Baker County B2H landowners, Idaho Power spar over legal fees

Idaho Power’s fight with Baker County landowners over the Boardman-to-Hemingway transmission line was not finished after the juries ruled. The next battle landed on attorney fees, with property owners now asking the court to make the utility pay the legal bills tied to two condemnation cases in Baker Valley.

The fee dispute follows two separate jury awards earlier this year. In March, one Baker Valley couple was awarded $56,000 for land affected by the B2H project. In April, another Baker County property owner received $182,970. Those verdicts settled compensation, but not the full cost of getting there, and Baker City lawyer Andrew Martin is now asking the court to order Idaho Power to cover the owners’ attorney bills as well.

Idaho Power has objected to both requests and says the fees are too high and not justified. That sets up a classic post-verdict fight in a condemnation case, where the amount a jury awards can be only part of the financial picture for both sides. For the landowners, the issue is whether the recovery they won in court will be reduced by months of legal work. For Idaho Power, it is a question of whether the utility should shoulder the added expense of challenging compensation claims tied to its transmission project.

The dispute matters in Baker County because B2H is not just a statewide utility plan on paper. Its easements, tower locations and condemnation cases have played out on local farms and in the county courtroom, with Baker Valley property owners forced to defend how private land is valued and used. The fee fight also shows how long the economic fallout of infrastructure litigation can last after the headline verdicts are over.

If the court orders Idaho Power to pay the legal fees, the landowners’ net recovery would rise and the rulings could influence other B2H cases still moving through the system. If the court sides with Idaho Power, the jury awards would stand, but the owners could still end up with less after legal costs. Either outcome would reinforce the same lesson from the B2H fight: in land-use battles, the final price tag often keeps growing long after the jury leaves the box.