Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, 720 S.W.3d 805

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC sought a rate increase from the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC), which led to a contested administrative proceeding.
The PUC's administrative law judges recommended less than Oncor requested; the PUC issued an order adopting only part of the recommendation, leading Oncor to file a motion for rehearing.
Oncor's motion challenged disallowance of certain expenses and requested technical corrections to specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The PUC granted rehearing in part, making some technical corrections but not addressing Oncor’s main substantive complaints.
Oncor did not file a second motion for rehearing after the modified order, instead seeking judicial review in district court.
The district court dismissed Oncor’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding the statutory prerequisites for judicial review were not met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a second motion for rehearing required if agency’s order on rehearing modifies only technical or unrelated issues?	No; second rehearing was not needed as substantive issues were unchanged.	Yes; any modification not labeled as clerical triggers the requirement.	Yes, a second motion is required if agency modifies any subject addressed in initial rehearing.
Do technical corrections made by the agency qualify as clerical changes under the statute?	Yes; Oncor’s requested and granted changes were purely clerical.	No; agency must explicitly identify changes as clerical in order.	No; changes must be designated clerical in the order itself to qualify.
Does failure to file a second motion for rehearing deprive the district court of jurisdiction?	No; Oncor contends exhaustion requirements were met.	Yes; statutory prerequisite was not satisfied without second rehearing.	Yes; failure to file second rehearing motion deprived court of jurisdiction.
What is the scope of “the subject of the complaint” in rehearing context?	Only issues party intends to appeal are relevant.	Any issue raised and modified triggers requirement for a second motion.	Includes any modifications to issues raised in initial motion, regardless of intent to appeal.

Texas Health & Human Servs. v. Pope, 674 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. 2023) (sovereign immunity deprives courts of jurisdiction unless the legislature waives it)
Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo; plea to the jurisdiction framework)
Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (statutory prerequisites to suit are jurisdictional requirements in suits against government)
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (plain statutory language is determinative of legislative intent)
Cities for Fair Util. Rates v. Public Util. Comm’n, 924 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. 1996) (utility rate-setting standards under Texas law)