in Re Texas-New Mexico Power Company
19-0656
| Tex. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- Homeowners near Junemann Bayou in La Marque sued Texas‑New Mexico Power Co. (TNM) after Hurricane Harvey, alleging flooding damages caused when large wooden construction mats were left unsecured and lodged in the bayou’s drainage, causing overflow.
- TNM’s contractor had placed mats for substation construction adjacent to the bayou and abandoned them as the storm approached.
- Plaintiffs pleaded negligence, strict liability under the Texas Water Code, and nuisance.
- TNM moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, invoking the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) exclusive original jurisdiction under PURA §32.001(a); the trial court denied dismissal and TNM sought mandamus.
- The central question was whether the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction over an electric utility’s “rates, operations, and services” covers tort/negligence claims arising from this conduct.
- The Supreme Court held the negligence claim did not concern TNM’s rates, operations, or services as a utility and denied the petition for writ of mandamus; tariff limitation clauses did not convert the claim into a PUC matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PURA §32.001(a) gives the PUC exclusive original jurisdiction over this negligence claim | The negligence claim arises from unsecured mats and is a common‑law tort, not a dispute about utility rates/operations/services | TNM: PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction covers matters related to utility operations/services; Chaparral requires administrative first | Held: Claim is a garden‑variety negligence action not implicating rates/operations/services; PUC exclusivity does not apply; mandamus denied |
| Whether tariff limitation‑of‑liability or force‑majeure clauses require PUC proceedings first | Tariff clauses do not transform a tort claim into a PUC matter | TNM: Tariff provisions require plaintiffs to proceed first before the PUC | Held: Tariff provisions, even if applicable, do not convert plaintiffs’ negligence claim into one within the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncor Electric Delivery Co. v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, 546 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. 2018) (held PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over claims implicating a utility’s services and applied exclusivity to a service‑agreement breach)
- In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2004) (describes when an agency has exclusive jurisdiction and the effect on judicial review)
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007) (discusses pervasive regulatory schemes as basis for exclusive agency jurisdiction)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (agency‑exclusivity issues cannot be waived and may be raised on appeal)