Commission vacates Rule 5‑20 pooling hearing after opposing counsel absent

The Energy and Carbon Management Commission on Friday, May 23, 2025, vacated a scheduled hearing on a Rule 5‑20 exception and pooling docket 241100287 after opposing counsel did not appear and said he had not received notice.

The move matters because the commission did not take up the merits of the written briefs or hear oral argument on the pooling request, and it directed the hearings officer to coordinate a new date so both sides can appear.

Chair (unnamed) opened the special business meeting at 10 a.m. and said the commission would “take up rule 5 20 exception and pooling docket 2 4 1 1 0 0 2 8 7.” Five commissioners were present: Commissioner Ackerman, Commissioner Cross, Commissioner Mesner, Commissioner Oth and Commissioner Robbins.

Mr. Thomas, the hearings officer, reported that he had spoken with Mr. Lewis Prescott, the attorney expected to argue for the opposing party, and said, “He claims that he did not receive notice that this was scheduled for this morning, and so he's not prepared to give oral argument today.”

Ms. Wasielinski, counsel for Noble, told the commission that Noble did not need oral argument and “would not oppose” a ruling on the briefs. The chair said he preferred not to rule while counsel for the opposing party was absent and directed the hearings officer to return the matter to the hearings officer’s calendar and check Prescott’s availability.

The chair then moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded, the commission voted by voice and approved the adjournment. The meeting record shows the commission took no substantive action on the Rule 5‑20 exception or pooling request; instead, the matter was vacated pending coordination with counsel and rescheduling by the hearings officer.

The commission did not set a new hearing date during the session and made no ruling on the merits of the written briefs.