Opinion ID: 895374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission’s Appellate Jurisdiction

Text: The first issue presented to this Court is whether the Commission has appellate jurisdiction to review the Cities’ denials. Section 102.001(b) of the Texas Utilities Code provides, in relevant part: “The railroad commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review an order or ordinance of a municipality exercising exclusive original jurisdiction as provided by this subtitle.” TEX. UTIL. CODE § 102.001(b). This grant of appellate authority clearly gives the Commission jurisdiction to review the Cities’ denials of the interim rate increases. 7 Section 102.001(b) falls under Subtitle A of the Utilities Code and is titled “General Powers of the Railroad Commission.” TEX. UTIL. CODE § 102.001(b). The relationship of section 102.001(b) and GURA confirms the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction over municipal denials, since both GURA and the GRIP statute are in Subtitle A of the Texas Utilities Code. Section 102.001(b) grants the Commission appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from an “order or ordinance of a municipality exercising exclusive original jurisdiction as provided by this subtitle.” Id. (emphasis added). The Commission’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction is over a municipality’s applicable “order or ordinance.” Id. The parties themselves agree that the Cities’ denials were promulgated by ordinance. The Commission argues that there is no need for utilities to appeal a municipality’s action since municipalities are not entitled to deny a GRIP filing, except for a failure to comply with the statute.5 However, the Commission recognizes that 102.001(b) literally applies when a city denies a GRIP filing by order or ordinance and therefore grants the Commission appellate jurisdiction. Furthermore, the view that the Legislature had withheld appellate jurisdiction in this case from the Commission could frustrate GRIP’s purpose. The Legislature designed GRIP to incentivize gas utilities to expand infrastructure and empowered them to file interim rate adjustments in between rate cases. House Comm. on Regulated Industries, Bill Analysis, Tex. C.S.S.B. 1271, 78th Leg., R.S. (2003). Without the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction, a city could deny these filings for 5 The Commission also argues that because a municipality is not entitled to deny a GRIP filing that complies with the statute, the denial should be subject to mandamus. Since we hold that the Commission has appellate jurisdiction under section 102.001(b) over a GRIP denial, mandamus review by a district court is not necessary. 8 non-ministerial reasons, leaving a lengthy and expensive contested rate case as the only recourse to effect a rate adjustment to recoup infrastructure investment. The Cities’ construction is rebutted by the language of section 102.001(b) and is inconsistent with the Legislature’s objective of expediting recovery of such investments as a means of encouraging infrastructure investment. We conclude, reversing the court of appeals on this point, that the Commission has appellate jurisdiction over interim rate adjustments under 102.001(b).