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

Heading: Denial

Text: 25 The legislative history of § 504 provides no basis for concluding that Congress meant something other than what it said. 36 Appellees note, however, that before the DOE Act was passed, DOE's predecessor agency-the Federal Energy Administration (FEA)-reviewed grants as well as denials of adjustments, notwithstanding a statutory obligation to review only the latter. 37 Appellees contend that denials in the DOE Act should therefore be given a broad construction. 26 There is no evidence that Congress approved of the FEA's practice when it passed the DOE Act. Moreover, we hesitate to assume that Congress expected FERC to implement the DOE Act in the same fashion that the FEA had implemented earlier statutes. In the DOE Act, Congress restructured the exceptions process. The FEA had provided broad appellate review of its own orders. At issue here, on the other hand, is the scope of interadministrative review. Unlike the FEA, FERC does not have general authority over the entitlements program and the exceptions process. 38 The deference usually accorded an agency's construction of a statute is heightened where ... the regulations at issue represent (the agency's) initial attempt at interpreting and implementing a new regulatory concept. 39 27