Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Act section 102(14); and "to create an awareness of and respllnsibility <br />for the fuel and energy needs of rural and urban residents" section <br />102(16) are more than just parts of a statement of congressional <br />purposes. The commenter claims they constitute mandates which Western <br />must follow. The argument is made that these portions of section 102 <br />of the DOE Act mandates additional preference criteria to be followed <br />in determining who may receive an allocation of CRSP power. <br /> <br />This comment is inconsistent with the plain language of section 102, <br />as we1~ as other sections of the DOE Act and its legislative history. <br /> <br />As the District Court of the District of Columbia stated in Ad Hoc <br />Committee for Integrity v. Hodel, 594 F. Supp. 569 (D.D.C. 1984), the <br />legislative history of the DOE Act indicates that Congress intended <br />. the purposes listed in section 102 to be significant concerns of the <br />Department of Energy assigned to a high level official for over- <br />sight. But Congress did not "mandate any particular organizational <br />method'for doing so. To the contrary; the legislative history <br />indicates a congressional desire to give the Department flexibility in <br />carrying out its required functions....Under the law, the Department <br />has flexibility, and it accordingly is not for this Court to overrule <br />the Secretary's decision as to how the functions assigned to him <br />should be carried out." Id. at 573-574. Thus, section 102 consists <br />not of'mandates to Western, or of amendments to the Federal preference <br />law, but of suggestions to the Secretary of Energy of general areas of <br /> <br />13 <br />