Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 42.06.290 (2026)
Abandonment; discontinuance, and suspension of service
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.06.290. Abandonment; discontinuance, and suspension of service.
(a) A pipeline carrier may not abandon or permanently discontinue use of all or any portion of a pipeline or abandon or discontinue any service rendered by means of a pipeline that is the subject of a certificate of convenience and necessity, without the permission and approval of the commission, after due notice and hearing, and a finding by the commission that continued service is not required by public convenience and necessity. Any interested person may file with the commission a protest or memorandum of opposition to or in support of discontinuance or abandonment. The commission may authorize temporary suspension of a service or of part of a service.
(b) Upon complaint or upon its own motion, the commission may reinvestigate a previously authorized discontinuance, abandonment, or suspension of a service described in (a) of this section. If, after due notice and hearing, the commission finds that the public convenience and necessity requires the service to be resumed, and that there has not been detrimental reliance on the previous authorization, it may order the operator or owner of the oil or gas pipeline facility to again provide the service.
(a) A pipeline carrier may not abandon or permanently discontinue use of all or any portion of a pipeline or abandon or discontinue any service rendered by means of a pipeline that is the subject of a certificate of convenience and necessity, without the permission and approval of the commission, after due notice and hearing, and a finding by the commission that continued service is not required by public convenience and necessity. Any interested person may file with the commission a protest or memorandum of opposition to or in support of discontinuance or abandonment. The commission may authorize temporary suspension of a service or of part of a service.
(b) Upon complaint or upon its own motion, the commission may reinvestigate a previously authorized discontinuance, abandonment, or suspension of a service described in (a) of this section. If, after due notice and hearing, the commission finds that the public convenience and necessity requires the service to be resumed, and that there has not been detrimental reliance on the previous authorization, it may order the operator or owner of the oil or gas pipeline facility to again provide the service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1987–2014 · leading case: Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987).
Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987). “Given our holding that both the outward and inward movements of crude are subject to APUC regulation under the statute, KPL’s only remaining avenue to pursue is the abandonment procedure outlined in AS 42.06.290(a). That statute describes the only way a pipeline carrier can…”
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 325 P.3d 478 (Alaska 2014). “1 million barrels per day by the terms of the Amended Capacity Settlement Agreement53 and by AS 42.06.290(a).54 The superior court also found that “maintaining [the pipeline’s] ability to operate in a broad range of throughputs 52 (.”
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, No. 6867 S-14095/S-14116/S-14125 (Alaska Feb. 19, 2014). “1 million barrels per day by the terms of the Amended Capacity Settlement Agreement53 and by AS 42.06.290(a).54 The superior court also found that “maintaining [the pipeline’s] ability to operate in a broad range of throughputs 52 (.”
Alaska Stat. § 42.06.290(a): 3 cases
Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987). “Given our holding that both the outward and inward movements of crude are subject to APUC regulation under the statute, KPL’s only remaining avenue to pursue is the abandonment procedure outlined in AS 42.06.290(a). That statute describes the only way a pipeline carrier can…”
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 325 P.3d 478 (Alaska 2014). “1 million barrels per day by the terms of the Amended Capacity Settlement Agreement53 and by AS 42.06.290(a).54 The superior court also found that “maintaining [the pipeline’s] ability to operate in a broad range of throughputs 52 (.”
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, No. 6867 S-14095/S-14116/S-14125 (Alaska Feb. 19, 2014). “1 million barrels per day by the terms of the Amended Capacity Settlement Agreement53 and by AS 42.06.290(a).54 The superior court also found that “maintaining [the pipeline’s] ability to operate in a broad range of throughputs 52 (.”
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.