Opinion ID: 2633116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Any Error Made by the Hearing Commissioner in Denying MEA's Request for Further Questioning of Haagenson Was Harmless.

Text: MEA argues that the Commission committed reversible error when it denied its request to cross-examine Golden Valley officer Steven Haagenson. Although MEA had previously declined to cross-examine Haagenson, Commission Chairman Giard recalled Haagenson for further questioning that went beyond the scope of his pre-filed testimony. After being recalled to the stand, Haagenson testified about the costs of reverting the Line to 115kV operation, including approximately one million dollars to install a transformer. He then continued: HAAGENSON: There's also the ancillary cost as well as being disconnected to be modified. You can't get power from Fairbanks to Anchorage either. CHAIRMAN GIARD: How long do you think that would take, the disconnection, is it weeks or days or . . . HAAGENSON: You've got to build a substation and pad and breakers to connect it together so I'd say you're six months to a year, I don't know. Counsel for MEA sought a clarification at the close of Haagenson's testimony: MEA'S COUNSEL: Your honor, no wait, we have no questions for Mr. Haagenson originally, but I do have one question that is prompted by Commissioner Giard's, a clarification prompted by her question that I would like to ask Mr. Haagenson. But the hearing examiner refused to permit cross-examination of Haagenson's testimony because MEA had failed to cross-examine Haagenson on his initial testimony: HEARING EXAMINER CLARK: Well, ordinarily I only allow examination for any questions that exceed the scope of examination and since there was none I don't really have a whole lot of options there. MEA'S COUNSEL: All right. MEA's counsel said nothing further to apprise the hearing examiner of what specific issue she wished to clarify when seeking permission for additional questioning. As Alaska Evidence Rule 103 makes clear, we will not reverse a ruling to exclude evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. MEA's appeal falls short of meeting all of these requirements. We agree with the superior court that by failing to make an offer of proof, MEA waived its claim of error on appeal. Nothing in the context of MEA's request to ask a clarification question makes apparent that it sought to challenge Haagenson's testimony on the potential downtime associated with reverting the Line to 115kV operation. The transcript shows that MEA's counsel made only a vague reference to Chairman Giard's question, failing to indicate which of the many questions asked by Chairman Giard gave rise to an answer from Haagenson that affected one of MEA's substantial rights. MEA argues that the Alaska Rules of Evidence do not apply to this case because the Alaska Administrative Code does not bind hearing officers to follow the rules of evidence. [13] But MEA confuses this grant of discretion to administrative officers with its own obligations for preserving its rights on appeal. We have held in the context of other administrative appeals that a party's failure to make an offer of proof acts as a waiver of any claim of error regarding the exclusion of unspecified evidence. [14] That rule applies here to exclude MEA's claim of error regarding the exclusion of further testimony from Haagenson. Second, assuming that the hearing commissioner committed error by denying MEA's request for further questioning, [15] MEA must still show that the alleged error bore a substantial influence on the outcome of the case. [16] MEA maintains that the Commission misunderstood Haagenson's testimony. Haagenson testified that construction of a substation and pad and breakers to connect [the Line and the Intertie] together could take six months to a year. The Commission based its decision in part on its observation that the [L]ine would not be operational for approximately six months to one year while a transformer was installed. Golden Valley concedes that the Commission erred in this factual determination. Construction of the facilities necessary to revert the Line to 115kV operation could extend up to a year, but the disconnection time associated with the voltage shift apparently would take at most 1-2 hours. We do not view this possible factual error as a substantial influence on the outcome of the case. The Commission's decision primarily addresses the safety and reliability of operating the Line at 138kV, rather than the cost of operating the Line at 115kV. After having dismissed the safety and reliability concerns raised by MEA, the Commission's decision notes that [c]onversion of the [L]ine to 115kV usage at this time would require approximately $1 million to install a transformer. There is no persuasive evidence that the expenditure is necessary. Only after reaching this conclusion did the Commission make its alleged misstatement that [i]n addition, the [L]ine would not be operational for approximately six months to one year. If the evidence failed to convince the Commission that the conversion would justify the million dollar cost of a transformer, the additional costs of disconnection are unlikely to have influenced the outcome. The Commission's decision gives little indication that the downtime associated with reversion drove its analysis.