Opinion ID: 2545224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Numerous issues are presented to this court on appeal. Sinclair sets forth the following issues: 1. Is it in accordance with the law for a public utility common carrier to fail to maintain its facilities, then abandon the facilities because they are in disrepair? 2. Did the PSC fail to apply the correct legal standard applicable to abandonments, and was the PSC's determination that Amoco had upheld its evidentiary burden to abandon its facilities supported by substantial evidence? 3. Did the PSC abuse its discretion by failing to apply its own regulations regarding Amoco's unilateral abandonment of the Little Buffalo Basin without prior PSC approval? 4. Was the PSC's determination regarding the public interest supported by substantial evidence, or did the PSC abuse its discretion by limiting the scope of the hearing and precluding the receipt of relevant, admissible evidence regarding the public interest? 5. Did the PSC fail to apply the correct rule of law by refusing to determine whether Citation would operate the abandoned facilities as a public utility without the required certificate of public convenience and necessity? PSC phrases the issues on appeal as: 1. Whether the PSC followed its own rules and other pertinent law in considering and deciding the issues of this case. 2. Whether substantial evidence exists to support the PSC's factual findings when the evidence is viewed as a whole. 3. Whether the PSC's procedural rulings were in accordance with law. 4. Whether the issue of Citation's status as a public utility was properly before the PSC. 5. Whether the issue of late-filed exhibits was first raised on appeal. Amoco states the issues before this court as: 1. Does Sinclair have standing to pursue this appeal? 2. Was the [PSC's] decision to grant Amoco's application to abandon made using the proper legal standards and supported by substantial evidence? 3. Was Amoco's attempt to prevent an environmental catastrophe by suspending shipments on its gathering system a basis for the [PSC] to deny Amoco's application to abandon? 4. Did the [PSC's] evidentiary decisions constitute a clear abuse of discretion and, if so, were they prejudicial to Sinclair? Finally, appellee Citation Oil and Gas Corporation (Citation) enunciates its issues on appeal as: 1. Does Sinclair have standing under the Administrative Procedure Act to bring this appeal? 2. Was the decision of the [PSC] to grant the application of Amoco Pipeline to abandon the Little Buffalo Basin crude oil gathering facilities and to eliminate Little Buffalo Station as a point of origin on Amoco Pipeline's system in conformance with statutory requirements? 3. Did the [PSC] render a proper weighing and balancing of the affected interests impacted by the abandonment such that the public interest was best served by the abandonment of the Little Buffalo Basin gathering facilities? 4. Is the issue of whether Citation, by virtue of acquiring ownership and commencing operation of the abandoned Little Buffalo Basin gathering system, is a public utility properly before this Court? or, in the alternative, does Citation's operation of the abandoned gathering facilities render Citation a public utility?