in Re Panda Power Infrastructure Fund, LLC, D/B/A Panda Power Funds, 619 S.W.3d 628

ERCOT is Texas's independent system operator and issues biannual Capacity, Demand, and Reserves (CDR) reports used by market participants to decide investments.
In 2011–12 ERCOT projected severe shortfalls; Panda relied on those forecasts and invested about $2.2 billion to build generation plants.
ERCOT subsequently revised its forecasts to predict surplus capacity; Panda sued ERCOT and certain officers for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.
ERCOT moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the Public Utility Commission (PUC) has exclusive jurisdiction and (2) sovereign immunity applies; the trial court denied ERCOT’s pleas.
The court of appeals held ERCOT was not a governmental unit (so interlocutory appeal improper) but granted mandamus on sovereign immunity and ordered dismissal; the trial court then entered a final judgment dismissing Panda’s claims to comply.
Because the interlocutory order merged into that final judgment and Panda appealed the final judgment separately, the Texas Supreme Court held the petitions moot and dismissed both for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Panda)	Defendant's Argument (ERCOT)	Held
Whether the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over Panda’s claims	PUC does not bar Panda’s state-law tort/fraud claims in court	PUC has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over these claims	Not decided on the merits — Supreme Court dismissed as moot/no jurisdiction
Whether ERCOT is a "governmental unit" under the Tort Claims Act (affecting interlocutory appeal)	ERCOT is private, not a governmental unit	ERCOT is a governmental unit, permitting interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §51.014(a)(8)	Not decided on the merits — Supreme Court dismissed as moot/no jurisdiction (court of appeals previously held ERCOT not governmental unit)
Whether sovereign immunity bars Panda’s suit against ERCOT	Sovereign immunity does not protect ERCOT from fraud/misrepresentation claims	Sovereign immunity shields ERCOT and bars the suit	Not decided by this Court — dismissed as moot (court of appeals had granted mandamus on immunity)
Whether the Supreme Court or an appellate mandamus may provide relief after the trial court entered a final judgment (mootness/justiciability)	Mandamus/review remains appropriate despite final judgment	Final judgment merged interlocutory order; relief would be advisory and is not redressable	Held: petitions are moot; court lacks jurisdiction and dismissed both petitions

University of the Incarnate Word v. Redus, 518 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. 2017) (distinguishing analysis for "governmental unit" status and sovereign immunity)
Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, 603 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. 2020) (final-judgment rule and merger of interlocutory orders)
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness doctrine and justiciability principles)
State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2018) (mootness/Jurisdiction analysis)
Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (when interlocutory appeals/mootness and Rule 27.3 treatment may apply)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (mandamus relief unavailable when it cannot provide effective relief)
In re Wood, 140 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (mandamus not moot where trial court retained plenary jurisdiction)
In re Murrin Bros., 603 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2019) (standards for mandamus and adequacy of appellate remedy)
Coal. of Cities for Affordable Util. Rates v. Third Ct. of Appeals, 787 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. 1990) (interlocutory orders merge into final judgment and then are reviewable on that appeal)