Court Opinion

ID: 9775318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:53:55.873333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.027217
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the denial of the temporary injunction.
Bonded rates, i. e., those that Southwestern Bell asks us to reinstate, do not constitute the “last, uncontested, peaceable” status. PURA § 43(e)1 permits bonded rates, but requires that they terminate upon final rate approval by the Commission. Section 43(e) requires the refunding of any excess rates collected while the bonded rates were in effect. . The obvious reason for requiring those refunds simply is that the bonded rates are set by the Company and not the *958Commission. Consequently, the rates which the Company sets for itself terminate upon final rate approval by the Commission.
No provision of section 43(e) or any other section of PURA confers authority on a court exercising judicial review over a Commission order to extend the effectiveness of bonded rates promulgated by a utility after those rates have been superseded by the adoption of a final rate by the Commission. See Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 586 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Civ.App.1979, writ, ref’d n. r. e.). The provisions of section 43(e) do not extend beyond final order, therefore granting appellant’s request would require this Court to affirmatively determine that the bonded rates are reasonable rates to be charged during the pendency of appeal. No provision of PURA or of the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a (Supp. 1980-1981) grants such authority to this Court.
The only provision which addresses the subject of available relief that may be granted during the pendency of an appeal from a Commission order is section 85 of PURA. That section makes no provision for the extension of rates bonded pursuant to section 43(e). Indeed, section 85 refers solely to the regulatory authority order, ruling or decision.
Should we grant appellant’s prayer to enjoin the enforcement of the Commission order, which under section 85 of PURA we have authority to do, the Commission’s prior order, the last uncontested rate, would then be reinstated. State v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 526 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.1975). Since the rate would give appellant a lesser return, appellant has not shown that it would sustain any injury that we could prevent.

. All references are to Public Utilities Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex.Rev.Stat.Ann. art. 1446c (1980).