A contested Energy and Carbon Management Commission hearing over a petition asking the commission to order KPK to plug and abandon roughly 42 wells in Tacono and Frederick concluded its testimony phase on June 25 and moved to closing arguments; commissioners set deliberations to begin the next day.

What the petition asked

Cities and metro districts representing Tacono and Frederick asked ECMC to use Rule 2.11 to require KPK to plug and abandon wells that petitioners say are “no longer used or useful” or that present ongoing, unresolved threats to public health, safety, welfare and the environment. Petitioners pointed to numerous open remediation projects, past spills and a 2024 ECMC 901(a) order that staff said identified flow‑line integrity problems as evidence that wells and associated infrastructure pose continuing risk.

What KPK and its witnesses said

KPK witnesses, including Lily Clark (KBK’s director of engineering), presented engineering and economic testimony arguing many wells retain economic value or identified future beneficial uses (refracturing, secondary/tertiary recovery or prospective projects such as carbon storage). KPK disputed petitioners’ cost and revenue assumptions and said some alleged impacts stem from flow lines or historical issues not tied to a current threat from individual wells. KPK’s expert panels also described a plan to prioritize remediation and said company monitoring and targeted work (for example, remote annulus monitoring and selective plugging) have addressed specific risks.

Staff and petitioners’ case

ECMC staff witnesses described the 901(a) orders and open remediation projects and testified that many shut‑in wells lacked timely mechanical‑integrity testing (MIT) and that inspections and denied remediation submissions (forms 20/27) had slowed closure of environmental projects. Petitioners’ experts provided decline‑curve and economic analyses that concluded many wells were uneconomic, relied on public inspection data and argued market comparables and developer agreements showed little market value for operating the sites.

Procedural highlights and motions

During the hearing KPK moved to recuse Commissioner Messner; the commission conducted the process required by its rules and Commissioner Messner declined to withdraw. The commission then voted that no conflict of interest existed and Messner remained on the panel. Parties also argued over expert exhibits and late corrections; the hearing officer admitted the corrected material while noting objections.

Closings and next steps

KPK counsel argued that petitioners had not met the Rule 2.11 burden and that plug‑and‑abandon orders would be an inappropriate remedy for problems tied to flow lines or ongoing remediation projects; ECMC staff described remediation status, enforcement history and the significance of open projects. Petitioners argued the wells are uneconomic or create ongoing environmental and public‑safety risk and asked the commission to order plugging and abandonment for wells meeting the rule’s standard, with deadlines to complete plugging and remediation.

The commission recessed after closings and scheduled deliberations to begin the following morning. No final order was issued at the hearing’s close.