620 S.W.3d 692
Tex.2021Background
- Data Foundry, an ISP operating data centers inside Austin, purchased retail electricity from Austin Energy, the City-owned utility.
- Austin City Council adopted rate ordinances after administrative hearings in which Data Foundry participated and argued rates unlawfully recouped generation losses and were discriminatory/confiscatory.
- Data Foundry sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging rates were unreasonable, excessive, discriminatory, a taking, and an illegal tax.
- The City moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a for lack of standing and for having no legal basis; the trial court dismissed solely for lack of standing.
- The court of appeals held Data Foundry had standing but affirmed dismissal in part on grounds of the City’s alleged exclusive jurisdiction under PURA and on discrimination claims; both parties sought review.
- The Texas Supreme Court held Data Foundry has standing, reversed parts of the court of appeals decision, declined to decide PURA preemption/exclusive-jurisdiction issues (remanding those issues for development), and remanded the case to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (particularized injury) | Data Foundry: forced to pay allegedly unlawful rates — a concrete, personal financial injury | City: mere status as a ratepayer insufficient; no particularized injury | Court: Plaintiff satisfied Lujan/Spokeo — paying an allegedly unlawful charge is a particularized injury; standing exists |
| Whether courts may adjudicate claims implicating unbundling/generation cost recovery (exclusive jurisdiction under PURA) | Data Foundry: court review permitted; it exhausted administrative remedies by participating in City hearings | City: PURA/Chapter 40 gives municipalities exclusive control over unbundling; courts lack jurisdiction to force unbundling | Court: Declined to decide on this record; remanded for trial-court fact development and proper jurisdictional analysis |
| Discrimination claims (sufficiency and judicial review) | Data Foundry: rates are discriminatory and actionable | City: discrimination claims lack legal basis; not a "true" discrimination complaint | Court: Court of appeals erred to affirm dismissal on that ground because trial court dismissed only for standing; discrimination claims remanded for consideration |
| PURA preemption and availability of judicial remedies | Data Foundry: common-law judicial remedies survive absent clear statutory repugnance | City: PURA preempts common-law challenges by city residents; no judicial remedy intended | Court: Declined to rule (issue not properly raised below); no opinion on preemption — City may raise on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (federal standing test adopted)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be particularized to plaintiff)
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (Texas adopts Lujan standing framework)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2008) (standing requires a non‑slight injury meriting redress)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of San Antonio, 550 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1976) (courts may review municipal utility rates for unreasonableness)
- South Texas Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2007) (limits standing for third‑party contract beneficiaries)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. El Rucio Land & Cattle Co., 518 S.W.3d 422 (Tex. 2017) (abatement/abrogation of common‑law claims by statute requires clear repugnance)
- Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (constitutional limits — separation of powers and open‑courts — on subject‑matter jurisdiction)