Case No. RF272-98964
August 28, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Application for Refund
Name of Petitioner: General Car & Truck Leasing System, Inc.
Date of Filing: July 6, 1994
Case Number: RF272-98964
This Decision and Order will consider an Application for Refund filed by General Car and Truck Leasing System, Inc. (General). General, a purchaser of gasoline during the period August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981 (the crude oil price control period) has requested a refund from crude oil monies available for disbursement by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE).
Pursuant to current DOE policy, purchasers of refined petroleum products may apply to the OHA for a refund from crude oil overcharge funds collected by the DOE. Statement of Modified Restitutionary Policy to be Implemented In Crude Oil Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4, 1986). We have established refund procedures for these funds which have been made available through consent orders entered into by the DOE and several firms that sold crude oil during the price control period. E.g., Berry Holding Co., 16 DOE ¶ 85,405 (1987); A. Tarricone, Inc., 15 DOE ¶ 85,495 (1987) (Tarricone); Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 14 DOE ¶ 85,475 (1986). The refund procedures set forth in these cases specify that in order to receive a refund, an applicant generally must: (1) document its purchase volume; and (2) show that it was injured by alleged crude oil overcharges.
Generally, a claimant is eligible for a refund equal to the number of gallons it purchased multiplied by a per gallon refund amount. The refund amount currently available is $0.0016 per gallon. This
figure is referred to as the volumetric refund amount.(1) This approach reflects the fact that crude oil overcharges were spread to every refiner by the Entitlements Program.(2)
As noted above, in Subpart V proceedings, applicants generally are required to prove injury, i.e. that they did not pass the overcharges through to their own customers. In certain refined product refund proceedings, we have established injury presumptions for certain classes of resellers and retailers. See e.g., Marathon Petroleum Co., 14 DOE ¶ 85,269 (1986); Mobil Oil Corp., 13 DOE ¶ 85,339 (1985). Because these overcharges were confined to purchasers of refined products from a specific firm, these purchasers were likely to have been placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to purchasers who were not overcharged.
In contrast, no such injury presumptions have been adopted for resellers or retailers applying for refunds in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceedings. The Entitlements Program spread crude oil overcharges evenly throughout the industry. See n.1. Since crude oil overcharges equally affected all resellers and retailers regardless of supplier, we believe that all resellers' and retailers' selling prices generally increased by about the same amount. See Tarricone, 15 DOE at 88,896. It would be unreasonable to presume, therefore, that any resellers or retailers were injured by crude oil overcharges. Instead, we require a detailed demonstration that the reseller or retailer was unable to pass through the effects of crude oil overcharges to its own customers.
The OHA has consistently considered vehicle rental and leasing firms to be retailers for the purposes of OHA administered refund proceedings. See Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)/Hertz Corp., 11 DOE ¶ 85,202 (1983); Joni Auto Rental, Inc., 15 DOE P 85,327 (1987). Like retailers, vehicle rental and leasing firms sell petroleum products without changing its form of the product and impose a separate charge for the product. See Chet's Cedarville Quicki Stop, 17 DOE ¶ 85,081 (1988).
Although General has substantiated its petroleum purchases, it has not submitted any reasoned arguments or information demonstrating that it was injured by crude oil overcharges. Accordingly, General's application for refund will be denied.
It Is Therefore Ordered That:
(1) The Application for Refund filed by General Car and Truck Leasing System, Inc. on July 6, 1994 is hereby denied.
(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.
George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: August 28, 1998
(1)We derived the volumetric refund amount by dividing the total crude oil refund monies currently available by the total U.S. consumption of petroleum products during the period of crude oil price controls (2,020,997,335,000 gallons).
(2)The Department of Energy established the Entitlements Program to equalize access to the benefits of crude oil price controls among all domestic refiners and their downstream customers. To accomplish this end, refiners were required to make transfer payments among themselves through the purchase and sale of "entitlements." Because of the manner in which the program worked, it had the effect of dispersing overcharges resulting from crude oil miscertifications throughout the domestic refining industry. See Amber Refining, Inc., 13 DOE ¶ 85,217 (1985).