Opinion ID: 466079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reasoned discretion

Text: 15 FERC therefore had the discretionary authority to grant Northern's application for retroactive relief; we next consider whether it abused that discretion in this case. One element of the duty laid on agencies to engage in reasoned decisionmaking is the requirement that the agency express its reasons with clarity sufficient to permit a reviewing court to assure itself that the action is not arbitrary. The court will uphold the agency's explanation though of less than ideal clarity, if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned, though of course the court must not be left to guess as to the agency's findings or reasons. See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.Cir.1970) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2233, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971). Because we find the agency's orders in this case to be incoherent, we remand the matter to the Commission to address the concerns expressed in this opinion. 16 FERC's Order on Rehearing, in declining to authorize the abandonment retroactively, offered as explanation only the fact that the parties shared the blame for the delay: The untimely filings for appropriate Commission authorization appear to have resulted in good part from the failure of the parties to resolve their differences expeditiously. Order on Rehearing at 61, 489. We fail to understand, however, how this observation led the Commission to its decision entirely to deny retroactive relief. 17 Our incomprehension stems from several roots. In the first place, the parties detrimentally affected by retroactive authorization--Panhandle and Trunkline, who would be retroactively deprived of Northern's demand charges--joined Northern in petitioning the Commission for such action. Yet FERC chose to deny the petition despite joinder of all interested parties in the retroactivity request. 18 Second, it appears from this record that Northern was not principally at fault for the delay, and even the Commission's Order on Rehearing acknowledges that Northern was not solely at fault. 3 Panhandle's decisions to require formal contract amendments, to include an unrelated unit charge increase in those amendments, to refuse to accept Northern's General Manager's signature on the amendments, and to wait several months to file a Section 7(b) petition after FERC rejected its tariff filing, appear to indicate irresponsible conduct, conceivably even a self-serving design to delay. Under these circumstances, we fail to see the public interest advanced by leaving all the costs for the delay with Northern. 19 Finally, we find FERC's failure to address these concerns even more incomprehensible in light of the fact that the Commission has granted retroactive relief in the past, see supra at 341-342, 4 and of the significant sum involved in this case. FERC's denial of retroactive relief will apparently require Northern to pay Panhandle approximately 1.3 million dollars for gas transportation that Northern did not want and had no contractual right to use. Under these circumstances, we are unable to understand the Commission's reasons for not exercising an authority that it has used under other circumstances which, so far as we can tell, seem less to invite equitable intervention. 5