capital focus

JUNEAU — A lawyer hired by state lawmakers to review gas pipeline issues has concluded that the one pipeline application deemed complete under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act could also be considered incomplete.

William Mogel, a regulatory specialist with the law firm Saul Ewing, wrote in a memo dated Wednesday that the proposal from pipeline company TransCanada was “inconsistent” with AGIA and the bidding process it established because of conditions and contingencies included in the proposal.

The contingencies involve the use of a federal loan guarantee to cover cost overruns and the assumption of financial risk by the federal government.

The conditions relate to company’s commitment to proceed with the project and requests made of the state.

One involves TransCanada’s statement that it “expects” the state to do all it can to get gas leaseholders to use the pipeline.

Kurt Gibson, deputy director of the state’s Division of Oil and Gas, defended the decision by Gov. Sarah Palin’s administration.

“The state’s position is that TransCanada has not conditioned any of their commitments,” he said Friday.

At the heart of the issue is whether TransCanada added any qualifiers when it agreed to meet the 20 “must-have” requirements spelled out in AGIA, which relate to financing, permitting, and building a gas pipeline project.

AGIA was touted as a way for the state to set its own terms.

The bidding process it established specified that an application be rejected if it required additional actions beyond those identified by AGIA, contained unauthorized conditions, or added any reservations on accepting a state-issued license.

AGIA critics, including former candidate for governor Andrew Halcro, have raised questions about TransCanada’s application in recent weeks.

Two lawyers hired by the administration addressed the issue in their own memo earlier this month. They concluded that TransCanada’s mention of the loan guarantee and federal involvement were “creative ideas” rather than “requirements.”

Gibson, of the Division of Oil and Gas, said AGIA asked applicants to explain how they would deal with different circumstances. TransCanada’s proposal to have the federal government step in if commitments by gas leaseholders aren’t enough to fill the pipeline was a “creative solution to a possible outcome,” he said.

Rep. Ralph Samuels, an Anchorage Republican, said Friday the question should be answered fully before the state commits to a project with TransCanada. Samuels chairs the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, which hired Mogel.

Sen. Gene Therriault, a North Pole Republican who sits on the committee, said he disagreed with Mogel’s conclusion but still wanted the administration to respond to the claims publicly.

In a separate memo dated Jan. 15, Mogel concluded that a potential obligation owed to former project partners would not affect the shipping rates charged by TransCanada should the company complete a project.

“TransCanada would not be allowed to recover in its rates any payments to withdrawn partners,” he wrote.

The liability, estimated at $9 billion, was a big issue this week when a representative from ConocoPhillips presented his company’s pipeline proposal to members of the Senate Resources Committee.

Brian Wenzel, a company vice president for gas development, expressed concerns about how the potential liability would affect a company that partnered with TransCanada on the project.

Lawyers working for the administration are still looking into that issue, but Gibson described it as a “bit of a leap” to imagine that any liability would affect a project partner.

Samuels, who requested both memos, said he didn’t release them until Friday because his committee aide was out all week.

“We flat-out screwed up,” he said. “We’re not trying to hide the ball.”

Samuels said he has asked Mogel and Steve Porter, a consultant hired by the committee, to review the TransCanada and ConocoPhillips applications.