Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Luminant Energy Company LLC, 691 S.W.3d 448

During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, Texas faced an imminent collapse of its electricity grid due to extreme cold and supply shortages.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) issued two emergency orders raising the market price of electricity to the regulatory cap ($9,000/MWh) to incentivize increased supply and reduced demand.
Luminant Energy, a major electricity buyer and seller, claimed significant losses due to the price cap and challenged the PUC’s orders in court, arguing they were unauthorized "price-setting" under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).
The court of appeals held the PUC exceeded its authority, finding the orders were invalid as impermissible price-setting.
On review, the Texas Supreme Court also considered if the orders complied with emergency rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and whether Luminant had standing to challenge the orders.
The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals, upholding the Commission’s authority and confirming substantial compliance with emergency procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the PUC exceed statutory authority under PURA by setting prices?	Luminant: PURA prohibits regulatory price-setting, requiring market-determined prices except in narrow circumstances.	PUC: PURA grants "complete authority" to ensure grid reliability, including setting prices in emergencies.	The PUC has authority to issue emergency price orders to ensure reliability.
Are the emergency orders "competition rules" subject to judicial review?	Luminant: Orders are rules of general applicability affecting all market participants and thus subject to direct review.	PUC: Orders addressed only a discrete event and are not general rules.	The orders were rules of general applicability and thus reviewable.
Did the PUC substantially comply with emergency rulemaking procedures under the APA?	Luminant: The orders lacked required findings and formal filing; thus, failed procedural requirements.	PUC: There was substantial compliance given the urgency; practical notice was given.	PUC substantially complied with emergency procedure requirements.
Does Luminant have standing and is the suit moot?	Luminant: It suffered direct economic injury and can get relief via administrative process.	PUC: Injuries are not redressable; orders expired and no effective relief exists.	Luminant has standing; suit was not moot as relief is possible in related proceedings.

Tex. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Tex. Med. Ass’n, 616 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. 2021) (court’s role in rule validity is limited to statutory analysis, not policy reweighing)
CPS Energy v. Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., 671 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. 2023) (ERCOT’s statutory duties and the PUC’s oversight)
City of Corpus Christi v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 572 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1978) (challenge to interim utility order not moot despite later superseding order)
El Paso Hosp. Dist. v. Tex. Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n, 247 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. 2008) (rule's general applicability and its effect on private rights)
Nat’l Ass’n of Indep. Insurers v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins., 925 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1996) (substantial compliance with procedural rulemaking requirements)