is unable to demonstrate that in fact he has no remedy. Nelson is effectively asking us to address a hypothetical situation, but we decline to do so. IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the superior court's decision that the Municipality is a project owner. We REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FABE, Justice, not participating. 1 . Western Power was doing business as Yukon Equipment, Inc. at the time. 2 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 77(K)(4). 3 . Parker v. Tomera, 89 P.3d 761, 765 (Alaska 2004). 4 . Id. 5 . Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co., 995 P.2d 231, 233 (Alaska 2000). 6 . Grimm v. Wagoner, 77 P.3d 423, 427 (Alaska 2003) (citing Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1999)). 7 . See State v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, 204 P.3d 364, 368 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Lowell v. Hayes, 117 P.3d 745, 758 n. 61
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that review of ripeness decisions is de novo holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo recognizing de novo standard of review holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised