Legal Opinion

Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v. Alaska Public Utilities Commission

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1986No. S-521PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BURKE, Justice.

The Alaska Public Utilities Commission (“APUC”) allocated nearly two million dollars in costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the first six years of its Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (“TAPS”) tariff investigation to the eight owners of the pipeline. 1 The superior court affirmed the award. We reverse and remand on the ground that the APUC had no authority to allocate costs incurred solely for work on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) TAPS proceeding. We affirm the APUC’s resolution of all other issues.

I. BACKGROUND

The Alaska Pipeline Act (Act), AS 42.06,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Asociación de Farmacias de la Comunidad v. Departamento de SaludSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2002
  3. Marathon Oil Co. v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Valley Hospital Ass'n v. Mat-Su Coalition for ChoiceAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2007

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API