Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Hollis S. French v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (9/3/2021) sp-7553

Hollis S. French v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (9/3/2021) sp-7553

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                     ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                         

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                            

           corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                        



HOLLIS  S.  FRENCH,                                               )  

                                                                  )    Supreme  Court  No.  S-17822  

                                 Appellant,                       )  

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                  )    Superior Court No. 3AN-19-06694 CI  

           v.                                                     )  

                                                                                            

                                                                  )    O P I N I O N  

                               

ALASKA OIL & GAS                                                  )  

                                                                                                                  

                                  

CONSERVATION COMMISSION,                                          )    No. 7553 - September 3, 2021  

                                                                  )  

                                 Appellee.                        )  

                                                                  )  



                                                                                                               

                                            

                      Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                                                    

                      Judicial District, Anchorage, Eric A. Aarseth and Adolf V.  

                                    

                      Zeman, Judges.  



                                                                                                      

                      Appearances:               Hollis  S.  French,  Anchorage,  Appellant.  

                                                                                                          

                      Thomas A. Ballantine, Senior Assistant Attorney General,  

                                                                                                          

                      Anchorage, and Clyde "Ed" Sniffen, Jr., Attorney General,  

                                          

                      Juneau, for Appellee.  



                                                                                                          

                      Before:   Winfree, Maassen, and Carney, Justices. [Bolger,  

                                                                                                                    

                      Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]  



                                           

                      WINFREE, Justice.  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                                

                      Anagency denied an individual'srequest for a hearing regarding areported  



                                                                                                                                  

natural gas leak and whether the leak constituted "waste" under Alaska law. The agency  



                                                                                                                          

concluded it had no jurisdiction over the matter because it previously had investigated  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

and had concluded the leak did not constitute "waste."                                                                                    The individual appealed to the   



superior court, which affirmed the agency's decision.                                                                                  We reverse.                      



II.              FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                



                                 The Alaska Oil and                                    Gas Conservation                                Commission   is a quasi-judicial             



                                                                                                                                                               1  

agency charged with investigating waste of oil and gas resources.                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                   The parties agree that  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

in early 2017 a gas line operated by Hilcorp Alaska, LLC leaked gas into Cook Inlet.  In  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

February 2019 Hollis French petitioned the Commission "for a hearing on a complaint  



                         2 

                                                                                                                                                                             

of waste."   French alleged:  "The waste occurred from a[n] 8 [inch] line carrying fuel  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                

gas to Platform A in Cook Inlet, which is operated by Hilcorp. The line leaked gas to the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

atmosphere for approximately three months in the winter and spring of 2017."  French  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             

noted that at the hearing he would "be urging the [C]ommission to take action upon [his]  



                                 

complaint."  



                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                 TheCommission responded in March 2019, stating that it had "investigated  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

the leak at the time it occurred" and that it had concluded "the leaking gas had been  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

purchased by Hilcorp from a third-party provider . . . and was being shipped back to  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Platform A." The Commission stated it had already concluded that, because the leaking  



                                                                                                                                                                             

gas had been "metered and severed from the property," the leaking gas could not be  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

waste  and  the  Commission  therefore  had  no  "waste  jurisdiction  over  [the]  gas."  



                 1               AS 31.05.005(a) (describing Commission as "independent quasi-judicial                                             



agency of the state . . . composed of three Commissioners appointed by the governor and                                                                                                                        

confirmed by the legislature in joint session"); AS 31.05.030(b) (requiring Commission                                                                                                   

to "investigate to determine whether . . . waste exists or is imminent, or whether . . . facts                                                                                                            

exist which justify or require action by it");                                                            see also             AS 31.05.170(15) (defining waste).                                                         



                 2               See AS 31.05.060(a) (noting that "[C]ommission may act upon . . . the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

petition of an interested person" and that "[o]n the filing of a petition concerning a matter  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

within the jurisdiction of the [C]ommission . . . , the [C]ommission shall promptly fix a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

date for a hearing[] and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given").  

                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                        -2-                                                                                                7553
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

According to the Commission, "[a]bsent jurisdiction, there [was] no basis for a hearing."                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                    3  

French requested reconsideration, which was denied by operation of law.                                                                                 



                           French appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Commission's  

                                                                                                                                                  



decision.   The court applied rational basis review and concluded the Commission's  

                                                                                                                                                  



determination, that gas once metered and severed from a property could not be waste,  

                                                                                                                                                                   



was reasonable. French moved for reconsideration, arguing that the superior court failed  

                                                                                                                                                                     



to address the agency's conclusion regarding its jurisdiction over the gas leak. The court  

                                                                                                                                                                      



denied French's motion for reconsideration.  At the Commission's request, the superior  

                                                                                                                                                               

court awarded the Commission $6,270 in attorney's fees.4                                                                French appeals.  

                                                                                                                                                          



III.          STANDARD OF REVIEW  

                                                    



                           "When the superior court is acting as an intermediate court of appeal in an  

                                                                                                                                                                           



administrative   matter,   we   independently   review   the   merits   of   the   agency   or  

                                                                                                                                                                         

administrative board's decision."5  

                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                         "We exercise our independent judgment on [any]  



                                                                                                                                                             

issue concerning the scope of an agency's authority [because] it involves statutory  



                                                                                                                                                         

interpretation, or analysis of legal relationships, about which courts have specialized  

                                                        6    We review an agency's factual findings "to determine  

                                                                                                                                                           

knowledge and expertise." 



              3            See  AS 31.05.080(a) (providing that failure to grant or refuse application                                                   



for reconsideration within ten days of filing "is a refusal of [the application] and a final                                                                          

disposition of the application").                                 



              4            See Alaska R. App. P. 508(e).  

                                                                                          



              5            Shea v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624, 630  

                                                                                                                                                                        

(Alaska 2011).  

                                



              6            Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n., 436 P.3d 1015,  

                                                                                                                                                                    

 1025 (Alaska 2019) (first alteration original) (quoting Far N. Sanitation, Inc. v. Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                  

Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 825 P.2d 867, 871 n.6 (Alaska 1992)).  

                                                                                                           



                                                                                     -3-                                                                             7553
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

whether they are supported by substantial evidence," meaning "such relevant evidence                                                              

 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the agency's] conclusion."                                                                           7  



IV.          DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                                                              

                         "The [C]ommission may act upon its own motion[] or upon the petition of  



                                                                                                                                                          

 an  interested  person.                     On  the  filing  of  a  petition  concerning  a  matter  within  [its]  



                                                                                                                                                         

jurisdiction . . . , the [C]ommission shall promptly fix a date for a hearing, and shall  



                                                                           8  

                                                                                                                                                        

 cause notice of the hearing to be given."                                    French filed a petition alleging that the Cook  



                                                                                                                                                

Inlet gas leak constituted waste. The parties appear to assume that French is an interested  



                                                                                                                                                            

person.  The only issue thus is whether French's petition contained a matter within the  



                                         

 Commission's broad jurisdiction.  



                                                                                                                                                           

                         "The [C]ommission has jurisdiction and authority over all persons and  



                                                                                                                                                           

property, public and private, necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this  



                 9  

                                                                                                                                           

 chapter."             French  argues  that  because  the  Commission  is  required  to  "investigate  



                                                                                                                                                         

whether waste exists," the text of the statute gives the Commission jurisdiction over  



                                          10  

                                                                                                                                                           

waste  determinations.                            French  also  presents  several  policy  arguments  why  the  



                                                                                                                                                         

jurisdiction statute should be read broadly.   The Commission concedes that it "has  



                                                                                                                                                   

 statewide jurisdiction over waste" but argues that it was required to determine whether  



                                                                                                                                                               

the leak was waste before it could exercise jurisdiction because "[a]bsent waste, there is  



                   

no waste jurisdiction."  



             7           Shea,  267  P.3d  at  630  (quoting  Lopez  v.  Adm'r,  Pub.  Emps.'  Ret.  Sys.,  20  



P.3d  568,  570  (Alaska  2001)).  



             8           AS  31.05.060(a).   



             9           AS  31.05.030(a).   



             10          See  AS  31.05.030(a)-(b).  



                                                                              -4-                                                                       7553
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                        TheCommission's                  jurisdictionargumentputsthecartbeforethehorse. The                                       



                                                                                                                                        11  

 Commission's   mission   is   investigating   and   identifying   oil   and   gas   waste,                                                          

                                                                                                                                             and  it  



                                                                                                                                       

therefore has jurisdiction over "all persons and property, public and private, necessary  

                                                                                12   The Commission thus had jurisdiction  

                                                                                                                                    

                                                                      

to" investigate and identify oil and gas waste. 



over the leak at issue.  If we accepted the Commission's understanding of jurisdiction,  

                                                                                                                                   



the Commission could always undermine AS 31.05.060(a)'s hearing requirement by  

                                                                                                                                                   



deciding the substantive issue behind closed doors and then disclaiming jurisdiction.  

                                                                                                                                                      



                        The Commission argues that it properly denied French's request for a  

                                                                                                                                                      



hearing because it already had investigated the leak and made a waste determination.  

                                                                                                                                                          



But  even  assuming  the  Commission  can  deny  a  hearing  because  it  previously  

                                                                                                                                    



investigated and decided a matter, the factual assertion that it has done so must be  

                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                13     The  Commission's  statements  about  having  

 supported  by  substantial  evidence.                                                                                         

                                               



investigated whether the leak was waste are wholly unsupported.  The Commission's  

                                                                                                                               



dismissal order contains several factual statements about the alleged investigation and  

                                                                                                            



waste determination, but there is no supporting evidence in the administrative record.  

                                                                                                                                          



                        French's  request  for  a  hearing  therefore  was  improperly  denied.                                                  The  

                                                                                                                                                 



 Commission has jurisdiction over waste determinations, and substantial evidence does  

                                                                                                                                                



not support its assertion that it investigated and concluded this leak was not waste.  

                                                                                                                                      



            11          AS   31.05.030(b)   ("The   [C]ommission   shall   investigate   to   determine  



whether or not waste exists or is imminent, or whether or not other facts exist which                                                        

justify or require action by it.").                       



            12          See AS 31.05.030(a).  

                                                               



            13          See supra note 7 and accompanying text.  

                                                                                         



                                                                          -5-                                                                  7553
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

V.                         CONCLUSION  



                                                      The superior court's decision is REVERSED, its attorney's fees award is                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commission for further proceedings                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



consistent with this opinion.                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                                   -6-                                                                                                                                                     7553
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC