Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 42.06.380 (2026)
Discrimination in rates
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.06.380. Discrimination in rates.
(a) A pipeline carrier may not, as to rates, grant a preference or advantage to any customer or subject a customer to an unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. A pipeline carrier may not establish or maintain an unreasonable difference as to rates, either as between localities served or between classes of service provided under the certificate.
(b) A pipeline carrier may not directly or indirectly refund, rebate or remit in any manner, or by any device, any portion of the rates and charges or charge, demand or receive a greater or lesser compensation for service than is specified in its effective tariff nor extend to any customer served under the certificate any form of contract, agreement, inducement, privilege or facility, or apply any rule, regulation or condition of service except as are extended or applied to all customers under like circumstances.
(a) A pipeline carrier may not, as to rates, grant a preference or advantage to any customer or subject a customer to an unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. A pipeline carrier may not establish or maintain an unreasonable difference as to rates, either as between localities served or between classes of service provided under the certificate.
(b) A pipeline carrier may not directly or indirectly refund, rebate or remit in any manner, or by any device, any portion of the rates and charges or charge, demand or receive a greater or lesser compensation for service than is specified in its effective tariff nor extend to any customer served under the certificate any form of contract, agreement, inducement, privilege or facility, or apply any rule, regulation or condition of service except as are extended or applied to all customers under like circumstances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2008–2008 · leading case: Regulatory Com'n of Alaska v. Tesoro Alaska Co., 178 P.3d 1159 (Alaska 2008).
Regulatory Com'n of Alaska v. Tesoro Alaska Co., 178 P.3d 1159 (Alaska 2008). “The Commission noted that it could not sever the Petro Star complaint and approve the Settlement only as to the other shippers, since “treating similarly situated shippers differently raises the spectre of undue discrimination under AS 42.06.380.” 5 . Petro Star was also party…”
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.