Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 1, 2025·No. 15-24-00118-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-24-00118-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS ~ ARRINGTON COLEMAN 4/1/2025 1:29 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Ken Carroll CLERK Senior Counsel FILED 214.8 IN5 5 . 3 0 2 9 15th k c a r r o l l @ c c sAPPEALS COURT OF b.com AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/1/2025 1:29:07 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk April 1, 2025

Via E-File Fifteenth Court of Appeals of Texas c/o Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 607 Austin, Texas 78701

Notice of Supplemental Authority, Tex. R. App. P. 38.7

Re: No. 15-24-00118-CV, Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas, et al.

To the Honorable Court:

On March 28, 2025, after briefing closed in this appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas decided Kensington Title-Nevada, LLC v. Texas Dep’t of State Health Services, No. 23-0644, 2025 WL 937478 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2025) (copy attached). Kensington addressed a district court’s jurisdiction under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038 over a challenge to an agency rule that prohibits possession of radioactive material without a license. Id. at *1.

In Aspire’s appeal pending before this Court, Appellees have argued, among other things, that Aspire’s challenge to the validity of the ECRS Rules under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038 is barred because Aspire did not exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting its challenge to the PUC under PURA’s “contested-case” procedures. ERCOT Br. at 44-47; PUC Br. at 22-26. Aspire disagreed, arguing that § 2001.038 expressly excuses a plaintiff from any requirement that it

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P. www.ccsb.com 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 • Dallas, Texas 75202 • fax: 214.580.2641 Fifteenth Court of Appeals of Texas April 1, 2025 Page 2

first exhaust potential administrative remedies before seeking relief in court. Aspire Br. at 59-60; Aspire Reply at 24-25.

The Supreme Court in Kensington has now resolved that issue in Aspire’s favor: “Section 2001.038(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act allows a plaintiff to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the validity or applicability of an administrative rule without [first] going through an agency proceeding.” Kensington, 2025 WL 937478, at *1. The Court explained,

The Department, for its part, argues that the question whether Kensington “possessed” the radioactive material involves factual disputes that should be decided in an administrative proceeding followed by judicial review. Indeed, it points out that the issue was already litigated in Kensington’s SOAH contested case proceeding and the ALJ found that Kensington had exercised control over the radioactive material. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that “the question of who possesses the radioactive personal property ... should be resolved in the context of an administrative contested-case hearing” so that the agency can “exercise its discretion and apply its expertise.” [Tex. Dep’t of State Health Svcs. v. Kensington Title- Nevada, LLC, 704 S.W.3d 16, 18 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023), rev’d, No. 23-0644, 2025 WL 937478 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2025).]

These efforts to invoke concepts of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are misplaced. As we have already explained, the statute expressly authorizes a “court [to] render a declaratory judgment without regard to whether the plaintiff requested the state agency to rule on the validity or applicability of the rule in question.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.038(d).

Kensington, 2025 WL 937478, at *6 (emphasis added). In sum, the Texas Supreme Court in Kensington rejected the very same “primary jurisdiction and exhaustion” arguments asserted here by ERCOT and the PUC Parties. Fifteenth Court of Appeals of Texas April 1, 2025 Page 3

Respectfully submitted,

Chrysta L. Castañeda /s/ Ken Carroll Texas Bar No. 15325625 Monica Latin chrysta@castaneda-firm.com Texas Bar No. 00787881 Nicole Michael MLatin@ccsb.com Texas Bar No. 24067767 Brent M. Rubin nicole@castaneda-firm.com Texas Bar No. 24086834 THE CASTAÑEDA FIRM BRubin@ccsb.com 325 N. St. Paul, Suite 2030 Ken Carroll Dallas, Texas 75201 Texas Bar No. 03888500 Phone: (214) 282-8579 KCarroll@ccsb.com Fax: (214) 602-9187 CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 855-3000 Fax: (214) 580-2641

Attorneys for Appellant Aspire Power Ventures, LP Fifteenth Court of Appeals of Texas April 1, 2025 Page 4

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 1st day of April, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via the authorized electronic filing system on counsel of record for Appellees:

John R. Hulme Elliot Clark John.Hulme@oag.texas.gov eclark@winstead.com Amanda Atkinson Cagle Elin Isenhower Amanda.Cagle@oag.texas.gov eisenhower@winstead.com Jordan Pratt WINSTEAD PC Jordan.Pratt@oag.texas.gov 600 W. 5th Street, Suite 900 Environmental Protection Division Austin, TX 78701 Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, MC-066 Counsel for Appellee ERCOT Austin, TX 78711-2548

Counsel for Appellees the Public Utilities Commission of Texas and its Chairman and Commissioners

/s/ Ken Carroll Ken Carroll           !"!#$

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

WESTLAW            !           !"!#$

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

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman (Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related