### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-03-00550- CV NO. 03-03-00551- CV NO. 03-03-00553- CV

Ci tyof G ar lan d; De nt on M unic ipa l Ele c tr ic , t he Ele c tr ic De par tm e nt of t he Ci tyof D e nt on, Texas, Appellan ts & City of San Antonio, Texas acting by an d through the City P ubl ic Service Board of San Antonio, App ellants & City of Austin d/b /a Austin E nergy, Appellants

v. P ubl ic Utility Com m ission of T exas, Appellee

DIRECT APP EALS FRO M TH E PUB LIC UTILITY COM MI SSIO N OF TEXAS

O P I N I O N
I n th is c a se , w e c on sid e r the Pub lic Ut ili ty Com mis sio n’ s st a tut or

y re sp on sib ili ty

to
ensure “the c onfidentiality of competitively sensitive information” submitt ed by municipal utilit ies
un de r s e c tio n 3 9. 15 5 of the uti lit ie s c od e and its re la tio ns hip to the ri g ht o f p ub lic po we r util iti e s’ g ov e rn ingbo ard s to e xce pt a “ c omp e tit ive ma tte r” fr om p ub lic dis c los ur e under the Te xas P ub lic2

I nformation Ac t. See Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 552.133 (West 2004) (TPI A); Tex. Util. C ode Ann. § 39.155 (West Supp. 2004-05). The Commission adopted a rule, see 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.93 (2 00 4) (r ule 25 .9 3) , a

uth or izin g it t o vo lun tari ly re le a se inf or ma tio n s ub mit te d b y

a uti lity , d e sp ite a utility ’s claims o f confidentiality , following a conte sted ca se hea ring in which the Commissi on itself would deter

mine the protected st atus of t he information. Se e id . § 25 .9 3( c )( 2) , ( g )( 3) . In th is direc t appea l, appellants cla im that subsections (c)( 2) and ( g )(3) of rule 25. 9 3 ex ce ed the Commi ssion’s statuto r

y a uthority and conf lict with gove rnment code section 552.133. We ag ree that rule 25.93 conflicts with the Commissi on’s statutory duties under se ction 39.155 of the utility code in light of g overnme nt code se ction 552.133. We reve rse a nd rema nd.
BACK GR OUND Find ing that the production and sa le of e lectric ity is not a monopoly

war ranting traditional utilit ies regulation and that the public intere st in competitive electric marke ts r equire s that elec tric ser

vices and their prices should be determined by customer choice and the normal forc es of
c omp e tit ion , th e le g isl a tur e a me nd e d th e Pub lic Ut ili ty Re g ulator

y Ac t ( PUR

A) in 1 99 9 to ini tiate t h e t r an s i t i o no f

t h e r e t a i l e l e c t r i c i n d

u s t r y i n T e x a s t o a f

u l l y c o mp e t i t i v e e l e c t r i c p o w e r i n d u s t r y. See Tex. Util . Code Ann. § 39.001(a ) (West Supp. 2004-05). One of the foundational principles of thi s r e f o r m is th a t it is in th e p u

b li c in te r e s t “ to p r o te c t th e c o mp e ti ti v e p r o c e s s in amanner that
ensure s the c o n f

id e nti a lity of compe titively

sensitive information.” Id
. § 3 9
. 0 0 1 ( b ) ( 4 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, the leg islature g rante d the Commiss ion cer tain overs i g ht powers ove r marke t structure, id
. §§ 39 .1 51 -. 15 8 ( Wes t Supp . 200 4- 05 ), inc lud ing a uth or ity to mon ito r mark e t pow e r a sso c ia te d w ith the gene ration, t ransmission, distribution, and sale of ele ctricity in Texas. Id . § 39 .1 57 . T o a ssi stSee Act of May 27, 1999, 76th L eg ., R.S., ch. 405, §§ 39, 46, 1999 Tex. Gen. L aws 2543, 1 25 58 , 2 61 8; see also Act of Ma y 22, 2001, 77th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1420, § 21.001(52), 2001 Te x . Gen. L aws 42 1 0 , 4 5 6 2 ( r e n u mb e r in g g o v e r n me n t c o d e p r o v is io nf

r o m s e c ti o n5 5 2
. 1 3 1 to s e c tion 552.133). 3 the Commiss ion in its monitoring func tion, the leg islature provide d that eac h person or entity that
ow ns g e ne ratio n f

a c ili tie s and

of fe rs e le c tr ic ity

fo r s a le in T e xas, shall repor

t to the commission i ts installed ge neration capac ity , the total amount of c a pa c ity a va ila ble fo r s a le to o thers, th e tot a l a mou nt o f c a pa c ity un de r c on tr a c t to oth e rs , th e tot a l a

mou nt o f c a pa c ity de dic ate d to its ow n u se , it s a nnua l w ho le sa le power s a le s in th e s tate , it s an n u a l r e ta il p o w e r s a le s in th e s tate , an d an y other information nec essar

y for the commission to assess market power or the de velopment of a c ompetitive retail marke t in the state.
Id . § 39.155(a) . Consist ent with its dual mandate to pr otect the competitive proc ess while pre serving the conf identiality

of compe titively

sensitive information, t he leg islature dire cted that the Commi ssi o ns h a ll b y

r u le d e ta il th e r e p o rti n g r e qu ir e me n ts an d “ s h a ll a d mi n is te r

th o s e r e p orting require ments in a manner that ensure s the confide ntiality of compe titively

sensitive information.” Id
. I n the same le g islation, commonly known by

its bil l number, S .B. 7, the leg islature also amende d the TPI A to cre ate a new e x ception to disclosure f or “public power util ity

competitive matters.” See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 552.133 (West 2004). Under this provision, t he g overning 1 body of a public pow er utility may deem by resolution some utilit y -re lated informat i on to be “compe titive matter.” Id . § 552.133(b). Such infor mation is “excepted” f

rom the disclosure require ments of the TPI A. See id
. § 552.133(a) (3), (b). Upon a written request for this particula r kind of competiti ve matter, the C ommissi on must ask for an opinion of the attorney g ener al bef

oreTh e Com mis sio n ame nd e d some se c tio ns of ru le 25 .9 3 dur ingthe pe nd e nc y of thi s a pp e a l. 2 See 29 Tex. Reg. 8991 ( 2004), proposed 29 Tex. Reg . 6191 (2004). This appe al conc erns only the validity of sec tion 25.93(g )(3) , which wa s not amende d, and section 25.93(c) (2), which was. The City Public Service Boa

rd of San Antonio supported the amendment. See 29 Tex. Reg
. 8991. No other a ppellant offere d comment on it. Se e id . I n this opini on, we will consider the rule a s it ex isted befor e the 2004 a

mendments bec aus e n o p a r ty h a s c la imed that the amendme nts substantively altere d the Com mis sio n’ s p ro c e dure s in re la tio n to the iss ue s o n a pp e a l. 4 disclosing suc h information. Id . §§ 552.133(c) , .301(a) . The attorney g ener al then may fi n d the information subject to disc losure despite the decision of the utility ’s g overningbody , but only if he
make s tw o f

ind ing s: (1 ) that the pu

bli c po we r util ity

g ov e rn ingbo dy

ha s f a ile d to a c t in

g oo d f a ith in making the deter

mination that the issue, matter, or activity in question is a competitive matter; or (2) that the inf

ormation or rec ords soug ht to be withheld are not rea sonably related to a compe titive matter. Id . § 55 2. 13 3( c ). F ina lly , th e le g isl a tur e c ate g or ize d this inf or ma tio n as an “ e xce pti on ” to the TPI A’s disclosure require ments but also exempted it from the disclosure re quirements of se ction 552.022. Com

pa re id
. with id . § 552.101 (West 2004). B e lie vin g that “ makin g c e rt a in mark e t- re la te d in fo rm a tio n ava ila ble to t he pu bli c in a timely manner is a nece ssary part of immuniz ing a well-tempe red marke tplace from the da ng ers of mark e t po we r a

bu se ,” the Com mis sio n a do pted r ule s und e r util iti e s c od e se c tio n 3 9. 15 5( a ) t o eff ectuate “judicious disclosure” of utility wholesale transac tion reports. See 2 8 T ex . Reg . 7687, 7692 (2003), amende d in part by 29 Tex. Reg. 8991 ( 2004), proposed 29 Tex. Reg. 6191 ( 2004) (c odified at 16 Te x . Admin. Code § 25.93 (2004)). Rule 25.93 require s wholesale se llers of 2 elec tricity to file Quar

terly Wholesale Electr icity

Transa ction Reports with the Commis sion
re g ard inga ll w ho le sa le e le c tr ic ity tr ans a c tio ns wi th a

po int of de liv e ry or po int of re c e ipt in T e xas. 16 Te x. Ad

min . Co de § 25. 93 (d )( 1)
. Re po rt s sha ll pr ov ide inf or ma tio n on ea c h w ho le sa le e le c tr ic ityThis require ment is now found in section 25.93(e )(2)
. See 29 Tex. Reg. 6191. 3 Currently

found at sec tion 25.93(c)( 3). 4 5 c o n t r a c t an d i n f

o r m a t i o no ne a c h t r an s a c t i o no f e l e c t r i c i t y f

r o m t h e r e p o rt i n g e n t i t y t o an o t h e r p a rt y. Id . § 25.93(d)( 2). They

must include information conc erningall co n t racts in effe ct during the repor ting pe riod and c ontrac ts that will continue to be in effe ct past the end of the repor ting pe riod. Id . § 25.93(d)( 2)(B ). Contract information includes t he name of purc haser , contra ct execution and te rm inatio n d a te s, tim e pe ri od ov e r w hic h th e c on tr a c t is in e ff e c t, p ro du c t ty

pe , p ri c e , a

nd a pp lic a ble information about whe re the power was g ener ated, de livered, a nd rec eived. Id
. T ra n s ac t ion inf or ma tio n incl ud e s th e tim e pe ri od ov e r w hic h th e tr ans a c tio n w a s c on du c te d; a pp lic a ble information about whe re the power was g ener ated, de livered, a nd rec eived; produc t name; transac tion quantity ; price; a nd t o t al transac tion charg es. Id . § 25.93(d)( 2)(C). Ea ch tra nsaction must be cross-r efe renc ed to a r eporte d contra ct. Id
.

Concerning

the conf idential i t y o f i n fo rm at i o ns u

p p l i edi nt h e r eports, the Com mission pe rm its uti lit ie s to su

bmi t tw o v e rs ion s o f t

he ir Qu art e rl y Who l e sa le El e c tr ic ity

Tr ans a c tio n Re po rt s, a full version for the Commi ssion’s use and a r edac ted ver sion “that omits specific information for which the reporting entity asser ts confidentiality .” Id . § 25.93(g ). Commi ssion staff ar e for bidden 3 to r e le a s e “ p r o te c te d in f

o r mati o n ” e xc e p t in a c c o r d an c e w it h th e r u le an d th e r e qu ir e me n ts o f the T P I A. Id . Fur

thermore , the Commiss ion defines “ protec ted information” a s “[i] nformation contained in a

Quar terly Whol es al e Electricity

Transa ction Report that comports with the require ments for e x ception for disclosure unde r the [TPI A].” Id . § 29.93(c) (2). 46 Subsection (g ) sets for

th proce dures for obtaining disclosure of information claimed by repor ting e ntities to be protected inf ormation. I n g ener al, wher e such infor mation is requested fr om the C o m m i s s i o nb y t h i r d p art i e s , t h e r

u l e i n c o r p o r a t e s o r r e f e r e n c e s t h e T P I A ’ s p r o c e d u re s. Id
. § 2 5. 93 (g )( 1) , (2 ). How eve r, su bs e c tio n ( g )( 3) a lso a

uth or ize s th e Com mis sio n to vo lun tari ly rele ase pr otec t ed information eve n in the absenc e of a reque st for information. Id . § 25.93(g )(3)
. Be fore doing so, the Commi ssion w i l l d et er m ine the validity of the utility ’s asser

ted claim that information is protecte d throug h a conte sted-ca se proc eeding
. Id . The staf f and the utilit y

that provided the infor

mation to t h e Commi ssion will have an opportunity to present infor

mation or comment at the hearing on whether the i nformation is subject t o protec tion from disclosure under the TPI A. Id . Be fore rele asing information t he C ommissi on deter mines is subject t o disclosure, the Commi ssion will provide at least three day s’ notice to the utility
. Id . § 25.93(g )(5)
.

Rule 25.93 is somewhat unclea r re g ardingthe re lationship between its con cepts of “informat i on for whic h the re porting entity asser ts confidentiality ” and “ protec ted information,” althoug h it appea

rs t o use t he terms intercha ng eably
. Id
. § 25.93(g )(3) . The rule expli citly links the
concept of protec ted in fo rm at i o nt o “t h e r eq u i re m en t s fo r e x em p t i o nfr o m d i s cl o s u re u n d er t h e T exas Public I nformation Ac t.” Id . § 25. 9 3 (c), (g ). Howe ver, r ule 25.93 does not explicitl y addre ss the
re la tio ns hip of any of the se c on c e pts to “c omp e tit ive ly se ns iti ve inf

or ma tio n, ” the op e rativ e te rm in utilit ies code section 39.155.

T h e C o m m i ssion adopted rule 25.93 e ffe ctive on September 8, 2003. See 2 8 T e x. Reg . 7687. This direct a

ppeal f ollowed. See Tex. Util . Code Ann. § 39.001(e ) (West Supp. 2004).The appellants in the se case s are cities who own a nd operate municipal elec tric utiliti es and 5 and municipal ele ctric utility companies. For ease of ref ere nce, we will refe r to them as “the Citi es.” Be cause the Cities challeng e only the proc edure permitted by subsections (c) (2) a nd (g )(3) 6 of the rule , for e ase of

ref ere nce w e will ref

er to it as the “ rule 25.93 proc edure .” 7 DI SCU SSIO N The Cities raise two issues on appea l challeng ing the rule 25.93 proc edure on the

5 6 basis that it e mpowers the Commi ssion to deter mine for itself whether to r elea s e i n formation contained in the Cit i es ’ Quar terly Wholesale Electr icity

Transa ction Reports that the Cities have desig nated as confide ntial or protected information. First, they argue that the r

ule 25.93 proc edure la c ks statut or

y a uth or ity . Sec on d, the y argue that the ru le 25 .9 3 pro c e dure c on fl ic ts wit h the Citi e s’ statutory power to de signate “c ompetitive matters” pr esumptively exempt from disclosure under the TPI A. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 552.021, .133 (West 2004).

A s ta te a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y on ly ha s th os e po we rs th at th e le g isl a tur e e xpre ssl y confe rs upon it or that are implied to car ry out the express functions or duties g iven or imposed by statute. Texas W

orkers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advoc ates of Tex. , 1 3 6 S. W. 3 d 6 4 3 , 6 5 2 ( T e x. 20 04 ); Public Util. Comm’n v. City Pub. Serv . Bd. , 53 S.W .3d 310, 315-16 (Te x . 2001); Pu bli c Ut il. Com m’n v. GTE

-S ou thw est , Inc. , 9 01 S.W. 2d 40 1, 40 7 ( Te x. 19 95 ); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)( A)-( B) (West 2000). An age ncy may not, howeve r, ex erc ise what is eff ectively a new power on the t heory that such ex erc ise is expedient for the a g ency ’s purposes. GTE -S ou thw est , Inc. , 901 S.W .2d at 407. “The deter mining fac tor
. . . whether
. . . a par ticular a dminist rative a g ency has exceede d its rule -making power s is that the rule’s provisions must be in har mony with the g ener al objectives of the Act involved.” Railroad Comm’n v. Lone Star Gas Co. , 8 4 4 S. W. 2 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 5 ( T e x.8

1 9 9 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Gerst v. Oak Clif f Savings & Loan Ass’n , 432 S.W .2d 702, 706 (Tex. 1968)). In a fa c ia l cha lle ng e to a ru le , we do no t con sid e r the me ri ts of the Com mis sio n’ s rul e on a c a se -b y -c a se basis. See Gulf Coast Coalition of Citi es v. Public U

til. C omm’n , 2005 Tex. App. L EXI S 2180, at *13 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet. h.). Rather, we consider whether the rule: (1) contravenes specific statutory

lang uag e; (2) runs counter to the g ener al objectives of the statute; or (3) imposes additional burdens, c onditions, or restrictions in excess of or inconsistent with the re levant statutory provisions. S

ta tev . P u b li c U

ti l. Co m m ’n , 13 1 S. W.3 d 3 14 , 3 21 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 04 , p e t. denied) . We rec og nize that the leg islature intends an a g ency cre ated to ce ntralize expertise in a
c e rt a in re g ulator

y are a “ be g ive n a larg e de g re e of la tit ud e in t he me tho ds it u se s to a c c omp lis h it s regulatory

function.” Texas Mun. Power Age ncy , 150 S.W .3d at 586. Be cause an ag ency may not g ra nt i tse lf a po we r i n c on tr a dic tio n o f i ts l e g isl a tiv e mand a te , th e fa c t it may in terpr e t a

ru le
narr owly will not overc ome a validity challeng e. See Reliant Energy v. Public Util. Comm’n , 101 S.W .3d 129, 145 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003), reve rsed on other grounds by Centerpoint Energy , Inc. v. Public Util. Comm’n , 143 S.W .3d 81 (Tex. 2004).

S t at u t ory construction is a que stion of law we r eview de novo
. J o h n s o n v . City of Fo rt W or th , 7 74 S.W. 2d

65 3, 65 6 ( Te x. 19 89 ). Whe n in te rp re tin g a statut or y pr ov isi on , w e mus t
asce rtain and e ffe ctuate legislative intent. Tex. De p’t of Protective & Regulatory Serv s. v. Me ga C h i ld Ca re , Inc. , 145 S.W .3d 170, 176 (Tex. 2004). I n asce rtaining leg islative intent, we may consider the evil soug ht to be reme died, t he leg islative history , and the c onsequenc es of a particula r construction. Se e Lib e rty Mu t. I ns . Co . v . G arris on Con tra c tor s , Inc. , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d

4 8 2 , 4 8 4 ( T e x. 19 98 ). F ur

the r, we re a d e very wor d, phra se , a nd e xpre ssi on

in a statut e a s if

it w e re de lib e rate ly9

c h o s e n an d p r e s u m e t h e w o r d s e x c l u d e d f r o m th e s t a tu t e ar e d o n e s o p u r p o s e f u l l y. See G ables Re alt y Ltd

. P’ sh ip v . Tra v is Ce nt. Ap

prais al D ist
. , 81 S.W .3d 869, 873 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pe t. d e nie d) ; City of Austi n v. Quick , 930 S.W .2d 678, 687 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996) (citing Cam e ro n v . Te rre ll &Ga rre tt , Inc. , 618 S.W .2d 535, 540 (Tex. 1981)), aff’d , 7 S. W. 3 d 1 0 9 ( T e x. 19 99 ); see also 2A Norman J . Singer , Sutherland Statutory Const ruction § 4 7
. 2 5 ( 6 t h e d
. 2 0 0 0 )
. If the meaningof an stat u t e i s d o ubtful or ambig uous, we will g ive serious c onsideration to the construction g iven i t by the g overnme ntal body char g ed with its enforc ement or a dminist ration. City of Austin v. Hyde P ark Baptist Church , 152 S.W .3d 162, 166 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).

We beg in with t h e Citi es’ se cond issue, in which they argue that the r

ule 25.93 proce dure is invalid bec ause it conf licts with the TPI A. See Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 552.001-.353 (West 2 004). Specific ally , they asser t that the rule 25.93 proc edure cre ates the pote ntial that the Comm is s io n w il l v o lu

n ta r il y d is c lo s e “ p u

b li c p o w e r u ti li ty c o mp e ti ti v e matt e r ” e xc e p ted from disclo s u r e w h e nth e T PIA d e c r e e s th a t o n ly th e a tt o r n e y g e n e r a l o r

a c o u rt c anp r o p e r ly

o r d er disclosure of such information on expressly narr ow g rounds. Se e id . § 552.133(b). The Citi es add that, by possibly authorizing disclosure of sec tion 552.133 “competitive matter,” rule 25.93 violates t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s m an d a t e u n d e r s e c t i o n3 9
. 1 5 5 o f

t h e u t i l i t i e s c o d e t o s a f e g u ar d t he ir “compe titively

sensitive information.” We ag ree . As a g ener al rule, Te x as public policy favor s open re cords. Se e id . § 55 2. 00 1; Mo or e v. Collins , 8 97 S.W. 2d

49 6, 49 9 ( Te x. App .— Hou st on [1st Di st. ] 199 9, no pe t.) . “ Pub lic informat i o n ” m u s t be made available to the public upon reque st by any person. Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 552.021, .221. I f a g overnme ntal body , such as the Comm ission, rece ives a re quest for10

information that it wishes to withhold from public disclosure and that it considers to be within one of the statut or

y e xce pti on s to the TPIA, it mus t a sk the a tto rn e y g e ne ra l wh e the r t he inf or ma tio n is excepted fr om the TPI A. Id . § 552.301. As a g ener al proposition, unless disclosure is prohibited by law or the i nformation is confide ntial by law, an a g ency may voluntarily

make a ll its information available to the public. Id . § 552.007.

Section 552.133 was e nacte d in the same bill as utiliti es code section 39.155 and addre sses a similar subject—the pr otection of a uti lity ’s confidential information. The leg islature d id n o t d e f

in e in u ti li ti e s c o d e s e c ti o n 3 9
. 1 5 5 w h a t “ c o mp e ti ti v e ly s e n s it iv e in f o r mati o n” the Commi ssion is t o protec t. Howeve r, it contempora neously g rante d the g overning b o ar d s of municipal utilit ies the authority to desi gn ate information as “c ompetitive matter” a nd except that information from the open-r ecor ds require ments. Id
. § 552.133(a) , (b). The leg islature also limited the circ umstances in which that exception from disclosure c ould be defe ated: the attorney g ener al (or a court) c an override the g overningboard’ s vote only upon reque st for the infor mation and af

ter making specific finding s that (1) the g overningb o ar d fa i l ed to act in good f aith and (2) the information is not reasona bly related to a compe titive matter. Id . § 552.133(c)
. The Comm i s s ion expressly limit ed its review

in rule 25.93 to a c onsideration of whether information in the quarte rly repor ts “ comports with the require ments for exception from dis c los ur e un de r the ” TPIA. 16 Te x. Ad min
. Cod e § 2 5. 93 (c )( 2) ; se e als o id . § 25 .9 3( g )( 3) (i n s a me way limit s scope of

contested c ase he aring ). In add i t i o n , the Commiss ion’s rule a uthorizes disclosure whe n there has bee n no reque st for the infor mation and without an opinion from the atto r n e y g e n e r a l r e v ie w in g th e s tatuto r y f a c to r s th a t w o u ld b e n e c e s s ar y to o v e r r id e th e statutoryWe exp re s s no opinion reg ardingthe Commiss ion’s power to determine f

or itself other 7 c la ims of c on fi de nti a lity , in c lud inga sse rt ion s b a se d o n o the r T PI A e xce pti on s. 11 exception from discl o s ure. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.133. Given the limited scope of the repor ting r equire ment and the de finition for “prote cted information” adopted by the Commiss ion, we conclude that this rule is clea rly calc ulated to allow t he C ommissi on to adjudicate f or itself the validity of such a

claim of c onfidenti ali ty . Howeve r, the leg islature conte mplated that the Commi ssion’s obligation under section 39.155 to protec t “competit i v ely sensitive” information would require it to protect “c ompetitive matter” so desig nated by a public power utilit y ’s g overning bo ard un de r govern me nt c od e se c tio n 5 52 .1 33 and that on ly the a tto rn e y

g e ne ra l or

a c ourt c ou ld
overr ide that protec tion. Acc ording ly , we hold that a ny decision the Commission m ight make under rule 25.93 as written with r eg ard to a claim of confide ntiality under g overnmen t co d e s ection 552.133 would violate its duties under utilit ies code section 39.155. Only the attorne y

g ener al or a court may deter mine that such information is out side the ex ception. We sustain the Cit ies’ sec ond 7 issue.
CO NC LU SION

We have de termi n ed t h at rule 25.93( c)( 2) and ( g )(3) , as written, would pe rmit the Commi ssion to determine t he validit y of a claim of confidentiality in contrave ntion of the exception to disclosure adde d to the TPI A for c ompetitive matters of a public utilit y

and of the proce dure se t forth to defe at s uch a claimed ex ception. Be cause we base our decision sol ely on the lang uag e of the rule a s written, we ha ve n o need to c onsider the Commission’s ge nera l powers a s authorized
u n d e r u ti li ti e s c o d e s e c ti o n3 9
. 1 5 5 ( a ) , an d w e th u s e xp r e s s n o o p in io n o n th e Ci ti e s ’ f ir s t i s s u e . We12

decla re inva lid subsections (c) (2) and (g )(3) of rule 25.93 a nd rema nd to the Commi ssion for furthe r proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Kidd, B . A. Smith and Pemberton; J ustice Kidd Not Participating Reverse d and Remande d Filed: May

19, 2005