AEP Texas Central Co. v. Hudson

Fifth Circuit

AEP Texas Central Co. v. Hudson

259 F. App'x 625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

Docket06-51129

StatusUnpublished

This text of 259 F. App'x 625 (AEP Texas Central Co. v. Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

AEP Texas Central Co. v. Hudson, 259 F. App'x 625 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Having reviewed the district court’s decision, 1 the parties’ briefs, and the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s analysis of the tariffs. 2 According *626 ly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. AEP Tex. Cent. Co. v. Hudson, 441 F.Supp.2d 810 (W.D.Tex.2006).

2

. See Entergy La., Inc. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39, 50, 123 S.Ct. 2050, 156 L.Ed.2d 34 (2003) (“It matters not whether FERC has spoken to the precise classification of ERS units, but only whether the FERC tariff dictates how and by whom that classification should be made. The amended system agreement clearly does so, and therefore the LPSC’s second-guessing of the classification of ERS units is pre-empted." (emphasis added)); AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers, 473 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir.2006) ("Here, we also consider a tariff which designates an agent to perform an allocation (although Entergy involved an allocation of costs, rather than revenues).... The states are bound to implement a FERC-approved agreement, and the agreement authorizes only AEPSC to implement the formula.").

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Having reviewed the district court’s decision, 1 the parties’ briefs, and the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s analysis of the tariffs. 2 According *626 ly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. AEP Tex. Cent. Co. v. Hudson, 441 F.Supp.2d 810 (W.D.Tex.2006).

2

. See Entergy La., Inc. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39, 50, 123 S.Ct. 2050, 156 L.Ed.2d 34 (2003) (“It matters not whether FERC has spoken to the precise classification of ERS units, but only whether the FERC tariff dictates how and by whom that classification should be made. The amended system agreement clearly does so, and therefore the LPSC’s second-guessing of the classification of ERS units is pre-empted." (emphasis added)); AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers, 473 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir.2006) ("Here, we also consider a tariff which designates an agent to perform an allocation (although Entergy involved an allocation of costs, rather than revenues).... The states are bound to implement a FERC-approved agreement, and the agreement authorizes only AEPSC to implement the formula.").

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F. App'x 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aep-texas-central-co-v-hudson-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack