Alaska Stat. § 42.05.321
Failure to agree upon joint use or interconnection
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.05.321. Failure to agree upon joint use or interconnection.
(a) In case of failure to agree upon the joint use or interconnection of facilities or the conditions or compensation for joint use or interconnections, the public utility, including any municipality, or an interested person may apply to the commission for an order requiring the interconnection. If, after investigation and opportunity for hearing, the commission finds that public convenience and necessity require the joint use or connection, and that the use or connection will not result in substantial injury to the owner utility or its customers, or in substantial detriment to the services furnished by the owner utility, or in the creation of safety hazards, it shall
(1) order that the use be permitted;
(2) prescribe reasonable conditions and compensation for the joint use;
(3) order the interconnection to be made;
(4) determine the time and manner of the interconnection;
(5) determine the apportionment of costs and responsibility for operation and maintenance of the interconnection.
(b) This section and AS 42.05.311 apply to all utilities whether or not they are exempt from other regulation under AS 42.05.711.
(a) In case of failure to agree upon the joint use or interconnection of facilities or the conditions or compensation for joint use or interconnections, the public utility, including any municipality, or an interested person may apply to the commission for an order requiring the interconnection. If, after investigation and opportunity for hearing, the commission finds that public convenience and necessity require the joint use or connection, and that the use or connection will not result in substantial injury to the owner utility or its customers, or in substantial detriment to the services furnished by the owner utility, or in the creation of safety hazards, it shall
(1) order that the use be permitted;
(2) prescribe reasonable conditions and compensation for the joint use;
(3) order the interconnection to be made;
(4) determine the time and manner of the interconnection;
(5) determine the apportionment of costs and responsibility for operation and maintenance of the interconnection.
(b) This section and AS 42.05.311 apply to all utilities whether or not they are exempt from other regulation under AS 42.05.711.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2002–2019 · leading case: Chugach Electric Ass'n v. Regulatory Commission
Chugach Electric Ass'n v. Regulatory Commission (2002)
“AS 42.05.321(a). 25 . Chugach has now apparently abandoned the argument.”
Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, Inc. (2019)
“We do not consider the RCA's authority over joint-use agreements under AS 42.05.321 as an alternative basis for jurisdiction because it was not raised in the superior court.”
Matanuska Electric Ass'n v. Municipality of Anchorage (2008)
“MEA argues that the issue whether the Commission erred in requiring the Line to operate at 138kV "is a question of law going to the Commission's jurisdiction under the provisions of its enabling act, AS 42.05.141." But MEA's claim that the Commission acted outside of its…”
Regulatory Commission of Alaska v. Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (2019)
“65 We do not consider the RCA’s authority over joint-use agreements under AS 42.05.321 as an alternative basis for jurisdiction because it was not raised in the superior court.”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.321(a) — 1 case
Chugach Electric Ass'n v. Regulatory Commission (2002)
“AS 42.05.321(a). 25 . Chugach has now apparently abandoned the argument.”
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.