Unwarranted competition between utilities is contrary to the public interest, whether the existing supplier be a public utility, or an exempted utility corporation not subject to the commission's jurisdiction. In re Pac. Gas L. Co. of California, 38 PUR(NS) 294 (1941); Re San Jose Hills Water Company, 57 PUR(NS) 503 (1944); Lance v. Franklin P. L. Co., 37 PUR (NS) 98 Tenn. (1941); Re Ozark Wt. Co., 21 PUR(NS) 47 (1937).

Appellants are not public utilities under the Idaho Public Utilities Law, do not serve the public generally, and are not subject to regulation. Section 61-104 Idaho Code; Section 61-119 Idaho Code; Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, 272 P.2d 1012; Inland Empire Rural Electric Association v. Department of Public Service, 199 Wn. 527, 92 P.2d 258.

Since appellants are not public utilities, defendant-respondent's extension of its electric lines into territory in which appellants' lines are located is not an invasion of the territory of another public utility; and the Commission has no authority or jurisdiction in the matter and appellants have no standing to invoke the Commission's jurisdiction. Section 61-526 Idaho Code; Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, 272 P.2d 1012; Idaho Power Co. v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083; Roberts v. Ashton and St. Anthony Power Co., 1916D, P.U.R. 365; Mackay Light and Power Company, 1919E, P.U.R. 482; In Re Idaho Light and Power Company, 1915A, P.U.R. 2; McFayden v. Public Utilities Consolidated Corporation, 50 Idaho 651, 299 P. 671; Public Service Commission v. MontanaDakota Utilities Co., (N.D. 1951) 90 P.U.R.(NS) 266; Nodak Rural Electric Cooperative v. Otter Tail Power Co., (N.D. 1954) 3 P.U.R.3d 347; Williams Electric Co-operative v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (N.D. 1954) 5 P.U.R.3d 108; Nodak Rural Electric Co-operative Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. (N.D. 1954) 5 P.U.R.3d 92; Cooperstown v. Otter Tail Power Co. (N.D. 1954) 5 P.U.R.3d 97; In Re Nafe (Ohio), 4 P.U.R.3d 369; San Miguel Power Association v. Public Service Commission, 4 Utah 2d 252, 292 P.2d 511; Sheridan County Electric Co-op. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, 128 Mont. 84, 270 P.2d 742; Kansas City Power and Light Company v. McKay, Secretary of the Interior, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924, 8 P.U.R.3d 414, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 884, 76 S.Ct. 137, 100 L.Ed. 780.

Appellants are not public utilities and are expressly exempt from the supervision and regulation of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Section 61-104, Idaho Code; Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, 272 P.2d 1012.

Appellants are not "public utilities of like character" as contemplated by Section 61-526, Idaho Code, and, therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain appellants' complaint against actions of respondent in extending its system into territories contiguous to its present system. Section 61-526, Idaho Code. Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, 272 P.2d 1012; Inland Empire Rural Electrification, Inc. v. Department of Public Service of Washington, 199 Wn. 527, 92 P.2d 258; San Miguel Power Association v. Public Service Commission, 4 Utah 2d 252, 292 P.2d 511; Nodak Rural Elec. Co-op v. Otter Tail Power Co., 3 P.U.R.3d 347 (1954); Williams Electric Coop., Inc. v. Mont.-Dakota Utilities Company, 5 P.U.R.3d 108 (1954); Re Fraser Telephone Company, P.U.R. 1920C, 952 (1920); In re Darnielle, P.U.R. 1928E 211 (1928).

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

The appellants are rural electrical, non-profit, cooperative corporations, organized pursuant to the Rural Electrification Acts of Congress.

August 4, 1955, these cooperatives filed a petition or complaint with the public utilities commission charging that the respondent Washington Water Power Company for the past several years has been extending its lines into territories and areas served by them; taking members from them and serving them with electricity; and serving individuals whom petitioners stand ready, willing and able to serve. The petitioners asked the commission to order the respondent to cease and desist from encroaching into territories served by them; to discontinue service to petitioners' former members and other consumers in those areas; to restore such former members and consumers to appellants; to remove its poles and transmission lines from territory served by appellants. The commission by its order No. 3444 dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. A petition for rehearing was filed and denied on the same ground by the commission's order No. 3491. This appeal is from both orders.

It is established in this state that appellants are not public utilities and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission. § 61-104, I.C.; Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, 272 P.2d 1012.

In their complaint the appellants allege that each of them is a non-profit, cooperative corporation "and supplies electrical power to its members."

The power and duty of the commission in cases involving encroachment or interference by one utility in the territory of, or contiguous to, another is defined by statute as follows:

"No street railroad corporation, gas corporation, electrical corporation, telephone corporation or water corporation, shall henceforth begin the construction of a street railroad, or of a line, plant, or system or of any extension of such street railroad, or line, plant, or system, without having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require such construction: provided, that this section shall not be construed to require such corporation to secure such certificate for an extension within any city or county, or city or town, within which it shall have theretofore lawfully commmnced operation, or for an extension into territory whether within or without a city or county, or city or town, contiguous to its street railroad, or line, plant or system, and not theretofore served by a public utility of like character, or for an extension within or to territory already served by it necessary in the ordinary course of its business: and provided further, that if any public utility in constructing or extending its lines, plant or system, shall interfere or be about to interfere with the operation of the line, plant or system of any other public utility already constructed, the commission on complaint of the public utility claiming to be injuriously affected may, after hearing, make such order and prescribe such terms and conditions for the locating of the line, plant or system affected as to it may seem just and reasonable: * * *." § 61-526, I.C.

The power thus given to the commission to prevent interference by extensions of a public utility into territory already served, is limited to territory already served by "another public utility", and the complaint which the commission is authorized to hear is the "complaint of the public utility claiming to be injuriously affected." § 61-526, I.C. The commission is given no authority by that section to hear the complaint of cooperatives.

Appellants cite § 61-612, I.C., which in substance provides that any corporation or person may make complaint to the commission of any act of a public utility which the complainant claims to be a violation of law or of some order or rule of the commission. The complaint does not appear to charge any violation of an order or rule of the commission. Appellants allege the respondent has violated the above quoted section 61-526. As we have pointed out, that section does not apply to cooperatives and affords them no ground of complaint which the commission is authorized to hear. Moreover, that section expressly recognizes the right of respondent to extend its lines into contiguous territory.

Appellants also invoke § 61-527, I.C., which provides in effect that a public utility may not "henceforth" exercise any right or franchise granted by a county or municipality without first obtaining from the commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This was one of the provisions of the original act creating the commission. S.L. 1913, Ch. 61, § 48b. Its obvious initial purpose was to require utilities holding municipal or county franchises to comply with the act, and secure a certificate from the commission. Appellants also charge that the respondent is doing business in the state without legal authority in that it has failed to comply with the public utilities law. These charges were not seriously urged upon the argument, nor are they supported in appellants' brief.

The commission in its order recognized that respondent "is a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of this commission providing electric service in the aforementioned counties." This presupposes that it holds a proper certificate from the commission. Not only had it the right, under § 61-526, I.C., to extend its lines in those counties, but as a public utility it could be compelled by the commission in a proper case to do so. In Sutton v. Hunziker, supra, this court quoted from the constitution of one of the appellants the purpose of its organization as follows:

"`To generate, manufacture, purchase, acquire and accumulate electric energy for its members only and to transmit, distribute, furnish, sell and dispose of such electric energy to its members only, * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)" Sutton v. Hunziker, 75 Idaho 395, at page 400, 272 P.2d 1012, 1014.

These cooperatives serve only their members and cannot be required to extend their service to others. In such circumstances, a consumer in the territory of appellants who was not a member of a cooperative, whether because the cooperative did not accept him as a member, or he chose not to join or remain a member, could, if located within the economic reach of respondent's lines, compel respondent to extend its service to him. The Ohio commission required a public utility in that state to extend its service to one, Nafe, who had been a member of a cooperative, but, being dissatisfied with its service, asked and obtained an order that the public utility extend its service to him. In re Nafe, 4 P.U.R.3rd 369.

We conclude that the complaint is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the commission. Inland Empire Rural Electrification v. Dept. of Public Service, 199 Wn. 527, 92 P.2d 258; Garkane Power Company v. Public Service Commission, 98 Utah 466, 100 P.2d 571, 132 A.L.R. 1490; Sheridan County Electric Co-op. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, 128 Mont. 84, 270 P.2d 742; San Miguel Power Ass'n v. Public Service Commission, 4 Utah 2d 252, 292 P.2d 511; Kansas City Power and Light Company v. Douglas McKay, Sec'y of the Interior, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F.2d 924; Re Ozark Utilities Co. (Mo.P.S.C.) 21 P.U.R., N.S., 47; Re San Jose Hills Water Co. (Cal.R.C.) 57 P.U.R., N.S., 503; Public Service Commission v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (N.D. 1951) 90 P.U.R., N.S., 266.

The orders appealed from are affirmed. Costs to respondents.

KEETON, ANDERSON and SMITH, JJ., and BAKER, D.J., concur.