Legal Opinion · Dissent

AEP Texas Commercial & Industrial Retail Ltd. Partnership v. Public Utility Commission

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided July 17, 2014No. 03-13-00358-CVPublished

1DissentScott K. Field, Justice

The portions of Chapter 39 of the Utilities Code and its related rules at issue in this case are unambiguous. The Public Utility Commission (PUC or the Commission) has failed to provide a reasonable alternative construction of the statutes and *926rules at issue to create ambiguity. Because the Court has deferred to the PUC in the face of unambiguous statutes and rules, I dissent. The majority has provided a thorough discussion of the underlying dispute and the historical backdrop for the issue presented. I will not attempt to replow that ground here. The majority also sustained AEP’s first…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. SummersTexas Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Railroad Commission v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean WaterTexas Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Fiess v. State Farm LloydsTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API