Opinion ID: 1407279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Va.Code, 11-13-2n

Text: As stated above, the defendants' interpretation of W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n defines the words kilowatt hour of net generation available for sale to include company use and line loss, 110 W.Va.C.S.R. 13 § 1a.2.11. The plaintiffs argue that company use and line loss should be excluded from the net generation available for sale because such expenses are not amounts that are actually available for sale. Our ultimate task is to determine whether the disputed statutory language is ambiguous and, if so, whether the defendants' interpretation is a reasonable and permissible construction of the statute. Interpreting a statute or a regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review. [5] See State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 777, 461 S.E.2d 516, 523 (1995); Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., 192 W.Va. 345, 350, 452 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1994). Nevertheless, the availability of plenary judicial review does not obviate the devoir of persuasion in a ... [taxation] case in which a plaintiff challenges the validity of the regulatory mosaic. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Dept. of Public Welfare v. Secretary of Agric., 984 F.2d 514, 521 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 81, 126 L.Ed.2d 49 (1993). An inquiring courteven a court empowered to conduct de novo reviewmust examine a regulatory interpretation of a statute by standards that include appropriate deference to agency expertise and discretion. Judicial review of an agency's construction of a statute that it administers involves two separate but interrelated questions, only the second of which furnishes an occasion for deference. We discussed this rule of statutory construction in our recent case of Sniffin v. Cline, 193 W.Va. 370, 373-74, 456 S.E.2d 451, 454-55 (1995): In deciding whether the DMV's position should be sustained, we apply the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). We first ask whether the Legislature has `directly spoken to the precise [legal] question at issue.' Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. at 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d at 702-03. `If the intention of the Legislature is clear, that is the end of the matter.' Id. If it is not, we may not simply impose our own construction of the statute. `Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the [DMV's] answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.' Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703. See Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 696-98, 111 S.Ct. 2524, 2534, 115 L.Ed.2d 604, 623-25 (1991). In the present case, it is clear that the Legislature has not spoken to the precise question at issue. Therefore, we review the DMV's decision to determine whether its construction is one the Legislature would have sanctioned. See United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 383, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 1560-61, 6 L.Ed.2d 908, 915 (1961). Once again, Chevron and its progeny provide the analytical framework for our decision. [6] We must first determine how the Chevron analysis is affected by legislative rules in West Virginia and our recent decision in Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993), that precludes us from giving controlling weight to omnibus bill legislation without first giving it careful scrutiny. Under West Virginia law, there are three types of ruleslegislative, interpretive, and procedural. We are not concerned with procedural rules in this case. Legislative rules are those affecting private rights, privileges or interests, in what amounts to a legislative act. W.Va.Code, 29A-1-2(i) (1982). Legislative rules have the force of law[.] W.Va.Code, 29A-1-2(d) (1982). See also Chico Dairy Co. v. West Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 181 W.Va. 238, 382 S.E.2d 75 (1989) (to be valid, the promulgation of legislative rules must be authorized by the West Virginia Legislature). Interpretive rules, on the other hand, do not create rights but merely clarify an existing statute or regulation. See W.Va.Code, 29A-1-2(c) (1982). Because they only clarify existing law, interpretive rules need not go through the legislative authorization process. See W.Va.Code, 29A-3-1, et seq.; Chico Dairy Co. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n, supra. Although they are entitled to some deference from the courts, [7] interpretive rules do not have the force of law nor are they irrevocably binding on the agency or the court. [8] They are entitled on judicial review only to the weight that their inherent persuasiveness commands. We believe that Gilbert furnishes the appropriate analysis for reviewing interpretive rules: `We consider that the rulings, interpretations and opinions of the Administrator under this Act, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.' 429 U.S. at 141-42, 97 S.Ct. at 411, 50 L.Ed.2d at 357-58, quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. at 164, 89 L.Ed. at 129. Most of our cases fail to make a distinction between legislative and interpretive rules for purposes of rule construction. [9] This failure justifiably follows from the fact that legislative rules in West Virginia are authorized by acts of the Legislature and we have treated them, as they should be, as statutory enactments. What distinguishes interpretive rules from legislative rules is the legal base upon which the rules rest. What complicates our path today is the Legislature's practice of approving legislative rules as part of omnibus legislation. To divine the nature and the validity of the rule in this case, it is helpful to understand the nature of omnibus legislation generally and the problems created by this manner of legislating. We, therefore, find it necessary to address the applicability of Chevron to both legislative rules in West Virginia and more pertinent to omnibus legislation. The plaintiffs attack the constitutionality of 110 W.Va.C.S.R. 13, § 1a.2.11, asserting the Legislature violated the one-object rule and generally exercised its authority in an unconstitutional manner by adopting the regulation in question through an omnibus bill. Section 30 of Article VI of the West Virginia Constitution states that legislation may embrace only one subject, which must be expressed in its title. As discussed in Kincaid, the purpose of these requirements is (1) to prevent from combining into one bill several diverse measures which have no common basis and which are combined together out of fear that separately each could not receive a favorable vote on its merits; (2) to prevent the unintentional and unknowing passage of provisions inserted in a bill for which the title gives no information; and (3) to fairly apprise the public of matters which are contained in the various bills and to prevent fraud and deception as to matters passed by the Legislature. Although not pertinent here, a fourth justification might be to prevent the dilution of a governor's veto power that would result if the legislation is saddled with irrelevant riders opposed by a governor. See generally, Millard H. Ruud, No Law Shall Embrace More than One Subject, 42 Minn.L.Rev. 389 (1958). The plaintiffs concede that Kincaid clearly establishes two propositions: (1) That the practice of enacting legislative rules in an omnibus bill is prospectively invalid; and (2) That rules previously enacted in that manner must be given special scrutiny. In Syllabus Point 1 of Kincaid v. Mangum, supra , this Court discussed the importance of the Legislature exercising its authority in an appropriate manner: `While the Legislature has the power to void or to amend administrative rules and regulations, when it exercises that power it must act as a legislature, within the confines of the enactment procedures mandated by our constitution. It cannot invest itself with the power to act as an administrative agency in order to avoid those requirements.' Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Barker v. Manchin, 167 W.Va. 155, 279 S.E.2d 622 (1981). We found that legislating by an omnibus bill violates the one-object rule; however, we also found that because of the severe burden it would place on the Legislature and State agencies, the Kincaid holding would apply only prospectively. [10] The omnibus bill in question is a prime example of the potential evils that could lead to logrolling or other deceiving tactics[.] Syl. pt. 2, in part, Kincaid v. Mangum, supra . The omnibus bill in the case sub judice was passed in 1990. Kincaid was not decided until 1993. Because of our determination that Kincaid should have prospective application only, we refuse to declare the rule in this case unconstitutional. On the other hand, Kincaid requires that we give the rule careful scrutiny. In doing so, we underscore the importance of the legislative process that led to its approval by the West Virginia Legislature. Chico Dairy Co. v. West Virginia Human Rights Comm'n, supra. This process required the proposed rule go through two distinct review stages. First, the proposed regulation was reviewed by a legislative rulemaking committee. [11] Second, the committee's final responsibility was to make a recommendation to the full Legislature either to authorize the agency to promulgate the proposed rule or to take other curative action. Significantly, under W.Va.Code, 29A-3-11(d), the committee was required to include language in the bill authorizing the legislative rule in the form of a legislative finding that the rule is within the legislative intent of the statute which the rule is intended to implement, extend, apply or interpret[.] Once a disputed regulation is legislatively approved, it has the force of a statute itself. Under ordinary circumstances, an omnibus bill should be independently evaluated under the first stage of the Chevron analysis. Being an act of the West Virginia Legislative, it is entitled to more than mere deference; it is entitled to controlling weight. As authorized by legislation, a legislative rule should be ignored only if the agency has exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority or it is arbitrary or capricious. See West Virginia Code, 29A-4-2 (1982). Under this scenario, unless we are persuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments attacking the rule's constitutionality, or for other reasons stated above, the plaintiffs must lose under the clear legislative intent doctrine. We, however, have decided to give the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and evaluate the omnibus bill and the legislative rule under the second stage of Chevron consistent with our mandate in Kincaid requiring that omnibus bills be given careful scrutiny. [12] As will be discussed more fully below, we have examined the legislative history leading up to the pertinent section of the omnibus bill and we find it was given specific, careful, and appropriate legislative consideration. Additionally, there are two presumptions that cannot be ignored. First, the Legislature is presumed to have known and understood the laws they had earlier enacted. State ex rel. Smith v. Maynard, 193 W.Va. 1, 8-9, 454 S.E.2d 46, 53-54 (1994). Second, `courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.' Martin v. Randolph County Board of Education, 195 W.Va. 297, 312, 465 S.E.2d 399, 414 (1995), quoting Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391, 397 (1992). To recapitulate, in reviewing a rule or regulation of an administrative agency, a reviewing court must first decide whether the rule is interpretive or legislative. If it is interpretive, a reviewing court is to give it only the deference it commands after considering the factors discussed in Skidmore. If it is a legislative rule, the court first must determine the rule's validity under Chico and Kincaid. Assuming validity, the appropriate level of consideration due it depends on its clarity as a legislative rule. If the legislative rule is valid, clear as to its intent and not contrary to the legislative enactment that triggered its promulgation, the need for further review does not arise. It becomes the court's duty to apply the rule as written. This in essence is the first step of Chevron. If the rule is valid under Chico, meaning it has gone through the legislative review committee process and has been authorized into law by the Legislature, but was approved as part of omnibus legislation that we condemned in Kincaid necessitating careful scrutiny, we proceed to step two of the Chevron analysis. [13] In step two, we are limited to reviewing whether the agency's construction is permissible. In performing the first part of the Chevron analysis, no deference is due the agency. Instead, a court must look primarily to the plain meaning of the statute, drawing its essence from the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 1818, 100 L.Ed.2d 313, 324 (1988). Accord In re Snuffer, 193 W.Va. 412, 416, 456 S.E.2d 493, 497 (1995). Beyond this point, it remains unclear whether or to what extent a court engaged in the first stage of a Chevron inquiry may use other tools of statutory construction, such as legislative history and post-enactment statements of the legislators and their staffs, in searching for the Legislature's unambiguously expressed intent on a particular issue. [14] Legislative history and other tools of statutory construction are subject to many and varied criticisms, and the uncertainty about their value in general parallels the uncertainty about their value in relation to the Chevron doctrine. Respectable authority indicates it is appropriate to employ all the traditional tools of statutory construction in the first part of the Chevron analysis when the statutory language itself is not dispositive. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432-43, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1213-19, 94 L.Ed.2d 434, 448-55 (1987) (examining legislative history to confirm the validity of an interpretation suggested by the statute's language) (dictum). But there is also respectable support for the proposition that the Chevron analysis, at least in its initial phase, does not look beyond the statutory text. See, e.g., National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Me. Corp., 503 U.S. 407, 417, 112 S.Ct. 1394, 1401, 118 L.Ed.2d 52, 66 (1992) (deference is due so long as the agency interpretation is not in conflict with the plain language of the statute); K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. at 292, 108 S.Ct. at 1818, 100 L.Ed.2d at 324 ([i]f the agency regulation is not in conflict with the plain language of the statute, a reviewing court must give deference to the agency's interpretation of the statute); NLRB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 484 U.S. 112, 133-34, 108 S.Ct. 413, 426-27, 98 L.Ed.2d 429, 448-49 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring) (criticizing dictum in Cardoza-Fonseca ); State by Davis v. Hix, 141 W.Va. 385, 389, 90 S.E.2d 357, 359-60 (1955) ([w]here the language of ... [a] statute is of doubtful meaning or ambiguous, rules of construction may be resorted to and the construction of such statute by the person charged with the duty of executing the same is accorded great weight). We think the difference between these two views may, as a practical matter, be more apparent than real. In any event, we do not believe the outcome in this case would be different even if we were to consider legislative history and use other tools of statutory construction at the initial stage of the Chevron analysis. Thus, we need not precisely define the function, if any, of legislative history under Chevron at this time. Rather, we assume arguendo, but do not decide, that an inquiring court may look in that direction during the initial stage of a Chevron inquiry. [15] Thus, in determining whether the Legislature has directly spoken to the issues, we will consider not only the plain language of the statute but any pertinent preenactment legislative history. [16] On this assumption, the question whether the Legislature has spoken on a particular question involves two smaller steps. We look first to the statute's language. If the text, given its plain meaning, answers the interpretive question, the language must prevail and further inquiry is foreclosed. As we noted in Syllabus Point 2, in part, of Chico Dairy Company v. Human Rights Commission, supra: `Rules and Regulations of ... [an agency] must faithfully reflect the intention of the legislature; when there is clear and unambiguous language in a statute, that language must be given the same clear and unambiguous force and effect in the ... [agency's] Rules and Regulations that it has in the statute.' Syl. pt. 4, Ranger Fuel Corp. v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 180 W.Va. 260, 376 S.E.2d 154 (1988). If no such readily apparent meaning springs from the statute's text, we next examine, albeit skeptically, other extrinsic sources, such as the legislative history, in search of an unmistakable expression of legislative intent. When a statute's language is ambiguous, a court often must venture into extratextual territory in order to distill an appropriate construction. Absent explicatory legislative history for an ambiguous statute ..., this Court is obligated to consider the ... overarching design of the statute. State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. at 777, 461 S.E.2d at 523. And if, at that stage, the statute itself, viewed in connection with the statutory design and the legislative history, reveals an unequivocal answer to the interpretive question, the Court's inquiry ends. It is only when these efforts do not permit a court to discern an unmistakably clear expression of legislative intent that the Chevron inquiry moves into its second stage. Until then, deference is not a considerationbut from that point forward, deference looms large. [17] Under this second stage, a court must examine the agency's interpretation to see how it relates to the statute. This examination involves a high degree of respect for the agency's role. As we noted in Syllabus Point 7, in part, of Lincoln County Board of Education v. Adkins, 188 W.Va. 430, 424 S.E.2d 775 (1992): `Interpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous.' (Citations omitted). See also Syl. pt. 2, West Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W.Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681 (1993); Boley v. Miller, 187 W.Va. 242, 418 S.E.2d 352 (1992); Blennerhassett Historical Park v. Public Serv. Comm'n of W. Va., 179 W.Va. 250, 366 S.E.2d 758 (1988). Thus, in this case, the Tax Commissioner need not write a rule that serves the statute in the best or most logical manner; he need only write a rule that flows rationally from the statute. Our power to review the Tax Commissioner's decisions on policy grounds is extremely limited. We are not at liberty to affirm or overturn the Commissioner's regulation or decision merely on the basis of our agreement or disagreement with his policy implications, even when important issues of taxation are at stake. This Court has stressed the importance of liberally permitting administrative agencies to carry out legislative dictates; we have recognized that aggressive judicial intervention would disrupt agency processes and negate the legislative body's legitimate delegation of authority. See Frymier-Halloran v. Paige, 193 W.Va. 687, 694, 458 S.E.2d 780, 787 (1995) ([d]espite the absence of specific [constitutional] treatment, we have developed doctrines that attempt to define the constitutional role for administrative agencies and to protect them from legislative and judicial overreaching). We are keenly aware of the invaluable role various agencies play in making government operate efficiently. Thus, we are loathe to engage in the arduous task of rewriting legislation, regulations, and agency structure simply on the whims of a few who have expressed dissatisfaction with an agency's action. We will not set aside a formally adopted legislative rule without clearcut evidence of an inconsistency between the rule and the authorizing statute. On the other hand, courts do play an important role in the implementation of legislation by acting as a safeguard against bureaucratic excesses. At least under Chevron, there is a legitimate role for judicial review of legislative rules. [18] Courts are commanded by Chevron to give deference to certain legal conclusions of an agency. But deference cannot be allowed to slip into a judicial inertia which results in the unauthorized assumption by an agency of major policy decisions properly made by the Legislature. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 464 U.S. 89, 97, 104 S.Ct. 439, 444, 78 L.Ed.2d 195, 202 (1983) (Citation omitted). Judicial review must not become judicial abdication, and we must carefully consider each case to determine whether deference is warranted and, if so, how much to accord. Joseph F. Weis, Jr., A Judicial Perspective On Deference to Administrative Agencies: Some Grenades From the Trenches, 2 Admin.L.J. 301, 307 (1988). [19] When a legislative rule is constitutionally acceptable, only an unambiguous conflicting statute, contradictory legislative history, a defect in the rulemaking process, evidence of bias or abuse of power, or some other startling revelation of fact would overcome the clearly erroneous burden and justify this Court's interference with an agency's legitimate rulemaking authority. See Frymier-Halloran v. Paige, 193 W.Va. 687, 694, 458 S.E.2d 780, 787 (1995) ([i]t [is] evident that courts will not override administrative agency decisions, of whatever kind, unless the decisions contradict some explicit constitutional provision or right, are the results of a flawed process, or are either fundamentally unfair or arbitrary). See also Detch v. Board of Educ. of County of Greenbrier, 145 W.Va. 722, 729, 117 S.E.2d 138, 142 (1960), quoting 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 104 (`[i]t is only where an administrative rule or regulation is completely without a rational basis, or where it is wholly, clearly, or palpably arbitrary, that the court will say that it is invalid'). MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 675 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C.Cir.1982) (the critical concern of the reviewing court is that the agency provide a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion). Of course, if the intent of the Legislature is clear, that intent will trump any agency's rule to the contrary. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Chevron, where the Legislature has spoken directly to a question,  the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to ... th[at] unambiguously expressed intent[.] 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. at 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703. (Emphasis added). Thus, a regulation both must implement the statutory purpose and must have a rational basis supporting its adoption. The Legislature may specifically provide the exact issues to be considered when promulgating a rule. However, [i]n the absence of ... [legislative] direction as to what elements are to be considered in promulgating... [a] rule, the presumption is that ... [the Legislature] is entrusting the decision as to what to consider to the hands of the agency in deference to agency expertise. Kennedy v. Block, 606 F.Supp. 1397, 1403 (W.D.Va.1985), vacated on other grounds 784 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir.1986). We believe that if the Legislature explicitly leaves a gap in legislation, then an agency has authority to fill the gap and the agency is entitled to deference on the question. Thus, an agency's interpretation will stand unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. at 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703. The policy favoring deference is particularly important where, as here, a technically complex statutory scheme is backed by an even more complex and comprehensive set of regulations. Under such circumstances, the argument for deference is at its strongest. In this case, considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the legislative intent favoring the regulation to be clear and the contested regulation comports with the language of W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n. [20] We find the contested words kilowatt hours of net generation available for sale are ambiguous. The failure of the Legislature to define these words or to enumerate any factors that the Tax Commissioner must consider in deciding such circumstances or characteristics evidences an intent to delegate that determination to the Tax Commissioner. Because this ambiguity cannot be resolved either by preenactment legislative history or by a review of the overarching design of the original statute, the statute is subject to reasonable construction by the administrative agency charged with the duty to carry out these statutory objectivesthe defendants (the Tax Department and the Tax Commissioner). At this juncture, we move to the second stage of the Chevron inquiry. We must examine the defendants' interpretation to see how it relates to the statute and to determine whether the defendants' interpretation of W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n, is reasonable. [21] As emphasized above, this examination involves a high degree of respect for the Tax Department's and the Tax Commissioner's role. Without question, the Legislature intended the defendants, the Tax Department and the Tax Commissioner, to have the authority to interpret W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n. In fact, W.Va.Code, 11-1-1 (1967), and W.Va.Code, 11-1-2 (1933), describe the creation, structure, and duties of the Tax Department and its personnel. Specifically, W.Va.Code, 11-1-2, provides, in part, that it is the Tax Commissioner's duty to see that the laws concerning the assessment and collection of all taxes and levies, whether of the State or of any county, district or municipal corporation thereof, are faithfully enforced. Obviously, W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n, fits within the Tax Department's area of expertise. The parties vigorously debate the appropriate definition of net generation available for sale. The words net generation suggest that the Legislature intended for something to be deducted in order to determine the net of all the electricity generated. [22] Basically, these words when viewed in isolation have little meaning. The plaintiffs assert the words available for sale mean that any electricity generated that is not specifically charged to a customer should be excluded from taxation. The defendants agree the words available for sale are indeed definitive, but assert they define the companies to be taxed, not the time the available electricity becomes subject to the tax. Specifically, the defendants assert that the use of the words available for sale is the Legislature's way of limiting the application of the electricity manufacturing tax to businesses which generate power for the purpose of selling such power to others. (Emphasis in original). Both constructions are consistent with the statute's language. It is here that the Chevron analysis strikes its most telling blow to the plaintiffs. Under Chevron, we may not impose our own construction of the statute. [23] Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the Court is whether the Tax Commissioner's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703. Given the competing policy concerns behind the statute and the industries affected, the language of the statute suggests the Legislature intended the Tax Commissioner to strike the appropriate balance of the goals of the statute in defining net generation available for sale. Although not aggressively pursued by the plaintiffs, they make reference to the contention that the defendants' interpretation of W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n, deserves no deference because the defendants allegedly changed their position from the initial proposed regulation that would have deduction for line loss and company use to the present regulation that prohibits such deductions. While we fail to find any administrative inconsistency in this case, we do acknowledge that consistency of the defendants' position is one of the relevant factors to be considered. [24] As noted by the Supreme Court, `[a]n agency interpretation of a relevant provision which conflicts with the agency's earlier interpretation is entitled to considerably less deference than a consistently held agency view.' Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 508 U.S. 402, 417, 113 S.Ct. 2151, 2161, 124 L.Ed.2d 368, 383 (1993). (Citations omitted). On the other hand, an agency is permitted to change its position, especially if an earlier interpretation is based on poor judgement or some mistake of law. See generally, Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, supra . To be specific, the Tax Commissioner is not irrevocably bound to his own precedents, so long as he gives a reasoned explanation for the departure. See, e.g., Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 949 F.2d 405, 408-09 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (emphasizing wide latitude afforded agencies to change their policy through rulemaking). The plaintiffs do not allege here that the Tax Commissioner's regulation was arbitrary and capricious on grounds that the purported departure from precedent was inadequately explained. It is apparent from the record that the defendants' radical regulation change did not occur simply based upon impulse. Hearings were held and those opposing the regulation change were permitted the opportunity to respond. Deference to the defendants' interpretation is especially appropriate where the rule was adopted only after all interest [ sic ] persons were given notice and opportunity to comment[.] Virginia Agricultural Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Donovan, 579 F.Supp. 768, 773 (W.D.Va. 1984), aff'd sub nom. Virginia Agric. Growers Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 756 F.2d 1025 (4th Cir.1985). See also Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 355-56, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1848-49, 104 L.Ed.2d 351, 373-74 (1989) (agency amendment to its earlier interpretation came after the prior regulation was subjected to considerable criticism and thus was entitled to substantial deference). We believe this flexibility is necessary to allow the Tax Commissioner to respond to rapidly changing [t]echnological, commercial, and societal aspects of the ... industry[,] as well as new information and ideas, as the Tax Commissioner fulfills his delegated duties. Rainbow Broadcasting, 949 F.2d at 409. As a matter of law and policy, this is a paradigm example of a complex economic and taxation inquiry that our Legislature has wisely left to resolution by the State's taxing authority pursuant to its statutory mandate. The evolution of this statute and regulation, in our judgment, along with other rules of statutory construction, rebuts the plaintiffs' claim that 110 W.Va.C.S.R. 13, § 1a.2.11 exceeded legislative authority. [25] As noted previously, there is a presumption that the legislature, when it enacts legislation, is familiar with its prior enactments. Cary v. Riss, 189 W.Va. 608, 614, 433 S.E.2d 546, 552 (1993). Indeed, realistically viewed, this extended evaluation of an admittedly complex problem ought to be perceived as a practice to be commended. It is strange irony that the care that preceded the final adoption and implementation of the disputed regulation is today labeled as indecisiveness and inconsistency, and that this supposed indecisiveness and inconsistency should be bootstrapped into reasons to deny the Tax Commissioner's interpretation its due deference. This we refuse to do. The disputed regulation represents a particularly conscientious and reasonable product of the Tax Commissioner's and the Legislature's deliberations, and, therefore, merits this Court's great deference. [26] Once the Legislature supports or at least acquiesces in an agency's interpretation of a statute, we are reluctant to interfere if no fundamental rights are abridged. [27] Although, we do not suggest that the defendants' interpretation is the one that we would have constructed, it is apparent the defendants' decision to interpret W.Va.Code, 11-13-2n, to exclude line loss and company use was a well reasoned and rational decision that comports with the language of the statute. When a court reaches the same reading of a statute as a practical construction given it by the enforcing agency, that is a powerful weight supporting such reading. Bankamerica Corp. v. United States, 462 U.S. 122, 132, 103 S.Ct. 2266, 2272, 76 L.Ed.2d 456, 464 (1983). If the defendants' interpretation is at least as plausible as [the] competing ones, there is little, if any, reason not to defer to ... [their] construction. Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 508 U.S. at 417, 113 S.Ct. at 2161, 124 L.Ed.2d at 383. Through this policy of deference, the Tax Commissioner, not the courts, retains control over which permissible reading of the statute he will adopt and enforce. Appropriately so because it is the Tax Commissioner, not the courts, who presumably has the technical expertise and political authority to carry out statutory mandates. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 864-66, 104 S.Ct. at 2792-93, 81 L.Ed.2d at 716-17. Justice Brennan, writing for the Supreme Court in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 568, 100 S.Ct. 790, 798, 63 L.Ed.2d 22, 23 (1980), wisely stated: [A] court that tries to chart a true course to the Act's purpose embarks upon a voyage without a compass when it disregards the agency's views. This, in brief, states an admonition that has guided the highest courts in this country for many years. Because the Tax Commissioner's interpretation is a reasonable one, we accept it. It is universally recognized that taxpayers have the burden to prove the Tax Commissioner's determination is not correct. [28] In this case, the taxpayers failed to meet that burden. Thus, we find the circuit court did not err when it found that 110 W.Va.C.S.R. 13, § 1a.2.11 is a valid regulation. B.