Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-18-101 (2026)

Areas of service

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Notwithstanding any provisions of law or the terms of any certificate of convenience and necessity, franchise, permit, license, or other authority granted to a public utility or electric cooperative corporation by the state or a municipality, no public utility or electric cooperative corporation shall furnish or offer to furnish electric service at retail and not for resale in any area allocated by the Arkansas Public Service Commission to another electric cooperative corporation or public utility.
  2. No later than ninety (90) days after February 21, 2003, the commission shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to identify and to repeal or amend all rules adopted by the commission to facilitate, or in anticipation of, retail electric competition that are inconsistent with, have been rendered unnecessary by, or have been superseded by this act.

History. Acts 1935, No. 324, § 41; Pope's Dig., § 2104; Acts 1957, No. 103, § 3; 1967, No. 234, § 5; A.S.A. 1947, § 73-240; 2003, No. 204, § 10; 2019, No. 315, § 2470.

Publisher's Notes. Acts 2003, No. 204, § 16, provided:

“Nothing in this act shall alter or diminish the Arkansas Public Service Commission's authority under otherwise applicable law.”

Amendments. The 2003 amendment inserted the subsection (a) designation and added (b).

The 2019 amendment deleted “and regulations” following “rules” in (b).

Meaning of “this act”. Acts 2003, No. 204, codified as §§ 4-9-102, 4-9-109, 4-9-301, 23-2-304, 23-3-102, 23-3-201, 23-4-209, 23-18-subch. 1 note, 23-18-101, 23-18-103, 23-18-104, 23-18-106, 23-18-107, 23-18-511, 23-18-519.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

The Arkansas Public Service Commission correctly refused jurisdiction to decide whether this section violates the antimonopoly provision in Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 19. Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

Petitioner could challenge the constitutionality of this statute in a declaratory judgment action. Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark. App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

Complaint Properly Dismissed.

The Arkansas Public Service Commission did not err in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a complaint attempting to declare this section unconstitutional. Lincoln v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993).

Distribution of Electricity.

Arkansas follows the “place and purpose of use” analysis rather than place of delivery of electric current in cases involving distribution of electricity in exclusive service areas. Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 31 Ark. App. 54, 788 S.W.2d 243 (1990).

Where the place and purpose of the use of the electricity to be consumed by the plaintiff was by facilities located wholly within an electric cooperative corporation's territory, that undisputed fact alone, in light of this section, required that the electric cooperative corporation be afforded the opportunity to furnish electrical service to the plaintiff. Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 31 Ark. App. 54, 788 S.W.2d 243 (1990).

Implied Repeal.

This section was not impliedly repealed by § 14-116-401 since the purpose of that section was to enable cooperation with federal programs to provide a means of water distribution through publicly created nonprofit bodies. Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp., 261 Ark. 919, 554 S.W.2d 308 (1977).

Municipal Utilities.

This section did not apply to prevent a municipal utility from taking facilities, customers, and property in an area annexed by a city, as a municipality or a municipal improvement district is not a “public utility” within the meaning of the statute. Craighead Elec. Coop. Corp. v. City Water & Light Plant, 278 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002).

Right Exclusive.

Court's finding that the water company had a certificate of convenience and necessity giving it the exclusive right to sell water in its allocated territory was supported by a great preponderance of the evidence. City of Van Buren v. 64-71 Highway Water Co., 270 Ark. 466, 605 S.W.2d 419 (1980).

Cited: Summers Appliance Co. v. George's Gas Co., 244 Ark. 113, 424 S.W.2d 171 (1968).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1990–2002 · leading case: Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992).
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 842 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 25× “Lincoln acknowledged that maintenance of exclusive service territories was required by Ark. Code Ann. § 23-18-101 (1987), which provides: Notwithstanding any provisions of law or the terms of any certificate of convenience and necessity, franchise, permit, license, or other…”
Lincoln v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 854 S.W.2d 330 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 10× “Lincoln recognized such a request was in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 23-18-101 (1987), but claimed that section 23-18-101 should be declared unconstitutional as violative of our state constitution’s prohibition of monopolies, Ark.”
Craighead Elec. Coop. Corp. v. City Water & Light Plant of Jonesboro, Arkansas, 278 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002). “Arkansas law prohibits a “public utility” from furnishing electric service in an area already served by an electric cooperative like Craighead, see Ark.Code Ann. § 23-18-101; but another statute, Ark.”
Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 788 S.W.2d 243 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 10× “Timely objections to the order of the administrative law judge were filed with the full Commission, which subsequently adopted, without modification, the order of the administrative law judge.”
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.