Opinion ID: 2454108
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The pro-consumer purpose of the 1986 amendments

Text: Both parties agree that the purpose of the 1986 amendments was to benefit consumers: The statute lowers the amount of royalties paid by gas producers, and the savings are passed on to consumers. Marathon points to this pro-consumer purpose of the 1986 amendments and argues that allowing retroactivity would further this legislative purpose. Marathon argues that (1) the purpose of the statute is to benefit consumers by using contract pricing; (2) retroactivity results in more contract pricing; and (3) therefore, retroactivity is consistent with the purpose of the statute. Marathon cites extensive legislative history to support its argument, but while this legislative history generally recognizes the benefits of contract pricing, it does not answer the question whether the statute permits retroactivity. Although it is true that the stated purpose of the 1986 amendments was to benefit consumers, the 1986 amendments exist within the larger goals of the Alaska Land Act. Alaska Statute 38.05.180(a) recites the goals of the Alaska Land Act: (a) The legislature finds that (1) the people of Alaska have an interest in the development of the state's oil and gas resources to (A) maximize the economic and physical recovery of the resources; (B) maximize competition among parties seeking to explore and develop the resources; [and] (C) maximize use of Alaska's human resources in the development of the resources. As we have recognized, the overall purpose of the Alaska Land Act is to maximize revenue for the state: In Chevron v. LeResche we pointed out that the purpose of the Alaska Land Act was to provide for orderly oil and gas leasing that maximizes state return on its oil and gas resources, and that this fact should influence the statute's construction. [25] And as Marathon acknowledges, AS 38.05.180(aa) is an exception to the goal of maximum royalty recovery. Though the 1986 amendments' purpose of benefiting a smaller subset of Alaska's utility consumers would arguably support Marathon's interpretation, the Alaska Land Act's overall purpose of maximizing revenue for all Alaskan citizens would support DNR's interpretation. The 1986 amendments and their legislative history do not provide guidance as to which purpose should predominate in this case.