Powercorp Alaska, LLC v. Alaska Energy Authority, 2012 Alas. LEXIS 140

A quasi-independent Alaska agency administers the Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) program funded by the Denali Commission to improve off-grid village power generation.
Powercorp Alaska, LLC and Controlled Power, Inc. allege improper procurement decisions and that agency employees disclosed Powercorp trade secrets to a competitor.
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) administers Denali Commission grants and approved sole-source procurement at two demonstration sites, Stevens Village and Golovin.
Eight-village ITB REG 04-230 awarded to Controlled Power after a waiver; Powercorp contends this created an unfair competitive advantage and later bids were influenced by prior disclosures.
Kwigillingok Native Village entered a grant agreement with the Energy Authority designating the Energy Authority as grantor/agent and outlining duties and responsibilities; disputes arise over administration, permits, procurement, and cost overruns.
The superior court granted summary judgment on many claims; Powercorp and Kwig Power appeal, raising collateral estoppel, official immunity, waiver, and trade-secret issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel applies to bar claims.	Powercorp asserts identical issues were decided in Powercorp I.	Energy Authority et al. argue prior judgment does not resolve current broader claims.	Collateral estoppel does not apply.
Whether Miller and Noonan enjoy official immunity (absolute/qualified).	Powercorp argues immunity bars claims.	Energy Authority contends immunity applies; Noonan and Miller acted within official duties.	Qualified immunity applies to both Miller and Noonan; Noonan not entitled to absolute immunity; Miller not entitled to absolute immunity.
Whether Kwig Power’s Count I was properly dismissed as waived/forfeited.	Kwig Power did not protest timely and should not be barred by waiver.	Waiver occurred by conduct/lead to believe consent to installation.	Count I dismissed due to waiver/forfeiture.
Whether Powercorp’s trade-secret misappropriation claims survive.	Powercorp alleges Noonan/Controlled Power misappropriated its Woodward-based trade secret.	No improper means proven; information not securely secret; no misappropriation.	Count IV and Count V (trade-secret claims) dismissed; no misappropriation established.

Powercorp Alaska, LLC v. State, Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority, Alaska Energy Authority (Powercorp I), 171 P.3d 159 (Alaska 2007) (collateral estoppel limits but did not foreclose current claims; prior ruling on procurement procedures)
Smith v. Stafford, 189 P.3d 1065 (Alaska 2008) (standards for waiving or preserving issues; discretionary immunity considerations)
Weed v. Bachner Co., 230 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2010) (procurement immunity considerations in bid evaluations)
Matanuska Elec. Ass'n v. Chugach Elec. Ass'n, 152 P.3d 460 (Alaska 2007) (context on public procurement and remedies)
Prentzel v. State, Dep't of Pub. Safety, 169 P.3d 573 (Alaska 2007) (cite about discretionary acts and immunity framework)
Latham v. Palin, 251 P.3d 341 (Alaska 2011) (discretionary immunity and procedural considerations)
Carr-Gottstein Foods Co. v. Wasilla, LLC, 182 P.3d 1131 (Alaska 2008) (context on agency duties and bidding fairness)
Aspen Exploration Corp. v. Sheffield, 739 P.2d 150 (Alaska 1987) (principles on government immunity and official acts)
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) (trade secret doctrine foundational principles)