PacifiCorp

Snake River Valley Electric Association (“SRVEA”) brought this action against PacifiCorp and its division, Utah Power and Light Company, 2 alleging a violation of the -federal antitrust laws. SRVEA challenges PacifiCorp’s refusal to allow SRVEA to “wheel” 3 and supply power to PacifiCorp’s customers through PacifiCorp’s electric transmission facilities, arguing such refusal violates § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-2 (1997), and § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 (1997). 4 In moving for summary judgment, PacifiCorp argues that Idaho law expressly permits such anticom-petitive conduct, thereby immunizing Paci-fiCorp from antitrust liability under the state action immunity doctrine. See Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-51 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). The district court granted summary.judgment to PacifiCorp, agreeing that the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (“ESSA”), Idaho Code § 61-332 et seq. (1999), expressly authorizes PacifiCorp’s refusal, and, as such, the state action immunity doctrine bars SRVEA from recovering under the federal antitrust statutes. We reverse. 5 .

I. Background

The Idaho Legislature passed the ESSA in 1970 to…