Practice Areas // Litigation

BB&W successfully represented interstate and intrastate shippers in multi-year litigation concerning jurisdictional, regulatory, and ratemaking issues for the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (“TAPS”).  There were billions of dollars at issue in this complex litigation before the FERC and the RCA.  BB&W prevailed on every substantive issue, and the decisions of the FERC and the RCA were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alaska and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

See:

2002-11-27.RCA Order P-97-004(151) (1997-2000 TAPS Rates) with Errata

2004-06-10.RCA Order P-03-004(34) (2001-2002 TAPS Rates) PUBLIC

2008-06-20.FERC Op 502 (IS05-82 TAPS Rates) (2005-2006 Rates)

BB&W successfully represented a shipper on TAPS and an independent producer challenging the prudence of capital expenditures made by the TAPS Carriers to electrify their pump stations.  Concurrent hearings were held before the RCA and FERC that resulted in a landmark Initial Decision by a FERC Administrative Law Judge (February 2014) disallowing hundreds of millions of dollars in imprudent expenses.  Implementation of this order’s mandates will considerably lower shipper rates.

See:

2014-02-27.FERC Op 544 (IS09-348) (2009-2010 TAPS Rates-SR) with Errata

2016-02-29.RCA Order P-08-9(39) (2009-2010 TAPS Rates-SR)

These cases involve multi-year litigation regarding the proper valuation of TAPS.  Mr. Brena was the lead counsel for the three Alaska Municipalities (Fairbanks North Star Borough, City of Valdez, and North Slope Borough) and successfully led the legal team with over $100 billion of assessed value at stake.  The outcome of years of litigation is embodied in the Alaska Supreme Court’s Opinion 6867 (March 2014), which affirmed the Municipalities’ position.

See:

2010-10-26.2006 TAPS Ad Valorem Tax Decision

2011-12-30.2007-2009 TAPS Ad Valorem Tax Decision (Public)

BB&W successfully represented a shipper in a rate matter before FERC in which Olympic Pipeline Company (“Olympic”) filed three successive rate increases of over 60%.  BB&W was able to have each of the three rate increases rejected by the FERC.  Similarly, Olympic filed three similar rate increases with the WUTC, and BB&W successfully litigated these cases to a less than 3% rate increase.  These cases are the leading regulatory pipeline cases in the State of Washington. Through these cases, the WUTC established its basic ratemaking methodology for pipelines.

See:

2002-09-27.WUTC Order 20 re Olympic Pipeline - Final Order Setting Rates

2002-11-26.FERC Order Aff'g Init Decision IS01-441

BB&W successfully represented the largest intrastate shipper on TAPS in its efforts to have economic adjustments put in place that would recognize the quality and value differentials for the various comingled petroleum streams being transported.  This case involved the reallocation of hundreds of millions of dollars among shippers each year.  Most recently, BB&W successfully represented a shipper and an independent refiner defending a challenge to the Quality Bank methodology before the FERC. FERC denied the requested adjustment to the current methodology.  The D.C. Circuit has remanded this matter back to the FERC for clarification of the order.

See:

2014-11-20.FERC Order on Init Decision, 149 FERC 61149 (OR14-6)

BB&W successfully represented an intrastate shipper in its efforts to protest a 110 percent rate increase by Kenai Pipeline Company.  BB&W successfully defeated any rate increase and obtained a 46 percent decrease from the original rates.  The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed BB&W’s positions in all respects.

See:

1995-11-09.APUC Final Order P-85-1(42) re KPL Rates CLEAN

1995-11-09.APUC Final Order P-85-1(42) re KPL Rates

BB&W successfully represented Agrium and its Kenai nitrogen facility, and through complex litigation in several RCA dockets, Agrium was able to convert the proprietary gas pipeline infrastructures serving the Cook Inlet into open common carrier pipeline systems with cost-based rates.  These cases opened up the Cook Inlet pipeline infrastructure to common carriage which permitted Agrium to obtain natural gas from several independent natural gas producers.  These cases involved the complex regulatory issues associated with the regulation of previously private infrastructure facilities.

See:

1985-01-14.APUC Methodology Order P-82-1(12) Tesoro-CIPL

BB&W successfully opposed the RCA’s approval of the terms for a gas sale agreement to ENSTAR.  This case involved extensive expert testimony concerning natural gas markets and the proper pricing mechanism for Cook Inlet natural gas.  BB&W’s successful outcome represented on of only two times the RCA rejected the terms of a proposed gas sale agreement.

See:

2006-09-28.RCA Order U-06-002(15) Final Order.Tesoro-ENSTAR

BB&W again successfully opposed the RCA’s approval of the terms for a gas sale agreement to ENSTAR.  This case again involved extensive expert testimony concerning natural gas markets and the proper pricing mechanism for Cook Inlet natural gas.  BB&W’s successful outcome represented one of only two times the RCA rejected the terms of a proposed gas sale agreement.

See:

2008-12-22.RCA Order U-08-58(12) Final Order.Aurora-Unocal

BB&W successfully represented the Board of Directors for Matanuska Electric Association with regard to its efforts to realize a more effective and more responsive management structure for the cooperative.  These cases involved complex matters associated with the implementation of a more effective governance structure for a regulated utility.

BB&W organized the Alaska Universal Service Administrative Company (“AUSAC”), which is a member-based nonprofit corporation that manages the state universal service funds.  AUSAC is the administrator of the Alaska Universal Service Fund, established by the RCA. AUSAC membership includes every telecommunications company in Alaska that provides intrastate telecommunications services.

BB&W represents the Alaska Exchange Carriers Association, Inc. (“AECA”) which is an association of rural telephone companies in Alaska.  Our representation for AECA is primarily before the RCA and primarily concerns access charges.  Access charges are the rates paid by long distance telephone companies to local telephone companies for access to their local facilities for the purpose of originating and terminating telephone calls.  These cases involve complex ratemaking and rate design issues for a public utility. BB&W has successfully represented AECA at hearing when its calculation of access charges has been questioned.  Recently, the Supreme Court of Alaska ruled in favor of the positions advanced by BB&W on behalf of AECA in a complex retroactive ratemaking case.

See:

2011-10-07.AECA v. RCA 262 P.3d 204 (2011)

BB&W represented a financially interested producer and distributor of Cook Inlet natural gas in protesting Phillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation and Marathon Oil Company’s application to the DOE to extend their authorization to export liquefied natural gas from Alaska to Japan.  This case involved complex issues associated with the supply and demand for Cook Inlet natural gas.

See:

1999-04-02.DOE Order 1473 Ext Auth to Export LNG from AK CLEAN

BB&W successfully represented the property owner in its efforts to have its oil refinery assessed at its true value.  This case involved complex litigation regarding valuation of a Tesoro refinery, pipeline, and business properties in Kenai.  The cases involved complex valuation issues.  Mr. Brena and Mr. Guerriero successfully reduced the tax assessment from over $300 million to approximately $150 million.

See:

2005-08-02.KPB Decision re Tesoro

2005-08-02.KPB Decision re Tesoro

BB&W has successfully represented every drilling company in Alaska (Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.; Doyon Drilling, Inc.; Doyon Parker Joint Venture; Nordic-Calista Services No. 1; Parker Drilling, Inc.; and Pool Alaska, Inc.) in their ad valorem tax appeals.

See:

1997-05-21.SARB Cert of Determination.Drilling Rigs CLEAN

BB&W successfully represented a new natural gas utility in Fairbanks in its efforts to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the RCA.  There were competing applications to provide gas service to that community.  BB&W prevailed in this effort.

See:

2013-12-20.RCA U-13-083(19) Denying FNG & Granting IGU

BB&W defended a landowner against claims for proscriptive or implied easement across commercial property.  The litigation resulted in a directed verdict and attorney fee award in favor of client.

BB&W represented the corporation, corporate owner, and corporate officer in a case brought by two former employees alleging constructive wrongful discharge, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and various other claims.  Following a jury trial, BB&W succeeded in obtaining defense verdicts for the employer, owner, and corporate officer.