Opinion ID: 2335457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Necessary Implication

Text: This brief overview of the relevant statutory provisions shows the Legislature could not have been clearer about what the PUC must doit must promote competition and prohibit overrecovery of stranded costs. But the Legislature could have been clearer about how, at least in the current circumstances. There is no prescribed plan for the current situation; the Legislature prescribed the results it wanted, but left the means and timing unclear. What should the PUC do when the Legislature gives it a mandate but no express authority to carry it out? The Court answered this question most recently in a case involving the same statute and many of the same parties. In City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, [23] several parties challenged a non-standard true-up because the statute [24] did not expressly provide for reallocation among consumer classes. This Court rejected the challenge, relying on a more general section [25] allowing adjustments to utility rates (but not reallocation among classes) to ensure funds would be available to pay a utility's bonds. [26] The Court reasoned that the important purpose in the general policy permitted minor and essential adjustments not expressly permitted by the statute. [27] The same applies here. The statutory adjustments the PUC adopted are minor-they implement powers the PUC clearly has, though arguably not yet. They are also essential if the PUC is to comply with the statute's mandatory policies in favor of competition and against overrecovery of stranded costs. If the Court was correct when it held the PUC could act by necessary implication to protect the viability of bonds and the interests of bondholders, surely the viability of competition and the interests of consumers deserve no less.