406 S.W.3d 253
Tex. App.2013Background
- Oncor challenged a final PUC order denying recovery of certain rate-case expenses under PURA; district court affirmed the order.
- The system-wide rate case opened June 27, 2008; Oncor sought recovery of its rate-case expenses totaling about $10.13 million.
- Prior to the system-wide case, Oncor incurred 2004 and 2005 municipal show-cause expenses and Docket No. 34040 expenses; recoverability on these was unsettled.
- ALJ recommended recovery of all requested expenses with a three-year surcharge; the Commission denied the 2004/2005 and Docket No. 34040 expenses.
- The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction over the 2004/2005 and Docket No. 34040 expenses and said such expenses were outside the 2007 test year; Oncor appealed.
- The court sustained Oncor on both the jurisdiction and outside-the-test-year issues and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission arbitrarily denied recovery of prior proceedings’ rate-case expenses. | Oncor contends the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying recovery of 2004/2005 and Docket No. 34040 expenses. | Commission argues it never had jurisdiction over those expenses and that they were outside the test year; it also asserts a new prior-authorization policy. | Yes; the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying recovery. |
| Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the 2004/2005 expenses. | Oncor argues the Commission had appellate jurisdiction to review the cities’ denial of those expenses in the 2008 rate case. | Commission maintains it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the 2004/2005 actions were not appealed. | Yes; the Commission has appellate jurisdiction to review those expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suburban Util. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 652 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. 1983) (expenses must be actual, reasonable, and necessary to be recovered)
- City of Amarillo v. Railroad Comm’n, 894 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (broad jurisdiction to review municipality orders re rate-case expenses)
- City of El Paso v. Public Util. Comm’n, 883 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. 1994) (just and reasonable rates may require considering outside test-year expenses)
- Reliant Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission, 153 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (agency treatment across cases can show arbitrariness if lacks consistency)
- Texas Tel. Ass’n v. Public Util. Comm’n, 163 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (agency must consider public-interest factors when determining rates)