1
.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA Iäÿ½óHÿ¾HÿÄ$
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ALLIANCE FUEL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ALASKA
AUTHORITY
COURT
ALLIANCE FUEL COMPANY
JAY
CHERRIER
JAMES CROCKETT
FRANK BETTINE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
PROCEEDING
POLICY
POWERS
AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACT
PROVISION
INITIATING
LAW
OIL DISCHARGE PREVENTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN
LAWFUL AUTHORITY
PRODUCTION
FACILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
COMPEL
PENDING
ENFORCE
SUPPORT
|
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Plaintiff(s),
v.
ALLIANCE FUEL COMPANY, INC.,
JAY G. CHERRIER and JAMES CROCKETT, Defendant(s).
Case No. 3AN-99-12742 CI
ORDER
This case came on for hearing on Plaintiff's petition for order to show cause on January 10, 2000
l Conservation, represented by Assistant Attorney General Breck Tostevin and Alliance Fuel Company,
by Frank Bettine.
On December 2, 1999, the State of Alaska, Department of Law, on behalf of the Department of
inistrative subpoenas on Mr. Frank Bettine as registered agent for Alliance Fuel Co., Inc. The
G. Cherrier, President of Alliance Fuel Co., Inc., and to an employee, James Crockett.
DEC informed Mr. Bettine that the documents being sought were part of the department's
ion and contingency plan for Alliance Fuel Facility" at the Wood River oil terminal facility.
On December 17, 1999, Mr. Frank Bettine, as attorney for Alliance, responded by letter to the
c., Jay G. Cherrier and James Crockett that they did not need to respond to the DEC's subpoenas
SNIPPETS:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
JAY G. CHERRIER and JAMES CROCKETT,
This case came on for hearing on Plaintiff's petition for order to show cause on January 10,
On December 2, 1999, the State of Alaska, Department of Law, on behalf of the Department of
DEC informed Mr. Bettine that the documents being sought were part of the department's
On December 17, 1999, Mr. Frank Bettine, as attorney for Alliance, responded by letter to the
the defendants assert that DEC is without legal authority to issue investigative subpoenas.
They posit that DEC's statutory authority to issue subpoenas to compel production of
This court is not persuaded by the arguments made in support of the challenge to DEC's
The declaration of policy of the State Environmental Conservation Act states:
It is the policy of the state to improve and coordinate the environmental plans, functions,
To empower the agency to fulfill the above-stated declaration of policy and enforce the
Although this statutory provision is not the best example of clarity, its reasonable
The court finds as a matter of law that the Department of Environmental Conservation has the
Review of the subpoenas in question reveal that they were issued pursuant to lawful
|
