Opinion ID: 539170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: National's Deferred Tax Reserve

Text: 22 Our review of the Commission's disposition of National's deferred tax reserve is complicated by an intervening change in the law. Less than three weeks before oral argument--and well after the parties submitted their briefs--the court issued its decision in Public Utilities Commission v. FERC, 894 F.2d 1372 (D.C.Cir.1990) (PUC II), invalidating the Commission's El Paso Order. Although we upheld the Commission's determination that pipelines should retain their deferred tax reserve funds, we held that the NGPA divests the Commission of any authority to regulate the use of these funds. See id. at 1380-82. 23 PUC II appears to prevent us from upholding the Commission's treatment of National's deferred tax reserve. Even if we were to affirm the Commission's determination that the El Paso Order was an order implementing Mid-Louisiana for purposes of the reservation clause, the fact remains that PUC II appears to deprive the El Paso Order of the legal effect that is here sought by the Commission. In addition to having to consider this apparent intervening change in the law, National also urges us to reject the Commission's construction of the reservation clause on the merits. In light of these developments, the Commission now seeks a remand of the case so that it may determine the appropriate basis for affording National relief. 24 We grant the Commission's request for a remand. We afford broad deference to the Commission's construction of a settlement agreement because we recognize that settlement interpretation implicates both the Commission's superior  'knowledge of industry conditions and practices,'  National Fuel Gas Supply, 811 F.2d at 1570 (quoting Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. FPC, 530 F.2d 1056, 1059 (D.C.Cir.1976)), and the Commission's exercise of its congressionally delegated powers, see id. at 1569-70. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to venture an assessment of the Commission's reading of the reservation clause now that the legal background against which the Commission rendered its interpretation has been so dramatically--and, no doubt, unexpectedly--altered. Remand under these circumstances also comports with the general principle that an agency should be afforded the first word on how an intervening change in law affects an agency decision pending review. See, e.g., Panhandle E. Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 435, 438-39 (D.C.Cir.1989). 25 We recognize, however, the potential inconvenience of this disposition for National. It has already endured the normal course of appellate review and is entitled to a speedy resolution of its challenge. At oral argument, counsel for the Commission indicated that the Commission would have no objection to affording expedited consideration to National's challenge on remand. We therefore order the Commission to complete its reconsideration of the deferred tax reserve issue within thirty days.