Bill Description: House Bill 415 would prohibit certain out-of-state entities from owning any part of Idaho's electrical transmission facilities.
Rating: -2
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 415 would create Section 61-338, Idaho Code, to impose sweeping prohibitions on the utility market.
The bill says, "No entity that was established, chartered, or primarily governed by another state of the United States, or an agency thereof, shall acquire, hold, or operate any ownership interest in Idaho's electrical transmission facilities. This prohibition applies to transmission lines, substations, and other related infrastructure that is directly involved in the interstate or intrastate transmission of electricity."
It says this prohibition would not apply to "private entities, investor-owned utilities, cooperative utilities, or independent transmission developers that are not directly created or controlled by another state government."
It also says, "The Idaho public utilities commission shall have the authority to review and authenticate the ownership of electrical transmission infrastructure in Idaho to ensure compliance with this section."
It would require "any entity in violation of this section" to "divest its interest in Idaho energy infrastructure within a period to be determined by the commission but by no later than two (2) years from the effective date of this section."
This bill involves a significant degree of market intrusion by an individual state. Protectionism is troubling when employed against other countries and highly irregular when levied against other U.S. states.
(0)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
There are at least two distinct constitutional objections to House Bill 415. The first is that the bill broadly violates property rights by declaring certain economic assets and investments off limits to certain entities based in other U.S. states.
(-1)
The second constitutional objection to the bill is that it discriminates against entities from other states and unduly burdens interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has established the Dormant Commerce Clause principle that generally prohibits states from enacting laws that unfairly target or obstruct such commerce.
Although this bill primarily targets public entities based in other states, the court has recognized that state-owned entities, when engaged in commercial activities, are participating in interstate commerce and are therefore shielded from such discriminatory measures. As a result, the bill’s prohibitions would likely face strict scrutiny and be deemed unconstitutional.
(-1)
