Main Menu

State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.

In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in question. An agreement between utility providers on a hydroelectric project laid out that disputes which arose from the project would be handled by a private committee rather than by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). This exemption was codified into law in 1988. In 2014, a leas to a substation expired, and one party to the agreement, the Homer Electric Association (HEA), attempted to go through the RCA, rather than through the contractually formed committee, to seek approval for a change in transmission rates. Over the objections of the other utilities, the RCA produced an order that contained both final rulings and interim rulings on several issues. Reviewing a consolidated challenge by the impacted utility providers to the agency’s authority to make such a ruling, the superior court held that the language and intent of both the agreement and the subsequent legislation precluded review by the RCA on any of the issues included in its order. On appeal to the supreme court, the RCA and HEA argued, among other things, that the RCA’s order did not constitute a judicially reviewable “final order” because it contained interim rulings that were still subject to further agency proceedings. The supreme court found that although certain rulings contained within the order may have been interim rulings, there were several rulings that were final. The court then reasoned that because the question of authority was one that was foundational to all the rulings at issue in the consolidated case, rather than on the merits of any individual ruling, the question was “ripe” for review by the superior court. Affirming the superior court’s conclusion, the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in question.

[1] 436 P.3d 1015 (Alaska 2019)

State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.

In State, Regulatory Commission v. Matanuska Electric Ass’n., Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in question. An agreement between utility providers on a hydroelectric project laid out that disputes which arose from the project would be handled by a private committee rather than by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). This exemption was codified into law in 1988. In 2014, a leas to a substation expired, and one party to the agreement, the Homer Electric Association (HEA), attempted to go through the RCA, rather than through the contractually formed committee, to seek approval for a change in transmission rates. Over the objections of the other utilities, the RCA produced an order that contained both final rulings and interim rulings on several issues. Reviewing a consolidated challenge by the impacted utility providers to the agency’s authority to make such a ruling, the superior court held that the language and intent of both the agreement and the subsequent legislation precluded review by the RCA on any of the issues included in its order. On appeal to the supreme court, the RCA and HEA argued, among other things, that the RCA’s order did not constitute a judicially reviewable “final order” because it contained interim rulings that were still subject to further agency proceedings. The supreme court found that although certain rulings contained within the order may have been interim rulings, there were several rulings that were final. The court then reasoned that because the question of authority was one that was foundational to all the rulings at issue in the consolidated case, rather than on the merits of any individual ruling, the question was “ripe” for review by the superior court. Affirming the superior court’s conclusion, the supreme court held that the superior court has proper appellate jurisdiction in cases reviewing interconnected agency actions when at least one action is considered a “final order,” and when the issue on appeal is whether the agency had the authority to address the subject in question.

[1] 436 P.3d 1015 (Alaska 2019)