Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 42.05.221 (2026)
Certificates required
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.05.221. Certificates required.
(a) A public utility may not operate and receive compensation for providing a commodity or service without first having obtained from the commission under this chapter a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require or will require the service. Where a public utility provides more than one type of utility service, a separate certificate of convenience and necessity is required for each type. A certificate must describe the nature and extent of the authority granted in it, including, as appropriate for the services involved, a description of the authorized area and scope of operations of the public utility.
(b) All certificates of convenience and necessity issued to a public utility before July 1, 1970, remain in effect but they are subject to modification where there are areas of conflict with public utilities that have not previously been required to have a certificate or where there is a substantial change in circumstances.
(c) A certificate shall be issued to a public utility that was not required to have one before July 1, 1970, and that is required to have one after that date, if it appears to the commission that the utility was actually operating in good faith on that date. Such a certificate is subject to modification where there are areas of conflict with other public utilities or where there has been a substantial change in circumstances.
(d) In an area where the commission determines that two or more public utilities are competing to furnish identical utility service and that this competition is not in the public interest, the commission shall take appropriate action to eliminate the competition and any undesirable duplication of facilities. This appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, ordering the competing utilities to enter into a contract that, among other things, would:
(1) delineate the service area boundaries of each in those areas of competition;
(2) eliminate existing duplication and paralleling to the fullest reasonable extent;
(3) preclude future duplication and paralleling;
(4) provide for the exchange of customers and facilities for the purposes of providing better public service and of eliminating duplication and paralleling; and
(5) provide such other mutually equitable arrangements as would be in the public interest.
(e) If the commission employs professional consultants to assist it in administering this section, it may apportion the expenses relating to their employment among the competing utilities.
(f) [Repealed, § 12 ch 136 SLA 1980.]
(a) A public utility may not operate and receive compensation for providing a commodity or service without first having obtained from the commission under this chapter a certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require or will require the service. Where a public utility provides more than one type of utility service, a separate certificate of convenience and necessity is required for each type. A certificate must describe the nature and extent of the authority granted in it, including, as appropriate for the services involved, a description of the authorized area and scope of operations of the public utility.
(b) All certificates of convenience and necessity issued to a public utility before July 1, 1970, remain in effect but they are subject to modification where there are areas of conflict with public utilities that have not previously been required to have a certificate or where there is a substantial change in circumstances.
(c) A certificate shall be issued to a public utility that was not required to have one before July 1, 1970, and that is required to have one after that date, if it appears to the commission that the utility was actually operating in good faith on that date. Such a certificate is subject to modification where there are areas of conflict with other public utilities or where there has been a substantial change in circumstances.
(d) In an area where the commission determines that two or more public utilities are competing to furnish identical utility service and that this competition is not in the public interest, the commission shall take appropriate action to eliminate the competition and any undesirable duplication of facilities. This appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, ordering the competing utilities to enter into a contract that, among other things, would:
(1) delineate the service area boundaries of each in those areas of competition;
(2) eliminate existing duplication and paralleling to the fullest reasonable extent;
(3) preclude future duplication and paralleling;
(4) provide for the exchange of customers and facilities for the purposes of providing better public service and of eliminating duplication and paralleling; and
(5) provide such other mutually equitable arrangements as would be in the public interest.
(e) If the commission employs professional consultants to assist it in administering this section, it may apportion the expenses relating to their employment among the competing utilities.
(f) [Repealed, § 12 ch 136 SLA 1980.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1970–2002 · leading case: Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. Regulatory Comm'n, 49 P.3d 246 (Alaska 2002).
Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. Regulatory Comm'n, 49 P.3d 246 (Alaska 2002). “It argues that the correct interpretation of the two provisions of AS 42.05.221 is that a public injury and a finding of competition must first be made before the commission can restrict competition between electric utilities that already have certificates to provide electric…”
Tlingit-Haida Reg'l Elec. Auth. v. State, 15 P.3d 754 (Alaska 2001). “In 1970, enactment of AS 42.05.221 extended the original certification requirement to municipal utilities.”
Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 580 P.2d 687 (Alaska 1978). “The present controversy began nearly seven years ago when ML&P filed an application before the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to AS 42.05.221. 1 ML&P requested authority to furnish electric service throughout a service area situated…”
Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027 (Alaska 1972). “The City’s reliance on AS 42.05.221 (d) 20 is misplaced, in that the “matter” which was referred to the PUC was not a question of duplication of *1034 electrical services or facilities and did not involve the interpretation of a utility’s certificate of public convenience and…”
Homer Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Kenai, 816 P.2d 182 (Alaska 1991). “2d 626, 629 (Alaska 1979), we found that a dispute between two municipalities did not clearly fall within the stated purpose of APUC jurisdiction to resolve disputes among competing utilities under AS 42.05.221. 14 Id. at 1033-34. Our opinion in the case relied substantially…”
Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. City of Anchorage, 476 P.2d 115 (Alaska 1970). “AS 42.05.221, added by SLA 1970, eh. 113 § 6, states in part that: “(a) No public, utility may operate and receive compensation for providing a commodity or service after January 1, 1971 without first having obtained from the commission under this chapter a certificate declaring…”
Alaska Fed'n for Cmty. Self-Reliance v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 879 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1994). “I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that APUC’s responsibility for determining whether AIDEA should be granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity, pursuant to AS 42.05.221 and 42.05.241, 1 for the *1023 Healy Clean Coal Project did not require APUC to…”
Colville Env't Servs., Inc. v. North Slope Borough, 831 P.2d 341 (Alaska 1992). “AS 42.05.221. Thus, before the Borough can lawfully exercise its AS 29.”
McClellan v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 565 P.2d 175 (Alaska 1977). “033(b) and AS 42.05.221(f). As has been stated: It is .”
Drake v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 715 P.2d 1167 (Alaska 1986). “1 A company which provides a public utility service must have a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Alaska Public Utilities Commission under AS 42.05.221(a). 2 The certificate has two functions.”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.221(a) — 4 cases
Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. Regulatory Comm'n, 49 P.3d 246 (Alaska 2002). “It argues that the correct interpretation of the two provisions of AS 42.05.221 is that a public injury and a finding of competition must first be made before the commission can restrict competition between electric utilities that already have certificates to provide electric…”
Tlingit-Haida Reg'l Elec. Auth. v. State, 15 P.3d 754 (Alaska 2001). “In 1970, enactment of AS 42.05.221 extended the original certification requirement to municipal utilities.”
Colville Env't Servs., Inc. v. North Slope Borough, 831 P.2d 341 (Alaska 1992). “AS 42.05.221. Thus, before the Borough can lawfully exercise its AS 29.”
Drake v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 715 P.2d 1167 (Alaska 1986). “1 A company which provides a public utility service must have a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Alaska Public Utilities Commission under AS 42.05.221(a). 2 The certificate has two functions.”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.221(b) — 1 case
Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 580 P.2d 687 (Alaska 1978). “The present controversy began nearly seven years ago when ML&P filed an application before the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to AS 42.05.221. 1 ML&P requested authority to furnish electric service throughout a service area situated…”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.221(d) — 5 cases
Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. Regulatory Comm'n, 49 P.3d 246 (Alaska 2002). “It argues that the correct interpretation of the two provisions of AS 42.05.221 is that a public injury and a finding of competition must first be made before the commission can restrict competition between electric utilities that already have certificates to provide electric…”
Tlingit-Haida Reg'l Elec. Auth. v. State, 15 P.3d 754 (Alaska 2001). “In 1970, enactment of AS 42.05.221 extended the original certification requirement to municipal utilities.”
Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027 (Alaska 1972). “The City’s reliance on AS 42.05.221 (d) 20 is misplaced, in that the “matter” which was referred to the PUC was not a question of duplication of *1034 electrical services or facilities and did not involve the interpretation of a utility’s certificate of public convenience and…”
Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 580 P.2d 687 (Alaska 1978). “The present controversy began nearly seven years ago when ML&P filed an application before the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to AS 42.05.221. 1 ML&P requested authority to furnish electric service throughout a service area situated…”
Chugach Elec. Ass'n v. City of Anchorage, 476 P.2d 115 (Alaska 1970). “AS 42.05.221, added by SLA 1970, eh. 113 § 6, states in part that: “(a) No public, utility may operate and receive compensation for providing a commodity or service after January 1, 1971 without first having obtained from the commission under this chapter a certificate declaring…”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.221(f) — 1 case
McClellan v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 565 P.2d 175 (Alaska 1977). “033(b) and AS 42.05.221(f). As has been stated: It is .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.