BP, Hilcorp, RCA defend secrecy before Supreme Court, while Valdez seeks transparency
The refusal of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to engage in a public evidentiary hearing on the most important case in the RCA’s history—the sale of BP’s assets to Hilcorp—is at the center of the Supreme Court case at which oral arguments took place Wednesday.
The attorneys for the RCA, Hilcorp and BP all defended the actions of the RCA and did not deal with matters of substance, but instead focused on technicalities and process.
They complained that the City of Valdez, which brought this case, should have filed a variety administrative and legal challenges. Their procedural objections were no surprise, as the briefs they filed with the court made the same claims.
Robin Brena, the attorney representing Valdez, said it came as a complete shock that the RCA did not hold a hearing in which witnesses could be called and important questions could be examined.
Michael McLaughlin, the attorney for BP, said that there was no need for a evidentiary hearing because the RCA rules don’t require one in a certificate transfer application.
“In a non-hearing matter, like a transfer application, again, I’ve never seen a hearing of the type that Mr. Brena’s asked for . . . I’ve been involved in transfers of dozens of certificates,” said McLaughlin.
“Probably because there hasn’t been a transfer like this in any of our legal experiences,” said Justice Susan Carney.
McLaughlin said he did not agree and mentioned the BP—ARCO merger in 2000.
Carney said those were two publicly traded corporations, unlike the BP sale to Hilcorp, a private company owned by Jeff HIldebrand, the richest man in Houston.
Hilcorp sought and received secrecy for almost every major financial document, meaning that the public does not know whether Hilcorp will be able to respond to future operational and cleanup problems with the trans-Alaska pipeline.
Brena said the RCA did not just transfer a certificate from BP to Hilcorp, but it revised the certificate in substantial ways that will cost billions.
Brena said the residents of Valdez, and all other Alaskans, have been denied financial information about the owner of a publicly regulated utility. He said that the Supreme Court also is not allowed to see the documents.
“As it stands today, neither the Alaskans, nor the City of Valdez, nor this court, has any way to determine whether or not the largest owner of the most important publicly regulated facilities in Alaska has $1,000 in the bank,” he said, “Much less the financial capacity to safely operate these public regulated facilities in the public interest.”
The public also doesn’t know if the conditions attached to the public certificate are adequate to protect the public interest.
“Alaskans and Valdez should have a voice and a fair process,” he said. “This court should protect that voice and fair process.”
Brena asked that the issue be remanded to Superior Court for consideration of the hearing request.
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.