Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 42.05.511 (2026)
Unreasonable management practices
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.05.511. Unreasonable management practices.
(a) The commission may investigate the management of a public utility, including staffing patterns, wage and salary scales and agreements, investment policies and practices, and purchasing and payment arrangements with affiliated interests, for the purpose of determining inefficient or unreasonable practices that adversely affect the cost or quality of service of the public utility.
(b) Where unreasonable practices are found to exist, the commission may, after providing reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, take appropriate action to protect the public from the inefficient or unreasonable practices and may order the public utility to take the corrective action the commission may require to achieve effective development and regulation of public utility services.
(c) In a rate proceeding, the utility involved has the burden of proving that any written or unwritten contract or arrangement it may have with any of its affiliated interests for the furnishing of any services or for the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of any property is necessary and consistent with the public interest and that the payment made therefor, or consideration given, is reasonably based, in part, on the submission of satisfactory proof as to the cost to the affiliated interest of furnishing the service or property and, in part, on the estimated cost the utility would have incurred if it furnished the service or property with its own personnel and capital.
(a) The commission may investigate the management of a public utility, including staffing patterns, wage and salary scales and agreements, investment policies and practices, and purchasing and payment arrangements with affiliated interests, for the purpose of determining inefficient or unreasonable practices that adversely affect the cost or quality of service of the public utility.
(b) Where unreasonable practices are found to exist, the commission may, after providing reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, take appropriate action to protect the public from the inefficient or unreasonable practices and may order the public utility to take the corrective action the commission may require to achieve effective development and regulation of public utility services.
(c) In a rate proceeding, the utility involved has the burden of proving that any written or unwritten contract or arrangement it may have with any of its affiliated interests for the furnishing of any services or for the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange of any property is necessary and consistent with the public interest and that the payment made therefor, or consideration given, is reasonably based, in part, on the submission of satisfactory proof as to the cost to the affiliated interest of furnishing the service or property and, in part, on the estimated cost the utility would have incurred if it furnished the service or property with its own personnel and capital.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Glacier State Tel. Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1986).
Glacier State Tel. Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1986). “The commission held that the expenses should be excluded because GSTC had failed to meet its burden of proof under AS 42.05.511(c). This statute provides that: In a rate proceeding the utility involved has the burden of proving that any written or unwritten contract or…”
Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 99 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2004). “511(a) (Commission may do all things necessary and proper to carry out its authority, including investigating reasonableness of rates, regulations, and practices of public utilities, including investment policies and practices). 20 . See, e.g., United Parcel Serv., Inc.”
Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 436 P.3d 1015 (Alaska 2019). “[ 30 ] The bill also amended AS 42.05.511 - subsequently renumbered to AS 42.”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 215 P.3d 327 (Alaska 2009). “Util Comm'n 1989) (citing AS 42.05.511(c)). 7 . See, eg., Re Mun. of Anchorage d/b/a Anchorage Sewer Util.”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Regulatory Comm'n, 208 P.3d 163 (Alaska 2009). “Comm'n 1989) (citing AS 42.05.511(c). In the instant case, RCA described the standard: We are required to closely scrutinize affiliated interest transactions with utilities to ensure that ratepayers are not charged a greater amount [than] had the utility engaged in an arm's…”
Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, Inc. (Alaska 2019). “[30] The bill also amended AS 42.05.511 — subsequently renumbered to AS 42.”
Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Mun. of Anchorage, 579 P.2d 1071 (Alaska 1978). “The basis for its refusal to recognize these as valid expenses was that it felt that ATU had presented insufficient evidence at the February 10 hearing concerning the specific amounts and allocations of these expenses to meet its burden of proof under AS 42.05.511(c). 1 The…”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.511(a) — 1 case
Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 99 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2004). “511(a) (Commission may do all things necessary and proper to carry out its authority, including investigating reasonableness of rates, regulations, and practices of public utilities, including investment policies and practices). 20 . See, e.g., United Parcel Serv., Inc.”
— Alaska Stat. § 42.05.511(c) — 4 cases
Glacier State Tel. Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1986). “The commission held that the expenses should be excluded because GSTC had failed to meet its burden of proof under AS 42.05.511(c). This statute provides that: In a rate proceeding the utility involved has the burden of proving that any written or unwritten contract or…”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 215 P.3d 327 (Alaska 2009). “Util Comm'n 1989) (citing AS 42.05.511(c)). 7 . See, eg., Re Mun. of Anchorage d/b/a Anchorage Sewer Util.”
Mun. of Anchorage v. Regulatory Comm'n, 208 P.3d 163 (Alaska 2009). “Comm'n 1989) (citing AS 42.05.511(c). In the instant case, RCA described the standard: We are required to closely scrutinize affiliated interest transactions with utilities to ensure that ratepayers are not charged a greater amount [than] had the utility engaged in an arm's…”
Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Mun. of Anchorage, 579 P.2d 1071 (Alaska 1978). “The basis for its refusal to recognize these as valid expenses was that it felt that ATU had presented insufficient evidence at the February 10 hearing concerning the specific amounts and allocations of these expenses to meet its burden of proof under AS 42.05.511(c). 1 The…”
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.