in Re Oncor Electric Delivery Company Llc
19-0662
| Tex. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- Oncor provided an overhead drop line crossing part of Stacey Taylor’s property; Taylor asked Oncor to trim trees or relocate the line.
- Taylor trimmed the trees himself, contacted a high‑voltage line, and alleged electrical‑shock injuries.
- Taylor sued Oncor for negligence, premises liability, and consumer‑protection claims; Oncor answered with a summary‑judgment defense under Health & Safety Code Ch. 752 and filed a plea to abate, arguing Taylor must first seek relief from the Public Utility Commission (PUC).
- The trial court denied Oncor’s jurisdictional plea; the court of appeals denied mandamus relief; Oncor petitioned the Texas Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held the PUC lacks exclusive jurisdiction over ordinary personal‑injury claims that do not allege problems with rates or the provision of electric service, and denied mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the PUC have exclusive jurisdiction to require administrative exhaustion for a common‑law personal‑injury suit against a utility that does not challenge rates or provision of service? | Taylor: No — common‑law torts belong in court unless the claim implicates rates or service. | Oncor: Yes — the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over utility rates, operations, and services, so related disputes must go to the PUC first. | The Court: No — PUC jurisdiction is limited to regulatory matters affecting rates/utility service; the trial court properly retained the case. |
| Does invoking a tariff or regulatory defense convert a tort claim into a regulatory matter for the PUC? | Taylor: No — a tariff defense does not create PUC jurisdiction. | Oncor: A tariff may limit liability and raises subsidiary regulatory questions for the PUC. | The Court: No — tariff‑based defenses do not transform ordinary torts into matters the PUC must adjudicate; courts interpret tariffs in litigation. |
| Does Health & Safety Code Ch. 752 (duty to notify/ de‑energize) require pursuit of PUC remedies or place the claim within the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction? | Taylor: Chapter 752 imposes duties applicable broadly and does not make the claim a PUC matter. | Oncor: Chapter 752 and related safety obligations implicate regulated utility activity and counsel administrative resolution. | The Court: Chapter 752 applies to many persons, is not tariff‑based, and does not confer exclusive PUC jurisdiction over personal‑injury claims. |
| Is plaintiff status as an “affected person” or utility customer alone enough to confer PUC jurisdiction? | Taylor: No — status alone is insufficient absent a regulatory claim affecting service or rates. | Oncor: Being an affected person/customer supports PUC jurisdiction over disputes involving the utility. | The Court: No — ‘‘affected person’’ is limited to those whose service or rates are affected; status without a regulatory claim does not confer exclusive jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Power & Light Co. v. City of Garland, 431 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. 1968) (describing state regulation of public utilities to protect consumers)
- Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Chaparral Energy, 546 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. 2018) (distinguishing claims that directly challenge utility service/timeliness and require administrative exhaustion)
- Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (courts may adjudicate tariff defenses; not every tariff issue must be sent to the PUC)
- Traxler v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2012) (utility representations and noncompliance with safety statutes can support a common‑law negligence claim)
- DeWitt County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999) (easement and tariff provisions may inform but do not automatically convert tort claims into PUC matters)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (statutory abrogation of common‑law rights is disfavored; clear legislative intent required to displace judicial remedies)