Case No. RR300-00294
May 29, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Motion for Reconsideration
Name of Applicant: Gulf Oil Corporation/ Interstate Gulf
Date of Filing: February 9, 1998
Case Number: RR300-00294
This Decision and Order will consider a Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Gulf Oil Corporation (Gulf) overcharge refund proceeding by Bobby Laughter. Laughter owned Interstate Gulf in Landrum, South Carolina, between January 1980 and October 1985. In the Motion, Laughter requests a refund for his purchases of petroleum products from Gulf Oil Corporation during the Gulf consent order period (January 1, 1973 through January 27, 1981).
Laughter has requested a refund from Gulf funds available for disbursement by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. The procedures for disbursing the Gulf funds were set forth in a Decision and Order on September 8, 1987. Gulf Oil Corporation, 16 DOE ¶ 85,381 (Gulf).
In Gulf, we adopted a presumption that the alleged Gulf overcharges attributable to refined products had been dispersed equally in all sales of refined products made by Gulf during the consent order period. Gulf, 16 DOE at 88,736. We stated that, in the absence of a demonstration of a disproportionate overcharge, an applicant would be allocated a share of the consent order funds on a volumetric basis. We provided that eligible applicants would receive $.00064 per gallon of covered Gulf product purchased.(1)Gulf at 88,739. We established that a refiner, reseller, or retailer applicant generally would be required to demonstrate that it was injured as a result of its Gulf purchases; that is, that it did not pass through to its customers Gulf's alleged overcharges. However, we established a presumption that firms claiming refunds with a principal value of $5,000 or less would not be required to demonstrate that they absorbed the alleged overcharges. Gulf at 88,740. We also established that end-users or ultimate consumers whose businesses are unrelated to the petroleum industry were injured by the alleged refined product overcharges. Id. Thus, end-user applicants need only document their purchase volumes of Gulf products to make a sufficient showing that they were injured by the alleged overcharges. Id.
We have carefully reviewed the information submitted by Laughter, and we have determined that the information required of applicants by the Gulf Decision has been submitted in this case. Id. at 88,741-42. Laughter previously submitted an application for Interstate Gulf, under Case No. RF300-21691. On January 13, 1998, we dismissed the application when Laughter failed to respond to our request to provide documentation that would show he owned Interstate Gulf during the consent order period. On February 9, 1998, Laughter filed this Motion, requesting that we reconsider his claim for a refund. In support of his refund claim, Laughter submitted with his Motion a copy of a signature card from South Carolina National Bank. The card, dated March 13, 1980, shows Laughter as an authorized signer for Interstate Gulf. In addition, a Gulf volume sheet shows that Interstate Gulf purchased Gulf product during the consent order period. These documents indicate that Laughter was a customer of Gulf during the consent order period and is therefore entitled to a refund based on the total number of gallons he purchased from Gulf.
A Gulf volume sheet for Interstate Gulf covers the entire consent order period. Laughter, however, operated the service station for only twelve months of the consent order period. For his gallonage claim, Laughter submitted an estimate based on his recollection of Gulf purchase levels during the consent order period. In relation to the total volume for Interstate Gulf listed on the Gulf sheet, Laughters estimate is proportionate to the amount of time that he operated the service station. We therefore find that his estimate is reasonable.
Laughter previously applied for, and received, a refund in this proceeding for Landrum Gulf, another service station that he operated. Gulf Oil Corporation/ Vics Gulf Service, et al., Case Nos. RF300-21603, et al. (January 6, 1995) (Vics). In Vics, Laughter received an allocable share (i.e., principal refund amount) of $834, based on an approved volume of 1,303,655 gallons. In the present case, Laughter is eligible to receive an allocable share of $512, based on an approved volume of 800,000 gallons. Thus, Laughters allocable share for both applications is $1,346, less than the $5,000 limit for the presumption of injury. Consequently, he will not be required to provide a separate, detailed demonstration that he absorbed the alleged overcharges. Laughter has not demonstrated that he suffered a disproportionate overcharge as a result of Gulf's alleged overcharges. Accordingly, his allocable share of the Gulf fund will be based on the volumetric approach described above.
Thus, Laughter will receive a refund amount equal to his allocable share, as well as interest accrued on the principal since the consent order funds were placed in escrow.(2) The total volume approved in this Decision and Order is 800,000 gallons of refined petroleum products, and the refund granted is $1,000.(3)
It Is Therefore Ordered That:
(1) The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Bobby Laughter for Interstate Gulf (Case No. RR300-00294) is hereby granted as set forth in Paragraph (2) below.
(2) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll, Office of Departmental Accounting and Financial Systems Development, Office of the Controller of the Department of Energy shall take appropriate action to disburse a total of $1,000 from the DOE deposit fund escrow account maintained at the Department of the Treasury and funded by Gulf Oil Corporation, Consent Order No. RGFA00001Z, to:
Bobby Laughter
205 Kirby Street
Landrum, SC 29356
(3) The determinations made in this Decision and Order are based on the presumed validity of statements and documentary material submitted by the Applicant. Any of these determinations may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying any Application for Refund is incorrect.
(4) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.
George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: May 29, 1998
(1)1/ This amount was derived by dividing the fund received from Gulf allocable to refined products ($42,499,566) by the estimated volume of refined products sold by Gulf from August 1973 through the date of decontrol of the relevant product (66,387,563,569 gallons).
(2)2/ Interest has been computed on the basis of 7 percent compounded yearly since June 20, 1985, the date that Gulf remitted the consent order funds to the DOE. Each Applicant's refund amount will be calculated by multiplying its approved gallonage by the total volumetric to date, which is $.00125 (principal volumetric of $.00064 + interest volumetric to date of $.00061 = $.00125).
(3)We denied an unrelated Application for Refund for Interstate Gulf submitted by Harold Burrell (Case No. RF300-14882). Burrell failed to show that he was the proper recipient of the refund for purchases made by Interstate Gulf. Gulf Oil Corporation/ Burrells Fuel Co., et al., Case Nos. RF300- 14881, et al., (March 15, 1993); Motion for Reconsideration denied in Gulf Oil Corporation/ Interstate Gulf, Case No. RR300-00247 (December 12, 1997).