top of page
Search

When Does the Public Have a Right to Know?

  • Writer: Brick and Bridge Communications
    Brick and Bridge Communications
  • Apr 24, 2023
  • 9 min read

Updated: Feb 5


A silhouette of Minneapolis and a "secret-ish" title.

Reading Time 11minutes:

Analyzing how two energy companies handled a communications problem


It took four months for state officials to notify the public of a radioactive water leak near Minneapolis, MN.


At a similar time in Alberta, Canada, it took provincial officials nine months to notify the public of wastewater seepage from an oil sands mine.


Both cases occurred in 2022 with companies notifying regulatory agencies right away, but the public wasn't notified until 2023. As professional communicators we're interested in these questions:


  1. Did the delay of public notification hurt the reputation of the companies?

  2. Analyzing both communication responses, who did it better?

  3. What constitutes reasonable disclosure to the public?


Before we begin, this research was conducted to compare communication responses of two similar situations. We hold no opinion around the companies or their energy production. We live in Alberta, Canada and enjoy the benefits of our energy production as much as other folks around the world. This research and opinions are our own and undertaken with an academic, critical thought process.



The story that piqued our interest was Xcel Energy’s spill in Minnesota. It’s linked here, but the gist is that on Nov. 22, 2022 Xcel Energy discovered 400,000 gallons of tritium water leaked into the Mississippi River. On March 16, 2023, information went public.


While researching Xcel’s situation, we found out about a wastewater leak in the northern part of Alberta. Imperial Oil’s Kearl Oil Sands Mine found wastewater seepage from one of its tailings ponds on May 19, 2022. Then on Feb. 4, 2023 a second, larger overflow of 5.3 million litres of wastewater .


The public was notified by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) through an environmental protection order issued on Feb. 6, 2023.


As a company with experience in both sides of this communication situation: journalism, and crisis and issues management, we were professionally interested in how everything unfolded.

We focussed on the communication strategies used to mitigate damage to each company’s reputation rather then delve into federal and provincial legislation. We could spend a lot of time on this; energy regulation is complex and so is the work that brings energy to the world but we were interested only in a comparison of the two responses.



Let’s get into it.


In Minneapolis’s case, it appears that news sparked the need for a response. From what we can see, Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) was the first to report on the tritum leak on March 16 with this headline: Xcel: Radioactive water leaked in November at Monticello nuclear plant.


That story caused a ripple of news interest, which reached as far as the Washington Post and into Canada through the Associated Press.


In Alberta, it looks like AER’s environmental protection order sparked the need for a response. On Feb. 6 the order was issued. On Feb. 8, The Narwhal, reported on the situation, which rippled to other news organizations. It is interesting that the news story is what caused an issue for Xcel, while the regulator’s announcement in Alberta is what necessitated a response from Imperial.



Was the lack of disclosure a crisis or a reputational issue?


Crisis and issues communication literature suggests an assessment is first needed to determine the severity of a situation. There’s a great peer-reviewed article by Caroline Koewn-McMullan discussing crises, titled, Crisis: When does a molehill become a mountain? where she states a crisis has high threat, requires short decision-making times, and has an element of surprise.


It is also, interestingly, an event that could have positive implications for an organization. It feels counterintuitive, but these issues are also opportunities for learning, which can help an organization. As Koewn-McMullan puts it: This point is well illustrated in Chinese where the symbol depicting a crisis, wei-ji, is a combination of two words, danger and opportunity. (This Wikipedia post elaborated on the meaning).


So, the threats were relatively low, the decision-making process was longer, and while there was some surprise, neither company was left in the lurch. With that idea in mind, Xcel’s spill wasn't a crisis, nor was Imperial Oil’s. Based on Koewn-McMullan’s observations, the companies faced issues that did not require short decision-making times, nor was there an element of surprise except for maybe the news stories.


There are two factors that cause a crisis. In his paper, Deep and Surface Threats: Conceptual and Practical Implications for “Crisis” vs. “Problem”, W. Timothy Coombs says it’s the bottom line, the financial hurt businesses face that creates the crisis. For Xcel and Imperial there was financial hurt to their operations but they weren't issues that would completely shutter the companies. So, they faced a reputational issue with some financial issues.



The companies, hoping to mitigate negative reputational effects used language that minimized the risk.


In addition to Xcel Energy’s comments, a release from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency published a link to the U.S. Federal Regulatory Commission’s page on tritium. It's a very dry read and extremely technical. For most people, it would be difficult to understand.


From Imperial: The first incident, reported earlier in 2022, involves industrial wastewater seeping from the External Tailings Area in four locations both on and outside the boundaries of the Kearl site. At this time, there are no public impacts.


The risk to the public appears quite low in comparison to the potential dangers of, say, a nuclear plant meltdown, or a toxic spill into the drinking water supply. Despite this, a quick issue priority check might have flagged the need for response preparation.  


Xcel’s short and to-the-point replies, with regulator links to a technobabble-filled federal website seem aimed at stalling or blocking public outrage. The issue coming out of this for Xcel was whether further leaks occur. Old news stories have a habit of biting an organization in the butt. As it happened, a second spill did occur, which reminded the public about the first spill and then they really were facing a reputational problem.


Here’s what company president, Chris Clark, had to say as a result of the second leak:


I think one of our lessons here is even though we followed the proper formal notifications, we have an opportunity to do a better job being transparent with our neighbors. That’s certainly a lesson we take from this.


For Imperial Oil, the problem came from a few sides: its First Nation neighbours, the public, and federal regulators. The latter voiced displeasure at not being included in the regulatory communication framework. This added pressure on Imperial Oil to communicate with stakeholders, and while it had to have been been stressful, the company took excellent steps to mitigate the issue with regular updates, FAQs, and when the next updates will be.   


There is one difference between Xcel’s language and Imperial’s. Can you spot it? Imperial stated:


We continue to hold in-community meetings to share information directly with communities and hear their feedback. We have shared our mitigation and monitoring plans with communities and have offered for them to complete their own independent reviews of our technical work. We are also seeking input from communities on our plans to improve our communications going forward.


If you said, “seeking input from communities” then you would be right. In the moment, Imperial doesn’t necessarily apologize, but the offer to work with communities suggests they’re action-oriented. It’s like they’re saying, “Yeah, we messed up. We get it. Want to know what we’re doing to fix that?”


Xcel Energy said no such thing.



What’s the risk to the companies if they apologize? It has to do with ownership of the problem, which could see legal or financial implications.


Coombs wrote a piece with Sherry J. Holladay called, Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies: Clarifying Apology’s Role and Value in Crisis Communication.


Accepting responsibility is the centerpiece of an apology and makes it the most expensive response financially for an organization.


The lesson here? Use apologies wisely.


Imperial Oil and the Energy Regulator did later apologize. It appears that community outrage set the tone. They used the term "regret" as opposed to saying sorry and there is good reason for that. Through Coombs's and Halladay's research, it is determined that in low to moderate levels of crisis, non-victim stakeholders accept statements of sympathy, compensation, or apology, equally. Imperial's regret then should go a long way to rebuilding trust.


In the U.S. neither Minnesota Pollution Control, nor Xcel issued an apology of any kind, which suggests they weighed the pros and cons of an actual apology and decided against it. The problem Xcel created for itself was that they had to respond because of public pressure created by the media's response. It wasn't necessarily about the actual tritium leak, but the fact they neglected to inform the public.


In Alberta, there also was no apology until the public hearing; the company has a dedicated web page with public updates and steps they’re taking to mitigate the problem. It’s a proactive response as opposed to Xcel’s “whoops”.


So, were these situations crises for the companies? No. Xcel and Imperial Oil were able to continue operations.


Going back to our original questions, did the lack of public disclosure hurt the companies’ reputations? In the short term, absolutely. The public response, regulatory order, and news stories were enough that they had to proceed with a damage control plan.


What is interesting is how regulators could have helped in each situation. Working together, the companies and regulators could have delivered joint information with key messages around transparency, keeping public trust, and providing testing results. Had the groups done this from the beginning they might have had more control over messaging, and potentially, opportunity to sway public opinion.


The situation did became a communications crisis when announcements and then media became involved. McMullan's research finds that:


What makes a problem into a crisis is the media or, in some instances, the likelihood of media attention. In normal circumstances, when corporate problems are solved routinely, the media are supposed to appear at the end of the process when all information has been gathered, all decisions have been made and materials and spokespersons have been fully prepared.


Here’s why we suggest a proactive response to these two cases: the information came out regardless of any hopes for no publicity, and both companies, and Alberta’s regulator, needed to do some damage control. In Alberta's case, federal regulators and politicians stepping in only added to the chaos.



Treat situations such as this as if the public will find out.


Tony Jacques makes an important point about issue management in his paper, Issue management and crisis management: An integrated, non-linear, relational construct, where he suggests that if some things are left unchecked, they can become actual crises.


Who responded best? Very clearly Imperial Oil did. Regular online information sessions, with timelines and public water tests put them as the clear winner. If another spill occurs, they have a working response/template in place. Imperial’s response shows understanding of their wei-ji, their opportunity or turning point.


Xcel Energy on the other hand, meh. It's hard to gain a feeling of sincerity from the company. Time will tell, but we don’t see Xcel Energy doing much more unless the regulator or public lays on the pressure, or they have a more serious spill.


All of this boils down to our final question: What constitutes or necessitates public disclosure?


From the outside looking in, it appears the public wasn’t notified in order to avoid panic or concern, or possibly awkward headlines. That didn’t work out so well for anyone.


Perhaps the question shouldn’t be, “What necessitates public disclosure?” Rather, it should be, “Does disclosure increase the trust of our neighbours and stakeholders?" Looking at the problem from this angle might be the difference between an issue or a full blown crisis.


There is a fine line with disclosure. We assume both companies assessed the situation and wondered if doing so would unnecessarily shed light on what they felt was a small issue. Hindsight is 20/20 but if anything, these situations are good reminders that sometimes it’s better to take the bull by the horns and help the pieces fall in your favour.



Comments

bottom of page