LYON.docx

March 6, 1996
Mr. Frederick C.  Lyon, Clerk of the Courts
Idaho Supreme Court/Idaho Court of Appeals
Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0101
RE: Docket No.  21714: Building Contractors Assoc. of SW Idaho v Boise Water Corporation and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Dear Mr Lyon:
This is to request an informal clarification of opinion no. 23 issued by the Idaho Supreme Court in this matter on March 5, 1996.
As noted in the appellate briefs of every participant to this appeal, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission resolved a number of issues in Orders No.  25640 and 25761 which are not related to this appeal including, but not limited to, the Commission’s determination of a new base rate for Boise Water Company.  The scope of this appeal, however, is limited to the single Commission decision increasing Boise Water Company’s hook-up fee for new customers.
In its opinion, the Court states: “the decision of the IPUC in Orders Nos.  25640 and 25761 is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the IPUC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”  Opinion no.23 p. 9.  As noted in §10.2.2 of the Idaho Appellate handbook, Idaho code §61-629 provides the Supreme Court with 3 options when reviewing orders of the IPUC; affirm the Commissions’ order, set aside the order or set aside portions of the order.  It does not appear that either vacating the Commissions’ order or remanding the case to the Commission are procedural options available to the Court.
In Idaho State Home Builders v. Washington Water Power Co, 107 Idaho 415, 690 P.2d 350 (1984), a decision relied upon by the Court in reaching its ruling and opinion no.  23, the Court stated that “those portions of the Commission’s orders are set aside.”
It is unclear to the Commission why the Court, in this appeal, chose to “vacate” the Commission’s orders and failed to indicate whether the orders were being overturned in their entirety or simply with respect to the Commission’s ruling on Boise Water Company’s hook-up fees.  I would greatly appreciate any clarification the Court may be willing to offer the Commission in this regard and we’ll look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly yours,
Brad Purdy
Deputy Attorney General
BP/cm/L:lyon.bp