Opinion ID: 2599092
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exxon's and the department's course of performance

Text: The state argues that Exxon's and the department's course of performance of the PBUA shows that Exxon understood that the department retained discretion. Exxon offers no argument in response. The conduct of the parties is properly considered as evidence of the parties' intent. [23] In the course of performance of the PBUA, Exxon has previously requested contraction of the PBU and corresponding expansion of another unit. Exxon's application for the change in the PBU requested the director's approval under provisions including 11 AAC 83.301-.395 and argued that the change was in the public interest in accordance with AS 38.05.180(p) and 11 AAC 83.303. Exxon has also requested expansion of the PBU and contraction of another unit. In both cases, the director's decisions to grant the change included an analysis of the best interests factors listed in 11 AAC 83.303. Furthermore, Exxon's application for the Pt. McIntyre expansionthe denial of which forms the main issue hererequested the director to expand the PBU pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.3 and Section 9.1 of the [PBUA] and 11 AAC 83.351 and 11 AAC 83.356. The application expressly noted that the expansion meets the criteria of 11 AAC 83.303 and listed three reasons. Exxon's and the department's prior course of performance of the PBUA contradicts Exxon's current position and strongly indicates that the department had discretion to deny expansion.