Entergy Texas, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers
03-14-00709-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 13, 2015Background
- ETI sought to recover costs to implement and administer the CGS tariff under PURA § 39.452(b) in a PUC proceeding.
- The Commission framed unrecovered costs as those incurred to implement and administer CGS, excluding lost revenues and embedded generation costs.
- ETI argued for broader recovery including embedded production costs, while the Commission rejected this as inconsistent with PURA and ratemaking principles.
- ETI waived arguments that non-eligible customers should bear unrecovered costs, and the record showed stipulations assigning unrecovered costs to CGS customers.
- The court reaffirmed deference to the agency’s statutory interpretation and harmony with PURA as a whole.
- The CGS statute prohibits discount rates and calls for recovery of unrecovered costs consistent with cost-causation and traditional rate design.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ETI waive its argument about non-eligible customers bearing unrecovered costs? | ETI contends non-eligible bears should pay. | ETI waived by opposing CGS recovery plan and stipulations. | Yes; ETI waived / is barred from this argument. |
| Is PURA § 39.452(b) reasonably interpreted to recover costs to implement CGS and exclude lost revenues/embedded costs? | ETI argues broader recovery including embedded costs. | Commission's interpretation aligns with PURA and ratemaking principles. | Yes; Commission interpretation is reasonable and harmony with PURA. |
| Does the CGS statute’s reference to ‘unrecovered costs’ authorize embedded production costs or lost revenues? | ETI asserts embedded costs are unrecovered costs to be recovered. | Lost revenues/embedded costs are not costs recoverable under §39.452(b). | No; lost revenues and embedded costs are not recoverable under §39.452(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 253 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. 2007) (statutory construction; deference to agency interpretations within PURA)
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 354 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011) (appear to discuss lost revenues in PURA context; harmonization with act)
- Jessen Assocs. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1976) (statutory construction; harmonizing provisions within act)
- Acker v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1990) (textual interpretation and statutory construction principles)
- Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005) (regulatory decision review; deference to agency constructions)
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 354 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011) (treats PURA costs vs. lost revenues; statutory interpretation guidance)