Opinion ID: 553831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission's Refund Order.

Text: 19 Alternatively, Transco argues that the Commission erred in ordering Transco to refund the difference between the 4.8% fuel retention rate the Commission imposed and the 6.1% rate Transco had actually charged to its customers, for the period of April 1, 1984 to April 1, 1987. Transco argues that, even if the Settlement did reserve the fuel retention rate for later hearing and disposition, it did not also reserve the fuel retention rate for refund. 20 In its decision on rehearing, the Commission found that the refund issue was governed by the Commission's own order of October 28, 1983, suspending effectiveness of Transco's initial filing in this proceeding. In that order, the Commission made Transco's filing effective on April 1, 1984, subject to refund. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., Order Accepting for Filing and Suspending Revised Tariff Sheets, Subject to Refund and Conditions, Granting Waiver, Initiating Hearing, and Establishing Procedures, 25 F.E.R.C. p 61,144, at 61,384, 61,386 (Oct. 28, 1983) (emphasis added) (Suspension Order). 21 The Commission found nothing in the Settlement Agreement to contravene the authority of the Suspension Order. The Agreement itself provided only for refunds of payments made in excess of the Settlement Rate, to be made within thirty days of the Commission's approval of the Settlement. Settlement Agreement at 4. The Agreement later provided that, subject to the exceptions covered by Articles III and V above, Transco shall be entitled to retain all sales, transportation and storage revenues collected during the effectiveness of the rates in Docket No. RP83-137-000. Id. at 8. As Article III specifically reserved Schedules T-I and T-II, which the Commission found also to have reserved the fuel retention rate, the Commission found that the Settlement did not provide for Transco's retention of payments in excess of the 4.8% fuel retention rate. Thus, the Commission found that nothing in the Settlement Agreement preempted the effect of the Suspension Order. See Rehearing Order, 47 F.E.R.C. p 61,270, at 61,945. 22 As this Court previously has recognized, [i]t is well established that an agency's interpretation of the intended effect of its own orders is controlling unless clearly erroneous. CMC Real Estate Corp. v. ICC, 807 F.2d 1025, 1034 (D.C.Cir.1986). Indeed, our traditional duty to defer can only be enhanced in the present situation by the complexity and technical nature of the ratemaking process. See Kentucky Utilities Co. v. FERC, 789 F.2d 1210, 1217 (6th Cir.1986) (In the complex area of ratemaking, [FERC's] construction of its own opinions and orders is entitled to deference.); FERC v. Triton Oil & Gas Corp., 712 F.2d 1450, 1462 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Certainly, we are entitled to give deference to an agency's construction of its own opinions and orders--especially in the complex area of ratemaking.). Where there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement to contradict the Commission's assertion that its own order continues to control Transco's refund obligation, we are obliged to defer to the Commission's interpretation. 23