avista is a governmental entity owned or controlled, directly
or indirectly, by the Province of Ontario, even if the Province were to de deemed a'ostate" under
the language of the ldaho law.
THE EVIDENT LEGISLATTVE INTENT
As noted above, the language of Idaho Code 6l-327 is plain and unambiguous as to the
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. LeroY, LeroY Law
Schedule 2, Page 1 5 of 1 6
VII.
Page 15
terms "state" and "controlled." Also as urged above, the legislative history of the statute
provides and reinforces these interpretatio[s, consistent with the simplest view of same terms,
even if one concludes that phraseology or language of the law is not "clear and unambiguous."
The context of the literal words of the statute, the discernable public policy behind the
law and such legislative history as is reconskucted above make it apparent that the threat that
certain Washington State public utility districts might acquire the entirety of the common stock
of Washington Water Power drove the drafting and passage of this legislation. The reported
debates as captured by the Idaho Statesman reflect that both the House, where the Bill originated,
and the Senate, where it rushed through in mere minutes, were mostly focused upon the loss of
Idaho tax revetrues. Both floor sponsors so said in urging immediate votes, so as to preempt the
timing of a pending stock sale transaction to the Washington PUDs.
Nothing about the Application pendingbefore the IPUC suggests any transfq to a public
efltity which would be non-taxable in Idaho. No loss of privately held property subject to taxes is
threatened. The transaction, as structured, would leave the IPUC with unfettered regulatory
control over Avista and the utility operating property. Accordingly, nothing about either the
legislative history of 61-327 or its language as informed by that history is prohibitive to the
pending Application.
CONCLUSION:
For each and all of the above reasoils, I conclude that the IPUC does not have a basis
under Idaho Code 6l-327 to deny the pending Application.
Attorney at Law
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-0g/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 2, Page 1 6 of 1 6
Page 16
vm.
1 ..fir:.ruulfil 9ll.l !IO'US:II J'OUIT,NAL nClrJ
Motlon to Eueponrl llules
I'I bu s$ o ;lT Re}rr c6 cil tn ri v cs,
"T,"JfJ, I$,.IAI r.
i\,tr, SpeakerrI m-ovc tht'.t B.U t'ule$ of th'; I-fouse inlicr.forins wlth the hnrno-
di+te pnq-s.ago of Houss BllI No. 26 ,be auspencledi ttrut th(; portton$
oi'Scello'i{t[5, At.tinlcr S 'or tn+ Coustitu(;toh of tlra E[nde-of lc].aho,
rcqulrlng all hC.Us to ho rsad on Lhree ssvsral d+ye be fllepensed wiLh,ttrtl heinf n caE+ rrli ul'#+ncy, flnd thrr,'L Horrss - Bltl mo. gg bo readtho ;tirst tirre Elr'ti'Hrt, 8(iaorrl tin:c hy tilllu, tl,nd tha third thne at
IeugLh, scr.:tion hy uccl)ton, u,nd bo put upon ltg llntrt passsge-
MoVed Fy Mr, 'lf,crUnli.
. S*aon(tecl hy IvIr, MUr,'Fhy,
itoll catl.rertulted {is foilowE:. /tyEs-!3ortett, EeII, Eliek, Bfr;'Wcf, Conalrnsa, Chalfant, Colner,
CornrtrOnE, Drtvts, Dinnison, Doauo, DoOlittlE, Dfr]v1op, Erlstman,
Drnor.y, Ifir'eruft, Cirelllr:er', Gooolr, Gaw'e}', Gt'rt}.6t, Grurne]i, t*arnpton,
I{runflrirr, f*taogOn, ,fr}Irilen; Jo:rc,$, . LarEen, i.s,Turney, IVIenflgfi5g11'Meriglll, UllIer, EllB (F.o!te), lWonro(i, Munlt, Mqrphy, Nielaen,Psr.ilson, JPa..yl,lon, .FyIe, H.lcks, Roche, SrrWell. Storgv,- Vrindonl:e1r,Vlncant, Westfall, Willerl, Wtlsen, Winkl+r, 'Young,"Mr. gpeakei.,
: ToUtr,l-Ell
; f+^OXS*lt&Bshrhit[r:r, Emlbh, Votter. Total-,1.
.l . +trrent $.Il( s*Cttscrl--Gnffney, Gwartney, L.trolmr McDrlvitt, Vornop.,lrTotal-S,
i Wt oroulloll, thrr Sleoker cleclat'efl l;hrlt more ilran two-Hr!.rrlai'havlng' voted _in l:he l.ffit'rnrul;_ivc, l;he r:rollo[ provailefl, l;hqr ru]es
;wurc snspondocl, g,nd lloues H111 No, EG wae rca-cl ilre ftiet tirne hV;title, eeoorrd tirug_hy llitlc, +mcl_lhe thtrcl thne nt lgrrgth, scction li;i
ieteq.tiun, antl plncod upou its fltral paeaog+,
l' I-ror,lsrt Bill No. 26 wos rsacl th_e 'rir,,ut tirue by tttle, ilre geccrnd
:ttlme t_y _title..n,ttd llhird Ulmo s,t ler:gth, .rrection- by locilon, arrdlplrr,uacl before the IIouEe lor finfl,l uonilcloratloil*
, Tho rlirestlon betngl "Strn,ll Honso Blll No. ?S It6,sE ?','iti' RolI call reeulted flrI f0UOW;;:
',.i .nvps-sarrett, Eell, Bliclr, Brswer, shnlrnv1,1srl. chrdfs,ut. Eotner.
'6onuttoll$,_ Dr,wia, Djnnison, Do_sne, DOrili*tirl, Elrnory, Bver+il:,'Ckr,rrii,Eorr Gctoch, Go_wey, Gr_ayo_t, Cl.urrncll, IJampton, I.id.n*otr, fflhaesor,iJEllEGrrr Jone6, LD.rrrch, .LuTnrnar, tweudenho/l, Merrtu, Mfllgr, MiIl*
1{Bo-lael, Monr'oo, Munk, _ Mu,rphy, Niclson, paulaon,' Ii,yl{},'niiksl,Eoch", _S_ewgll, Btoruy, Vincent, We..ttf,ttll, Willog, Witpori, WjuElcr,:fouug, Mr. Speaker. I-otat*-C 7lji NAYs-Drovlow,_ Jrastrnau, Knrchmltter,'Payton, snriur, vnnclen-1jc,B, vsttey. rotil_?, .
ili .A.hsent and cxcused-Gaffney, #Wfll,tncy,'Holm, MoDevitt, Ver,.iloI. Trrttat-E.
;l 'lotnt*og,
ii Wtreroupon, the Sp+rr,lror dcclarecl }lou+e Eill No. t6 paauecl,
..:i'llil:lE wfl:r il,pplovscl anrl tire bill orrlsred transrnitlr,:rl to ths gerrfl,te,
Lt.l rl,L this tirne the Spculrer oxcused thr: Apptoprlaflprr;r Coftnrlthee.
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 3, Page 1 of 2
7$$ENATtr JOURNAL [,Tanunyy !!
Motlone sunil f,tcsuhiltiotta
Motion (io Elrsllgnd trinles
Eens.te Chambor, Boisc', Itlluho,. Jarus.ry z!, 1081,
IvJ:.'. Plcsr(:elrr:I nrove that all rulo;t of th$ Seno,i;e itrterfel'lng wlth ths lmmsdlate
pEEBaBo of Houu€ BII1 1*{o. '26 be aus'ponclcd; thet 1;lrc Y:qqtions 0f'Sec[t;r 18, Artlcle S of, |;[e Cons[il]ut;i-on rlf tho Stata of ldaho, ro-
duiring BII'bllle to ho rugd o.ri thrqq q+everEl days bc. cll,rpcnaod wltlt,
iiris beittg B cose of ur8ency, anil that House BiIi No. l0 Ie ,read
ttrc figst -tlme hy tltln, iccena tintdt hy' titlo, ond the thlrrl tlms u.t:
leugLh, eocLlion py seoLlon, and i:e pr.r[.UPOtt il;S l]itra.l Paas{ag'e,
Moved by Eonrutol' Soelberg.
Secondod hy. Erlnfl,tor 'Eto,rr.
Tho quon'tion heinE, riEhall the rttlae ba Btr*pt:nrlstl?"
RoII cu.ll rs(nJlted, ae lo]lowsl
AYES-A,1.herttni, AlexsnEler', Bl*clcatock, Bol tOu, Eul'llu, Brl ru Lrrdt,
Eurrtrln, Co.r:rpbell, Cook, Collin; CoHHeyr Di:.vlg; Detweller, 1l'ar1;hi5;g',
Gr1n.trdreou, Gooclwin, I'rwin,, .Tir,clr8ott, J'ohnston, Jonsg, Moek, MicftIh:.
rnlgt, Moorc, }{ur'dock, IrIoclt, It&ngom, Scl:wentli*ttln, Schwiehelt,
SinEs$tr, $oelberg, Sotenrcn, Etttrr, Trttl}, Thn,toher', Wethot'cIl,
lffIrrrt'ry, Wrlght. Totnl-87,
NrtYE-IInmllLon, Ingu,lls, Irhl1ti.pEl. t'ots.l-3.
, l$,hsent and noL voLin6-Non0,
Excuascl-Bnhl', I-,0w,rV, Miller oufl 'Enoolt. T'otal-4,
'fwo-thtrrclg hwVj.n$ Vrited in ttre at'fln:ratlve, tho ProslclEnt dsclnred
ths rulr,.s'llUl:perrcled. :
I;foUse:BlU No, 26 was reod the firsl l;imc hy Ltltl'l, ,llil$ rrrqond tlmc .'uy tltle, riand thlrcl timc nt lgngtit, srlctlon by aectlon, o.ndl pl;l,gerj
lret'ors the. Bannl:c for finfll C+h(iderrltlon, the qnestlotr belng, i'Ehalt .,
tho bill Pr.#is ?r'
Roll qntt reaulted ae followst '
/\]fln$-A1beltlnl, Aleranrler, ElsucksLock, BolL0n, Eurns, Eurstcclt, :
Bnxton, Camphcll, Cboir, Collirr, CoHtley, J)ovis, petwel:et', F{rr'l;hing, ':
Geaudronu, Goodwi.n, fl'vrin, J'BchflQtt, Johnaton, Jonea, Meelc, Mlddte- r
miuLl, Moore, Mu,rdock, Nock, H.anaorn, Echwendinran, Echwlebort, ,.
-g,lueeer, Eoelhorg, So.rEr^Ecn, Sta[r', TuLc, Thrulicher, Wrrilrsrall, rWhorry, WuighL, Tol:tr,i-8? .lNAYE-HarniltOn, InP.$lIH, Phillrpe:, Total-*.S, liAbeent ancl not votihB-Norl+, .:t.
ExcuEnd-,Ilrr,hf, L+Wry, IvXillr+r (r.4tl Sn(.)OIr, Totil,l,*-4, I;
Wlrorcupon llhr,: Frettideut declored th+ btll poseeh. .'r,
Titlrr WE,.rr f,.pproveCt ancl,the blll crrderpcl leturnecl to the l-loue,a, i,rlhere belng no obJoctlon, ths Benato rotrrrnscl to the N1uth Ordcr ilpf Euslners, f1;' llfcrulgc# frorn {,lrc I'Iorr.rc ,,,,,i
t{ouge. of ttepresentotlvee, lolqlu, fcluho, lil
Mr'. prosirlcnL; Jtln,uy'2z' 10b:1" ,#-f ns.ve iiie -honor' 'to retuln herewtth Fenate Cenqttrit'eng g,(js,qlutlon ,,fiNo' S rvhich ha;s p+*tl+(i the Frou$c. c. ,4,, BoFToI/rnFPI{,_ ,i:
. Chlell Clerk, . ,i1i
,i,.,.
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 3, Page 2 of 2
i 'Jirnuuril 9I1J }IO'USU J'OUIINAL dClrJ
Motlon to $ueponfl ILnIes
I,IbuHe Of R+$rc6ctrtAtivort, Eoibc, Icl*ho,January 22, 1S51.i!tr, SPeaker:I movc thn.t s.U l't[l$s Oi; th|} I-Iouts lflljerforing wlt]r ths hnr::s-
6i6.te paq.a,s,go of Honse BtlI No. 26 be auspendedf ttra.t th+ portlor:s
ot'Sc+liOiii[5, At'tiolcr B 'of the Constitu0toh of ths Eta{ie-of taaUo,
rcqulrlng all b{lls to ba rsad on l"hree sovsral C*yA be dlepeneed wiLh,ttrii heinf B cA8+ r)li ul'H$tlcy, flItd thtr,[ Hotrss-Blll trto. gg bo readtha ;Pirgt tinre EV'tiHtr, SGoonrl tinrr: hy lilJu, tr,nd thrr thlrrl thne at
laugth, solltion hy ucctlon, nnd ho put upon ttg llrEt pass0.g:e.
MoVed by Mr, ]founli,
Ej+aondecl hy Mr, Muiphy,
J+oII catl r'eaulted {r,B fioilowE;
.[yEs-lSorrett, EelI, Elick, Err]WcF, Csnarrr..Ea, Ehalfant, trolner,
Comrfionri, DuvlE, Dinnlson, Doano, DocliLtlE, Dfr:vlow, Err,sl,man,
,IDmory. Ibva:'ett, ar.r'cJlet', 6ooolt, QoN'eli Gl'ri]';t, Grrfineli, I{an:ptonj
I{ru}lflOn, IfEaC#On, ,fr}frseg, . Jo:rc,-!,. Larsen, Ls,Turner., *[enflgig*11MelrIIl, Ulller, EltE (_E.olae), lAaonloc, Mun1, Mgrphy, Nielaen,Pnliison, lPtt.ylJon, FyIe, Hlcks, Hoche, Bt,Well, S{lorCy, Vand.o',srs,Vlncent, Westfall, Willepr, Wtt+on, Winkl+r, 'young,"Mr. gpeakei,
: To[tr,l-Ell
; tt+XS-Xrlpchrhil;Ur.rr, EmiLh, Votter. Totol-,5.
,J +utl+nt a.rt(I sfictuscrl--Gnffney, Gwartney, r,'trolmi McDtlvitt, vorno[..lrTotnl-S,
I Wt o*ouporl, thrr Sleoker cleclat'efl l;h{tt nrore than .two-thlrclg
l,havlng' voted _in l:h_e -.-A'f f il'hrrr,lj_ivc, t;hs nrollo[ provoiled, thq: ru]eB
;wcrio suepondecl, +ttd llouee Hlll No, EG WEg reail the flrst tirne by;trtle, eeoorr_d tinlB_by llitlo, rmcl-l;Le thlrcl thne nt lurrgth, scction b1i;g€q.tiun, anrl plncod upou ita flual poasage.
i I'rorlg+ Bill No. 26 was uoad th_e fir,lt tirue hy tltle, ilre gecond
:,rtlme _b_y titre,.n.nd third ulme of length, .rregtiori by Loctlon, arrdiptrr,cacl hefore the ltouae tor: final uoniJlclsratlonr
, Tho clirestlon betngl "Btrnll llonss Btll No. ?6 pns*?','t
': Ito1l call reeultedl flrt followr;:
',.1 nVpS-I3arrett, Eell, Bliclr, Elower, ebnarn,lgu, Chrdfuut. Colner.
'Cor:r:rrou-y,_ Drwis, Dinnison,, Doane, rJorilittitl,.Emery, Everett.'Ctrlrrii:hori G0och, Go_wey, Gr_ayot, Gunnoll, lInmpton, I.id.nuou, fflil*csou,rJ.elts.ss, Jonefg, Lflrl.l(.ltl, Lr,lTnrncr, Me[denhfl,]l, M+rril], Milrer, MiI1iq{Eo_tael, Mo-nroo,. Munh _ Mrr,rphy, Niclssn, pauleon,' Icylr:, 'Ri;kE:
,rtocho, _S_ewgllr storcy,. vincent, we-.rtfftll, willos, witpon, winhlcr,:{ouug, Mr. Speoker. I-otal*-{,7
l:l nlvs-provlow,_.[]aatrnau, Krr,rr:hmitter, 'Psytorr, s\rriLlh, vanclen-[clB', Vstter. Totrtt-?,
:;i i\bsent nnd cxcusecl-Gaffney, (;wflr,ttrcy,'I{olm, MaDevitt, Ver.l!oI. Trr[aJ-6.
;: 'rotat*AS,
t;.i Wtreroupou, tire Sp$tr,]tor cicclarsd }Iou€,+ Eiil No. tB p+ru;ecl,
:,i,Tittu wfl;t upprovsd aud tire bill tlrrdored trangrnitti:cl to the ge:ratr:,
Lti r1L this thne tlre Spcullor excused thr: Approprlatlorts Corngrltbee.
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09IAVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 3, Page 1 of 2
7$SENATtr JOURNAL [,Ionuayy lt
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09IAVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 3, Page 2 of 2
Motlons ond f,iciluhilllotrn
lVtrotiion llo EttflFsnrl trt'illes
Eens.te Chambsr, Boisri', Itlu,ho,. JErrusJy Zll, 1p81,
IVJI,. Pr.c$ruettr:I nrov+ that all rulog of thc Seno,te itrterfet'lng with ths lmmsdlate
paEEEso of HoUtijH ElIl No. 26 be sue'ponclcd; l;hat l;lrc ;:0rl;ione of
SecLto-n 18, Artlcle S of Lhe COnsuitut;ion t:f the Stute of ldaho, ro-
duiring :r.ll.' btllg to ho rcnd Ort three tevelll d&Ys_.p-e _{,rpc_1socl wlt11,
tiris being B cose of urgency, flnd thnt House BiII No. l0 Ie ,read
tit1g li*t iime hy {{tlo, iccqia tinte lry' title, and the thlrcl 'tlms u.l:
ler:.g{:h, eesllion [y seoLlon, ancl i:e put.upot\ it$ Iinn.I paesag'e,
Movsd hy Benu.tor Soelberg.
Seconclod bY. Senfl torEt&rr.
Tho quos'tion heinE, {r6ha1\ the rnloe be suEpchrletl ?"
Roll c*ll rctntlted ire follows:
AYEg-Al.herttni, Alexsncler, Blaclcstoclt, Birlton, Eul'llll, ErlrsLrrdt,
Elrxtrln, CO.rnpbell, Cook, Collin; Cot'LIeY, Di.vle; _Detwetler, I?'4fi;hihii',
Gefl.rrdreou, Gboclwin, I.rwrnu Jircltffott, J'ohnatol, Jonog' Me_ek, Miufll+.
11rlst, Moolie, Mur'dock, Noclt, Itangom* Bch.wcnciir?rrln, Schwiobolt,
Sin,rsctr, So6lbarg, Sotenson, Sl[,rr,'Tflte, Thntohet', Wethr:t'cll,
\fl'lrerrg, Wrlght. Totnl-87,
Nrr.YE-llamllLOn, InHu,lIS, Irhllli.pE!. t'ots.l-9.
, Ah+eut aud noL voLinf-.-Nont:,
Excuescl-Bu,hr, I-ow,fy, MtIIer onfl 'Enool{. T'otal-4'
'Iwo-tfu]rcls hu,Vi,ng V+ted in tlre atflrr:ratlve, tho Prcsiciirnt doc]s,red
ths rulr,.s'llUE:Perrcled- :
I;follge lEtttl No. 26 wae reod the first [imc by l.litl':, l:Ils rr{rcond tl'nrclry tlt1c,,i'a1d thircl timc &Ll lenBl:ir, Erlqtlon lry aecttotr, nnd plr1cerl
uet'ors the 8er:{.rl;c for fin0l +Oh$idero,tlon, the qnestlotr beltrg, t'8hnII
tho bitl PrEis'it'
RulI otltt reeultecl ae follows:
/\EES-AIbertInl, Ale:<anclsr', BlncksLocli, EolLon, BUrnrS, Eurstcclt,
Etnxton, Camphcll, Cbolc, Collirr, Cofltley, I)s.vie, petwellet', F8,r'l:hing',
Geaudlenu, Go<ldwi.n, fl'win, J'fi.ckHQtt, Johnston, Jones, Meelc, Mlddle-
rriuLl, Moore, Murdock, Nock, H,onaotn, Schwendlnran, Echwlebot't,
Sluaser, Eoelhorg, Bo.rcnscn, Sllalir', TUL(:, Thnflchcr, Wethsrall,
Whorry, Wuigh0, Toltr,i-B?,
NAY,g-Hamilton, Intr.ullc, Philttpsl, Totat-*.S,
Abaent and not voting-$1gv1rr,
Excusod-Brr,hr, I-ioWrY, IYXillrtr (r,nfl gnoolt, TQt(rl'--4,
'Whoreupon tlhr,r lrreEiiderrt Elealored th+ btll poeeed.
Tilll1.r Wa,.cr f,.pproved o,nd,the btll rrrderpcl returnecl to the l-rouej,e,rrhere being no obJoctlon, ths Eenato rotrrrnocl to the Nluth Ordr:r'pf Enslncss'
ftrruur,gc# fr(rrn i,rrrr r.rorr.yc ,,l
Ilouea of ltepresentattve;5ffi,
rt$,.18;, .Mr. IsrosidcnL;f hove the honor'to retuln herewlth Sanate Qongtttirenl,l RCeolutlonNo' B lvhich has pms*cl the Fr.u*c' c. "4,, BoFToIiFgE;,. Chle'( Clerlc, .
,:
:.
l.
:t:'I
.l'
!:
':l
rr:l..*
] :I
,n,t,;
,,'li
,1li
. rLl;
.::1 t
ii1i
'!i:i'
d
oo >oFO*E. -, 'i o: q;-
E9 q $E<--(I,i( 6+o6or
N^!rU O,ri 5tA
ooz
c)o6O
TgiEIEdHEEEia:OlO'tiHHptS'i'
HHEE:EaigHi
HHHHEfiS:X;g
E13:I;*EE3EH
eE8;HEHEEHF
HEE,frEEHfrHEqE
E A;EHHE=:EEa
HH;HE;HIAEE
EEH;I$8fr;BB
8:EEH#H,"iIr"
E.iEEEfFEHHT
HESTgEEEEaEiuaPoooL]Furqu
F<$r-1 -:
tu+Pidd:HU!ruL)
G!
dl
;l
ouq
m
H.r,e
t
^0|l
:10 8f
'''.:1, '
t. ":
.i . r. I
'gtg*If,EHI
oo >o:q (:!T1-
=9 E H,E<-o-t(a+Q6orYJ=:dBd5ja
ooz'0)
GO
:ll flf [[ [ rot']tt
.l
.'...
tiUOo
E5
€#.H 6J
F=
^^ cl
€3d)s!UOJ,i3 ." rBor'ff 6
^E13 h.E*F
$lx EgP o Y-i
$EH $6tn E,cr5{l H4a'- tr
t'-H* ;6be ts-EPLrFi- s ll
.X E'E €'
54 e-{
60 >o
-of,s. ' "ioE?>-E9 E H,!<-(L
,r ( 6'+Q6oYJ=
FU Or-,i 5).a
ooz
C)o(,O
4
4
()
U),
d
o
(J@
r4
tr4H
v)e
J
z,
ma)
rdu
op
il
H
iEEiIEiiEEiEE{IEEE
o;rry o
AEfi€#E gEa
*85#
5 rs'ab4H 9r,a fl-abD -a# E
EEE H
d t'5€uiR!
E g [',3
*fi; rj
?HEH
E Ef;q
€J; stg Eea
I HE#E*rHQ+ o O{:H+ Ur!
'r{.., tdo 6'f,'H;4+6 qF
ii6 e,EE
f
LJ
:20 8L0l I
^oN
clLI
.: ,.
. : .: 1.,
E
HI't'I
440
, ftlijlSB
i ,i
]rmrnrY-FrRsr tsrmlvNrAr-
,d.ttomey Genera].
REPOXIT OF TI{E
x.gsl - - -L952
KOHERT E. $MYN"TE' Attorney Geuerul
r"t tf\ [
&nffiBiIIr'
.j,.,,:'l OF
Idafuo
I
.,'.1r,.,'
'.i,. ..
, i,,
il ($hrI,J.11 l:. i
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 5, Page 1 of 3
r(il
fillp :1fr I,$$/I
,.:
:,t ,,r ;,
',.1,,
t
II
,t.
rl '1 ,'.,
, i ,'
,..,J.,
10 ATTOHNMY GENENAL'S }TEPORT
in tho offico. The increased worh lond is boing handled with an i:rcreate
in porsonnol omounting to only 20 per cort ovor the stnff during the
I94I-1948 hionnium,
LTTIGATION
A reviow of the clocket section of this report will indicate that we
havo boon able to cloae miny pending casee ln the offise und that the
litigation docket iu now in bettur condition than at nny rerent time.
Thls,hos boen duc in part to the enflctm€nt of the new proviaionn o{ the
Income Tax Law which authorize the Tax CollEcrilorLo oxocuto o,nd
isrue rilsrrunts of disUuqin0 for urrpo,ld tnwup, Puovlously u, law suit
had to bs institulod on ooch dotinquont occonnt, This hns not auto*
rrrohlcnlly rotlucod tho burden of work in thte ol$oo by the numericol
numbur o:f cnres, becnuse nach distrniut wnrrant reqnires coneultation,
However, thn litigation 'burden, with its consequent coflta, har been
subetnutinlly lossened by tho new statute, The 0f,868 whlch nre noru on
the docket, however, nre complex, and time.conruming in no,fure,
A detniled rnport of [hE litig*tfou s*tlvity of the offi*s it s,'lil,ochod to
this report, $ome of tht more intererti::g csses aie,doucnlhod helow,
' tllle W'cnhingtou Wnter Powur Cnse
The 1061 Logiulatuno sns.ctad a stutute which for\nde acquisition
by u, municipnl corporntion of unuther stotu of lncilitieg for the Btsnera.tion or tronsmission of Blestricrr,l.euergy tn ldaho, The at$tub$ yr&s
patently airned at preveuting acquisition by Fqblic Utili'by Dtsfrictu
of the Stnte of Waehington of the oper*tingl propertles of tho \Yosh-
inglton 'lYater Pbwer Compnny located in Nprth ldalho. Ihu otroct-
rnent of the etatgte wnr productive of the mopt tlme songuming litiFo-
tion i:r which thd offi*e han been engagleri tn the period reporlhod in this
report. Our eflorts wqre dirested at the problom of eocuring: onforco-
m6nt of the new stu'Lu'te.
The Wsnhinpton 'lYeter Fowor Compnny wam then s,.wholly owned
$$bridiury of Antetlcan , Powor & Light Compony. In 1942, thu
.{"msricnrr f,ompnmy hod buon onderod hy thn Sccu'rities & Hxchnngo
Commiseion of the United Statcs to rlivest ttaelf of ite operattng
propertte*, inqluding the'W'aehington'Company. In X061, thn Americsx)
Compnny entnred into * contrnct to eell all nf the common stoclr of the
Warhlngton Company to the Wnshington Stste Pullic Utility Dis.
tvictr, Ccrttrl,n citir,enn of the Public Utility Diqtrictr undertoph to
resLrq,ln llhe pur,chune by the Dtt[rictn on the gt'ound l[hu,b ccguixtLion
of the Idpho propertieu by th+ Tfashing:ton Dintticts y,ss beyond theirpowo!. Tho 'lYr"qhlugilon S'[ste Courtr ao'held ond' enjoinod 'Lhe strle
nnd purchoee oe the[ Irroponed,
Thereupon, wG urged tho Sacurltlos & Exchange Commlssto'r to en-
force its lSdE order of disEolution hy taking manclatory action against:
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-17 -09 I AVU-G- 1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 5, Page 2 of 3
ATT0ANTy GE},ljitnAIJ'S AUPonT 1t
tlre A;rnolictr,n Corrrpony. Wa nuggentecl thnt the proyer moLhod of
nccorupltuhirrg o divgiiXitttt,o olfi i,he Waehinglton Compnny \,rrnu [;1' q{i6.
trihutioyi of tho 'lVashirrglorr Company common stock to tho slock.
holclurs 0f 'th6 Amorics,n Com;rany, 'pt'l t'Nfrd, sn their. ownership in ,hhe
Amqrricrn Cornpony &ppoo,]'od.
,d{Ier u uovjo$ o:fl h*srings the Securttier & Exchangc Comrnisslon
61.doreil tlrut sttch divorit[irure gccur not lo,ter than Jnnuary 1, 19EP
u(ul6ps plfinrt wox'o Lhon in procenfr oI conrpletion rvhich ruonld eftect
somo othsr dispositiotr o:f blre Wnshingl:on Company. Just prior 0o
the dendline, tho Americurr Oompu.uy filed a pl*n fur nnothor gale
of the lYashington flonrpany to LhE .llublic Utilitf' Districts mrcl to arr
Iclnho Corporation ltot yo{; fo:rn:erl. Ib developrcl thnt no contrnct of,
pale hed been enterrlcl into bct,,veon lhe proponed partier and that the
Id*l:ro corporation, while nott-profiL in qhprqqter, rvould in effect brl
pnother holding cornpflny for ttrs opern'ting pr:operty, We felt cotn-
pellecl to resist this plan ancl mnde appropri*Ls ropre$enbntion to thc
Securitiee & Exchange Comnrission. An oldor' 1ffrli enLered eetting
Lhe Arnetican pLan for sele *ncl, tho pl*tr fo:r clivas'titut'e by rlistl:ihu.
tirrn dorvn;f,or lrear'irrg \ ,/
The Public Utility Di.striste thereupon sor-rght nr ro$trairrintr4 orcler /
in llre U,$, Ctrcuii: Qourt of Appeals fur ths Ninth Circurit ugoinnt,
holcling the ]toovirrg. IVe ioir:ed the Securities Conrmission in seeking:
to hnvs the rtestrsrining ordor rlinsolved ancl the petitir:n firr revjelv
oJ tha Conrinissiou's $ction diarniBned. The Clourt agroccl rvibh.
thiu pasition;t disnrissocl the Sreti[ion for review *r:d dissolvec] the
restrainitrg orcler. Tho C,:mrnisgion Lheleupon orqlerecl the hearing.
The Alnerican Company thetr filcd rr rrls,n fo:r distcibufien in accovd-
anee q,itl: (,r:r initifll suggestic'n to thrl Conrnianiorr, Ther.t clistributiori
r',ns fiually accomplinhed on August 81, 1962 rlnd the Washington
Compnny is now rln independent operating utilit],. rvi'Ihrr'ub hr:lding
corltp$n), control r>f any ltiud. The prrlposea of thr.. l.0SL stututs ir*ve
Lreen rendered e.fYec.tive, Ws ontorod Lhe lttigr*tir,r: at the Fodelsrl
admi:ristrative level in orcler to nvoid Jong, dt.fFqrr)h anr[ costly liLig*-
tion in ot1l'o-wn Stute Cqu:r:ts, ancl in ths sevsrol United States Courtx.
The Clinger Case
Two coses aroee in lVlaclison County rvhicir ore of funtlnnrental ir:r-
portan,:e to the couduct of the public trnst imposed on the adnrinistra-
tj.on of the public pchool lands, The Lnnd Boarcl otYered a qection of
Innd itr thnt couttt-v fot' rc$le at public auction Lo the highest hidrler.
The lancl was offered in two porccls. On one pnrcel a eompoting billder
livns vucccssful &nd orr the other the lrersorr whc hsd appliecl ,[o have
tho lsund o1'Ierecl for salo wotl succeasful, The e.onrpetition +rt the nucLiqn
was brisk, and the perEolr who sr,;pplied to [ave the lnr:ri offered !]or
eale cliehonorecl her check for thc.dolrr p*ryrient on tlte noxt busir:oss
Exhibit No. 15
Case Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 5, Page 3 of 3
oo>Q:?EE, i;-Et q SE<--(Lri ( B^.q6oYJ=5ci EuJ5)u)
ltozo
6o
g;
uiffitffigtii
e
9!'
:a
a*E I:r?:
o
${iiir{f;;rEE-'.Eq!Ei
IaEEt;!sd=
iai:gEi;igi
aO.li
\Jr-ftO
AD
frl
6d+r
-L{OA-ttittiF.i'O>c
LD
oir)
aO
-lcBC)
>-t'.tr{tr{.F{+jF-
-)
c).rr*F-.-Fri{-t-AF]{
hot1-.-
-i-{Atr
GBc
-{U'OaaqB
-I-L{
tE{tr{jri
m
993
65 *
;id5I
p9
EE
9q,6o
9?
I edE.ie+Eetr A: o
frO<
r+{ 29o
$3
oH
co c)!DM
-i l*{
(6
U)
UD
Gl{Ei
c4Lo
B
a)
hoot-l
h{
o
?a)a)
()+4"a
"liv)
a)
t-I
t
.E
r\&n
;s€,s*uEiiiiii
$,s E ss"t ;jrEEiEi6
a6
a
o
d
U)
6n
o
6
o
F
rno\
eaN,6
bD
!o
rq
€
o
F
o
d
o
=EA
x
ln
3ECEEr
3Ee3
'6
ffi
Page Slx
Bitl Pass,
Quick Action
On Measure
Dra'ws Protest
Proponenls Declaro
Law May Prevent
Losr of Revenue
ny JOBN COITLETI I5ttrto8mar Polttlml Edlto!
Ths IdEho lcglslature suspcndedrules Monday and p88scd I bill
through both houses- whlch wotrld
bar the snlo of utility propol'tlcs in
Idalo to any govcrnmetrtal agen'
cy or lnstrumcnt(lily outside the
Cem Etate.After less th8n 15 mintltes de'
b8te, the house approvcd the miss'uro by e whopping- vole ol. 47 to
?. The mensure, rushod to tho sen'
ote, wa3 passed th€re 3? to 3,
wlth htrrdlv morc thsn 10 mlnu+.es
of discusslbn. Democrtrts cast tho
onlv no votcs.iho mcasure's supportors Justl'
tled tho suspensioil of tho rules togct imlncdiEto octiotr on..tho
sloutrd that an cmorgency sltua'
fion exlsted whlch mlAht co$t the
Btatc of Idaho close to $500,000 ln
.rcvcnue, They expltrined that ne-
cotistions wcr0 now golng on in
Nerv York for tho strle of the
\1'nshiirIton Water Power com-
nnnv's iorth Idaho utillty proPcr-
iics-to a srorrP of Publl3 ntilitY
.listricts ln neerlry WLihtngtonitate. flre tax-exeirPt status of
th8 PUD'S. said the bill's Dropo'nents, wouid provc costly to IdBho.
Arfuo Agolnst Horto
The oDDonents &rgucd agolNt
the hsstir. Some of tho north Ida-
ho houso members contended they
were not bcing givon adequotg
tlme to gct tho vtcrvPolnt of th€ir
constltuents.Dtrrlier, the scleto spProved bY
a 35 to 0 vote a me&sure which
npllroprlates $1,000,000 from the
gonersl fund to thc govcmor tor
crnergency civil defcnse Put?oses.T ho measure carrles restrictions
\tlrrch would prevent the governor
,rom using trny of the funds unlcssthe Unitod Stotes trnd Caneda,
$cro conlronted by an encmy at-
tack.
The senate, etso bY & 35-0 vote,
opproved e bill thtrt rvould providon sinrDler system whereby mem-
bels of ths flrmod forces could
1,ote in national, state and county
elections ln their absenco from
Idtrho,
Cflrcusofl HcrdTho public utlllty measurs camo
up in the houso Stler & noon hour
roccss rrnd &Jter Domucratlc &nd
ncpublican membcrs hckl scpartto
cnucuses. Suspenslon of tho rulesw.s okchcd bv E 5I to g vote.It immcrllnicly trecamo obvlousthtrt Rep. Jesse Vetter, tho vetel-an Domocrst rrom Kootenai, [vasprepercd to scrap. Twics he ob-
Jectcd to moves for untrnimousconsent to have the clcrk stop
reflding the lenBthy bilt Bnd hBveIt antercd on thc record as rc&d lni[ll. And so the houso sst quletly
os Chlef Clerl( C. A. Bottolfsen
droned through the sevetr closely-
tyncd ptrFcs,
Then Rep. D&vld Do8ne (Ads),
assistant Republicsn flool lee(ler,
oDcned the debato for tho blll's
auDporters. Ho exp)altred th8t themnjor plrrposs was to protect pow-er uscrs of Id8ho, Psrtlcultrrlythose ln Nolth ldoho, "to bo surethst the electrlc utlllty properttes
bc owncd ln Ideho and rot escapetutrtion,"Hc lrlri rha ho'tr6E*hfbfthl0.
;ase Nos. AVU-E-'t 7-0g/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 6, Page 2 o'f 4
(r
M
icr
s0
sl:
ol
stA
in
m
h{
aty(
pl
tlr
it:
ot
dly{fr
fa
sI
hrA
t(
s(tl
sl
s(t!
11.s
oi
P.
o)
v.
el
8(
1r
-tfren fiep, Davtd Doane (Ada),assistant Republican flool learler',opcned tho debete for tho bill's
rr.rpporters, Ho expl&lned tiat themajor purpose was to plotect pow-er users of Id&ho, p&rticulnrly
those in North Idnho, "to bs sru'ethrt the eloctrlc ntility ploperties
bo owncd in ldaho anrl not escape
tB-\&tion,"He t,rlci tho houso that therewls now pendinB negotiations bo-t.rvcon the Washlngton Wa,terPowcr cornpany ond the PUDgroup llom Washlngton for thcIalc of tho ,ormer's nolth Idahoplopel'tics,"How Aoon they are golng
througlr rvith tle des.l, we don't
krrorv," gaid Don.ne, "btrt it ls es-Ecntlal that this l)ill bo p&ssedriilht arvoy."
Llrrrls Opposltlon
Vcttcr, lending off for the oppo-
rition, sairl "I.clon't seo &ny neces-
sily for nrshing this kind of leg-lslntion thlottgh," llo snid tho
nrorrsllro \\,as pttt on hls desk only
this m(tr'ning."Il is so iomplicated, I'vo wrlt-ton nry rLtolney," ho aldded. "AllI }(nrw Bbotrt thts blll csmo fl'oln
thc nttorne.y fol' the ld&ho Polver
co)flDflnv nncl l'tl tell vou whftt I
tolrt'hini to his face-idon't trust
Itint. "Stnnrlins at his desk wltlt
Urirmbs hiokecl lnto his lower vest
Dockcts, Vettel' ttlrncd his ntten'
ilon to thc PIID's. 1'hcss coopet'a'
ti\.c EIotlDs. hc sirid, tvete olrmed
bY fnliltci's "antl I'd lathcr trtlsttlic fatntcr-o-I'nr sntisfierl they
rvill nol. exPloit the PecPle."
"Sorncl)rilre." said Vctter' his
hirl'-l)itchcd- volce l'ising highel',
rurio)li nrightv sh'ong to nte t'hnt
itrer"r'c trlling to gc['t)ris throttgh
so otticl<."Rto. Joscnh I(nschrnlttcr (D-
I(td;) tool(' uP Iol' the opposl'
tion."llnttv of the things that Mt"
Vettcr irr'r said, I arn ln fnll oc'
cord." he snld, "I nsk'-whv the
hastc? I. 161' r1y part, wrrnt to
l<norg o little moi'c lrefore I vole
lrr fnvor of lt."
Rerr. 1\'illiatn Pvle (R-Gooding)
drleciccl a otlestion &t Vcttcr,
"I. too. n:n & fal'llrer'," he snitl.,.1 Rlk vi,u rvill the fslluel's l\'ho
al'(r tl'\'ing to btty tlrcse u[ilitics
havc inteflity ellough to pny theit'
tn,.:es ln Idatro ?"
"I'm willing to trus'" 'em," wRs
Ve[tcr's rcp]y.
Rep. \\'illiarn C. Snlith (D'Sho'
.shono) cchoxl K$schmitter's u'ords.
Rep. \\'alter Dil'ltllson (R-Cleat"
\i'atcl'), l'cnrindlDg t.hni he was a
north Idshoan, said he regardctl
haste as essential in the Prescntnattel'.
CIosinB debe,te, Doano empha-
sjzed thnt his interest in the bill
rvas dictntcd bv tris convrction thet
the mcas\rre rrrhs to the intet'est oftrle state. He said thet lf the nolth
Idahb ploperties wel'o sold hefolethe leFislfltule could stop it, thestatc would lose at least $460,000in levertucs.
Thoso voting agalnst the blll inthe horrse-all Demo(x'ets-wereRops, W. E, Drevlow (Lewis),
Sour Eastman (Kootenel), I(&sch-mitter' (Idaho), W. O. Payton(Valley), Smith (Shoshone) andJVIarvin G. Vandenberg (Boun-dary), and r/etter.
trn tbo renate, 8sn 8. jt, XocI.
IExhibit No. 15
rse Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09/AVU-G-1 7-05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 6, Page 3 of4
strr..e.n, -rao:ry a. lssr.p.e.
nrE6qekfrdtf,e,d.tulP{.(
berg (R-Butte), the maJorlty lloor
leader, launched tho debato lry
so.ying tlere was "great urgency"
for possago of the measure be.
causo of negotiationr now ln prog-
ress ln New York CitY.
"If tho sale ls matle Prlor to
pessegs of this bill, Idaho would
stand to lose heavily tn tnxes, Ifthe Washington Wator Power
comDanv were transferred to tre
fax-ixerirpt P'LIDs in Washington,
the state of Idaho would stend to
lose a lot, of moncY."
Sen. Clat'lt llamilton (D.Wash.
lngton) wo.s the only oPPonent to
tnlre the floor against the bill lu
the senate, Ho said he oPPosed the
hulry in passing the bill.
At another polnt he sald he
[hought "it w&s a vlcloug bill, a
bnd bilI."
Later, rofoning to Publlc'ownodntilttics, he snid:
"I fcel they orrght to be brought
bnck on the tax nolls. I think all
coopeloti'res should pay taxes,"
S'cn. William J. CostleY (D-I,ew-
is:) saitl, "If we rvant PUDs ln
ftlnho it should be for thls boclY
and the one ocross tjte hall (house)
to set ttp the "p)&tt," IIe expressed
ftnr thal foilurc to pass the meas'
urc tnight mcan Lhal PUDs would
lbo forc-erl on Idaho. Senator Cost'
ley said ho was served bY Rry+
nid nlivate powcr company, add'
tns fhnt RINA rates were hlglter
thiin Wnshtnston Water Power's,
"but therc's i reason for lt."
Iiojcctlons Notctl
Scn. lVilliarn C. Moore (R'La'
tah) notecl that SPoknne cotlntY
voters in Washington had twlce
leiccted pttlilic rrtilitv districts
nnd ttrat Asotin county, lVashirrg'
ton, rvhich adjoins his hotne cottn'
tr', just last November reJected a
PIID bv & five-to-one vote,
"!Vhv. if thev don't cate about
PUD i;' nearbv'Waghington state,
should it be th-r'ust upon us," liena'
tor' Moore demanded.
Tlle three genate votes a.gainst
the bill were cast bY Sens. Hamtl'tor, (Washlngton),'James L. In'gall.c (Kootenai) antl ClareneePhillios (Cassia).
Durling' its rnbrning' and after'
noorr flessions, bhg houso recelved
eight bills, one of thase, intro'
duled bv Rep, Ir'rank 'Chalfant,
(R-A.da)-and Rep, Peter J. Rlcks
(ts-Madison), would Prevent the
sale of beer in such establlehments
as grocety stores and anY--other'
placc whero youths undor 20 are
permitted to enter,- Six bills and a Joint memorlal
were introduced in ths genato.
Both the houso aud senate ad-
Journed utll.l0 a Bk loda$
"Exhibit No. 15
e Nos. AVU-E-1 7-09IAVU-G -17 -05
D. Leroy, Leroy Law
Schedule 6, Page 4 of 4