Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-18-106 (2020)

Regulation of resource planning, asset acquisition, and alternative retail services

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The Arkansas Public Service Commission shall have the authority to adopt rules under which electric utilities shall seek commission review and approval of the processes, actions, and plans by which the utilities:
    1. Engage in comprehensive resource planning;
    2. Acquire electric energy, capacity, and generation assets; or
    3. Utilize alternative methods to meet their obligations to serve Arkansas retail electric customers.
  2. With regard to electric cooperatives formed under the Electric Cooperative Corporation Act, § 23-18-301 et seq., to the extent that an electric distribution cooperative purchases electricity from an electric generation and transmission cooperative pursuant to a wholesale power contract, the authority granted to the commission by subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) of this section shall not extend to the electric distribution cooperative to the extent of such purchases but shall only extend to the electric generation and transmission cooperative.
  3. Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to any transaction involving the acquisition of generation assets, which is closed and finalized prior to the adoption of the rules authorized in subsection (a) of this section, or within one (1) year after February 21, 2003, whichever comes later, and which is the subject of an order or ruling of any federal or state regulatory agency issued on or before January 1, 2003.
      1. Reasonable and prudent costs incurred in compliance with subsection (a) of this section and in compliance with the provisions of § 23-3-201 et seq. and the Utility Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act, § 23-18-501 et seq., shall be eligible for recovery in the rates of any electric utility making such an acquisition, subject to final approval by the commission.
      2. When the utility establishes that the costs were incurred in compliance with subsection (a) of this section, a rebuttable presumption is established that the costs were reasonable and prudent and incurred in the public interest.
    1. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to supersede the provisions of § 23-4-103.
  4. The commission may require an electric public utility that is owned by a public utility holding company, as defined by section 1262 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, and engages in centralized system-wide resource planning to withdraw from centralized system-wide resource planning if:
    1. The commission determines that centralized system-wide resource planning is not in the public interest; and
    2. The electric public utility's withdrawal from centralized system-wide resource planning is not otherwise prohibited by law.

History. Acts 2003, No. 204, § 11; 2007, No. 648, § 1; 2019, No. 315, §§ 2472, 2473.

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 2019 amendment deleted “and regulations” following “rules” in the introductory language of (a) and in (c).

U.S. Code. Section 1262 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, referred to in this section, is compiled as 42 U.S.C. § 16451.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2009–2009 · leading case: Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 324 S.W.3d 697 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009).
Hempstead Cnty. Hunting Club, Inc. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 324 S.W.3d 697 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “[13] SWEPCO and the Staff of the APSC argue that the separate Needs Docket was required to be filed pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 2003, codified in part at Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-18-106 (Supp.2007). This Act solely addresses the planning process for…”
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.