Asrc Energy Services Power v. Golden Valley Electric Ass'n, 267 P.3d 1151

Alaska's UTPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, with a 1974 amendment directing courts to give due consideration and great weight to FTC interpretations of the identical federal statute.
In State v. O'Neill Investigations (1980), the Alaska Supreme Court adopted contemporaneous agency and federal standards for unfairness and deception, establishing a Sperry-based framework.
For over three decades Alaska followed O'Neill Investigations; later FTC refinements and Cliffdale Assocs. prompted questions about whether Alaska should adopt post-1980 federal standards.
This case arises from contract awards and claims related to the Northern Intertie project between Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) and Global Power & Communications (Global), including RFIs and alleged UTPA violations.
Global asserted a UTPA claim and sought damages; GVEA contended the UTPA did not apply to the private contract context, or, alternatively, that damages were limited to non-litigation costs.
The superior court ultimately applied Alaska’s longstanding standards, denied post-trial adoption of new FTC standards, but remanded to address certain issues, including damages causation and attorney’s fees on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AS 45.50.545 require overruling O'Neill standards in light of post-1994 FTC changes?	Global argues FTC changes should govern unfairness/deception; overrule O'Neill.	GVEA argues no overruling; Alaska should maintain precedent.	No overruling; Alaska standards remain controlling.
Was Jury Instruction 28 properly grounded in Alaska law on unfairness and deception?	Global contends instruction used outdated standards and failed to reflect current FTC interpretations.	GVEA contends instruction followed Alaska precedent and Rule 51 waiver.	Court did not err; instruction aligned with prior Alaska standards.
May damages be awarded for Global's litigation activities under the UTPA?	Global sought damages for review of withdrawn claims and litigation-related activities.	GVEA argues such litigation activities are not recoverable under the UTPA.	Damages for litigation activities are not recoverable; only pre-litigation damages (and post-remand) addressed; certain post-trial amounts vacated.
Was Global's December 2004 Rule 68 offer of judgment a valid offer for fees purposes?	Global argues the offer allowed entry of judgment; valid under Rule 68.	GVEA contends the offer was not a valid Rule 68 offer because it required dismissal with prejudice and not entry of judgment.	The offer was not a valid Rule 68 offer of judgment; reversed in that respect.

State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1980) (establishes Sperry-based standards and framework for UTPA unfair/deceptive practices)
In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984) (articulates the FTC deception standard (likely to mislead) with materiality)
Western Star Trucks, Inc. v. Big Iron Equip. Serv., Inc., 101 P.3d 1047 (Alaska 2004) (ADOPTED interpretation of UTPA as not limited to consumer transactions)
Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240 (Alaska 2007) (flexible, case-specific approach to unfairness; supports broad application)
Odom v. Fairbanks Mem'l Hosp., 999 P.2d 123 (Alaska 2000) (reiterates O'Neill Investigations standards for UTPA)