309 P.3d 1249
Alaska2013Background
- Alaskan Crude sought to reopen the Burglin 33-1 North Slope well to test for oil and gas.
- Crude requested exemptions or reductions to oil discharge prevention and contingency planning standards (RPS).
- The Commission reduced the default RPS from 16,500 barrels in 72 hours to 825 bopd (85% reduction).
- The Commission declined to classify Burglin 33-1 as a gas facility; ADEC revised RPS interpretation during reconsideration.
- After a series of orders (including Other Order 51), Crude appealed; the superior court upheld the Commission and fees were awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to classify a reopened well | Alaskan Crude contends operator determines classification. | Commission has authority to classify a well for regulatory purposes. | Commission has independent authority to classify. |
| Burglin 33-1 as a gas facility | Crude argued the well should be treated as a gas facility. | Evidence shows not solely for gas exploration; not a gas facility. | Burglin 33-1 not a gas facility. |
| Validity of RPS reductions | RPS reductions to zero or near-zero were justified by flow likelihood. | RPS reductions were supported by testing and data; non-zero RPS appropriate. | RPS reductions supported by substantial evidence; non-zero RPS reasonable. |
| Waiver of constitutional and arbitrariness claims | Argues the decisions violated constitutional rights and were arbitrary. | Claims waived for not being raised below; merits insufficient. | Constitutional/arbitrary claims waived; challenged actions upheld on merits. |
| Attorney's fees award | Prevailing party should be Crude; fees should reflect its position. | Commission prevailing; fees limited and properly grounded. | Superior Court’s attorney’s fees award affirmed; Commission prevailing party. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227 (Alaska 2003) (cites standards for reviewing agency decisions)
- Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987) (principles of substantial evidence and agency review)
- Lopez v. Adm’r, Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 20 P.3d 568 (Alaska 2001) (substantial evidence standard in administrative review)
- Glacier State Telephone Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 724 P.2d 1187 (Alaska 1986) (implied powers within agency authority)
- N. Slope Borough v. Barraza, 906 P.2d 1377 (Alaska 1995) (attorney’s fees award considerations on appeal)