July 8, 2003

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Application for Refund

Name of Firm: Climax Molybdenum Company

Dates of Filing: January 11, 1988

June 24, 2003

Case Numbers: RF272-41457

RD272-41457

This Decision and Order considers an Application for Refund filed by the Phelps Dodge Corporation (Applicant) on behalf of Climax Molybdenum Company (Climax) in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding. Climax purchased refined petroleum products during the period August 19, 1973 through January 27, 1981 (refund period) and requests a refund from crude oil monies available for disbursement by the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy pursuant to the Statement of Modified Restitutionary Policy In Crude Oil Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4, 1986). The Applicant relies on the presumption of injury for end-users as the basis for its refund claim. Under this presumption, OHA will presume applicants were injured at the refund level of $0.0016 per gallon of product purchased if they were end-users of petroleum products and were not covered by the DOE or its predecessors’ price controls. City of Columbus, Georgia, 16 DOE ¶ 85,550 (1987).

We have reviewed the information submitted by the Applicant and determined that it was an end- user of eligible petroleum products and interested parties have not rebutted the presumption of injury. (1) The Applicant derived its purchase volume claim by consulting actual records or by using reasonable estimation techniques. After considering the Application, we have concluded that a refund is warranted for the purchase volume and in the amount set forth in the Decision. The total volume for the refund approved in this Decision is 49,556,932 gallons and the refund granted is $79,291. (2)

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Application for Refund filed by Climax Molybdenum Coal Company, Case No. RF272- 41457, is hereby approved 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 the refund amount set forth in this Decision and Order from the DOE deposit fund escrow account maintained at the Department of the Treasury denominated Crude Tracking- Claimants IV, Account No. 999DOE010Z, to the applicant. A refund check for $79,291 shall be made payable to “Phelps Dodge Corporation” and be sent to the applicant at the following address:

Phelps Dodge Corporation

One North Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

(3) To facilitate the payment of a future refund, if the DOE should determine an additional payment is warranted, the applicant shall notify the Office of Hearings and Appeals in the event that there is a change in its address, or if an address correction is necessary. Such notification shall be sent to:

Office of Hearings and Appeals

HG-1/L’Enfant Plaza Building

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585-1615

(4) The determinations made in this Decision and Order are based upon the presumed validity of the statements and documentary material submitted by the applicant. This Decision and Order may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination that the basis underlying the refund applications is incorrect.

(5) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: July 8, 3003

(1)Amax went through several mergers after the refund period. We have determined that Phelps Dodge Corporation is the proper successor in interest to Climax.

(2)A consortium of States have filed a Motion for Discovery, Case No. RD272-41457, concerning the Applicant’s Application for Refund. The States' Motion consists of interrogatories similar to the requests the States have made in other Subpart V crude oil refund cases. See, e.g., Gulf States Asphalt Co., 18 DOE ¶ 85,154 at 88,249-51 (1988); Copper Range Co., 18 DOE ¶ 85,431 at 88,692-93 (1988). As discussed in our past Decisions, such general requests for information are not appropriate in a case where the States have presented no relevant evidence to rebut the presumption of injury. Cf. Christian Haaland A/S, 17 DOE ¶ 85,439 (1988). For the reasons discussed in those cases, we will deny the States' Motion for Discovery.