Case Name: In re TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY, Relator
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2001-12-31
Citations: 67 S.W.3d 130
Docket Number: No. 01-0547
Parties: In re TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY, Relator.
Judges: Chief Justice PHILLIPS filed a concurring opinion in which Justice ENOCH and Justice GODBEY (Assigned) joined.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 67
Pages: 130–171

Head Matter:
In re TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY, Relator.
No. 01-0547.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Argued on Dec. 12, 2001.
Delivered Dec. 31, 2001.
David C. Duggins, Clark Thomas & Winters, Austin, Robert A. Wooldridge, Jo Ann Biggs, Howard V. Fisher, Worsham Forsythe Wooldridge, Dallas, for Relator.
Philip F. Ricketts, Bracewell & Patterson, Austin, Kenneth C. Raney, Jr., Dallas, John Cornyn, Atty. Gen., Steven Baron, Karen Watson Kornell, Office of Atty. Gen., Howard G. Baldwin, First Atty. Gen., Jeffrey S. Boyd, Paul D. Carmona, Office of Atty. Gen., Marion Taylor-Drew (Atty. for Public Utility Counsel), Bryan L. Baker, Office of Atty. Gen., Austin, for Respondent.
. Hon. David Godbey, District Judge, 160th District Court, Dallas County, sitting by commission of Hon. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, pursuant to section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code.
. Hon. Scott Brister, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District, sitting by commission of Hon. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, pursuant to section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this original proceeding, relator is TXU Electric Co. and respondents are the Public Utility Commission and its three members. TXU seeks relief from portions of the Commission's orders requiring TXU to reverse efforts it has undertaken to mitigate its estimated stranded costs as part of the transition to a deregulated, competitive retail market for the sale of electricity in Texas.
Six Membees of the Court vote to deny relief for different reasons. Chief Justice Phillips, joined by Justice Enoch and Justice Godbey, would not exercise mandamus jurisdiction because TXU has an adequate remedy at law. Justice BakeR, joined by Justice RodRiguez, would hold that the relief TXU seeks is against the Commission, over which the Court has no original mandamus jurisdiction. Justice BristeR would hold that the portions of the Commission's orders of which TXU complains do not constitute a clear abuse of discretion. Justice Hecht, joined by Justice Owen and Justice Jefferson, would grant relief.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Chief Justice PHILLIPS filed a concurring opinion in which Justice ENOCH and Justice GODBEY (Assigned) joined.
Justice BAKER concurred in the judgment and filed an opinion in which Justice RODRIGUEZ joined.
Justice BRISTER (Assigned) concurred in the judgment and filed an opinion.
Justice HECHT filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice OWEN and Justice JEFFERSON joined.