But if it doesn't, the question of whether the court can override the PUC is raised. In the El Paso case, some parties wanted the court to order higher rates regardless of whether state regulators agreed. Before that occurred, the parties reached a settlement that called for adoption of higher interim rates that became permanent for a 10-year period. The Texas PUC and the court ultimately approved the increase. So we never confronted the thorny question of who wins in a fight between the state and the court.
Arguments urging federal preemption can go beyond rate increases.
It's not a far stretch for a party in the bankruptcy case to ask that the court preempt the state to prevent it from taking unilateral action in the best interest of all constituents. The court's legal obligation is not to balance the states' diverse political interests, but rather to achieve an outcome best favoring the interests of the bankrupt company, its creditors and its shareholders. As we learned in Texas, bankruptcy doesn't prevent rate increases. It meant state regulators had to fight harder to protect ratepayers outside our own turf. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.