Opinion ID: 396493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Corco's Application

Text: 13 After rule-making proceedings, DOE announced various administrative actions and regulations designed to stimulate the production of heavy California crude. 21 DOE recognized that the trans-Alaska pipeline had created a crude oil glut in the Western states, and sought to provide economic incentives for the production and transportation of California crude to Eastern refineries. DOE's program contemplated the use of exception relief from entitlement obligations. 22 14 Soon after DOE's announcement, Corco petitioned for exception relief. 23 DOE issued a proposed order granting Corco's application. 24 Some of the appellees filed objections with DOE. Before the adjudicative process was completed, Corco obtained interim relief, 25 which provided an adjustment in Corco's entitlements until the issuance of a final order. 26 15 Appellees appealed the interim order to FERC, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. FERC cited newly issued administrative regulations limiting its appellate jurisdiction to denials of adjustments. 27 16 The court below vacated the order dismissing the appeal, and remanded the case to FERC. Although § 504(b)(1) speaks in terms of denials, the court found that the term adjustments encompassed more than exception relief. Section 504(a) provides: 17 The Secretary ... shall provide for the making of such adjustments to any rule, regulation or order described in section 7191(a) of this title ... as may be necessary to prevent special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, and shall by rule establish procedures which are available to any person for the purpose of seeking an interpretation, modification, or rescission of, exception to, or exemption from, such rule, regulation or order. The Secretary ... shall additionally ensure that each decision on any petition requesting an adjustment shall specify the standards of hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burden by which any disposition was made .... 28 18 The court ruled that requests for § 504(b) adjustments included applications for a § 504(a) rescission. It then found that DOE had effectively rejected appellees' request for a rescission of the exception granted Corco, and thus DOE had denied appellees' request for an adjustment for the purposes of § 504(b)(1). This reading of the statute was informed by a House-Senate conference report on the DOE Act, which stated: Congress always intended that the notions of fair play and due process be followed in the administrative process. 29 The court observed, (o)ne could hardly call it 'fair play and due process' for Congress to give applicants for exceptions a manner of administrative review, but not objectors to the exceptions. 30 19 Before the proceedings below were completed, DOE issued a final order granting exception relief to Corco, 31 which incorporated the grant of interim relief, and provided for future relief, but at a somewhat reduced level. Appellees have appealed the DOE final order to the District Court, which has stayed its review pending this appeal.