Cities of Abilene v. Public Utility Commission

Texas Supreme Court

Cities of Abilene v. Public Utility Commission

909 S.W.2d 493, 1995 WL 434476

Texas Supreme Court·Decided October 27, 1995·No. D-4044·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an administrative appeal from a final order of the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) involving Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) and others. In 1989, the PUC initiated an inquiry into the reasonableness of Bell’s existing rates pursuant to section 42 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). 1 In 1990, the PUC ordered Bell to reduce its rates to decrease its annual revenue by approximately $73 million. When the PUC determined Bell’s reasonable and necessary operating expenses, it considered, among other things, Bell’s federal income tax liability. In calculating Bell’s federal income tax liability, the PUC did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3) of PURA The Office of Public Utility Counsel, the City of McKinney and numerous other cities sought judicial review of the PUC’s order. The trial court affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the PUC erroneously calculated Bell’s federal in *494 come tax liability in estimating its operating expenses when it did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3). 854 S.W.2d 932.

In Public Util. Comim’n v. GTE Southwest Inc., 901 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.1995), this court held that when calculating GTE’s federal income tax liability for the purpose of determining GTE’s reasonable and necessary operating expenses, the PUC was not required to include the income tax deductions actually taken by GTE for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3) of PURA. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a majority of the court grants the applications for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverses that portion of the court of appeals’ judgment concerning the calculation of Bell’s federal income tax liability which did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(e)(3). The remainder of the court of appeals’ judgment is affirmed.

1

. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 1446c, § 42.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an administrative appeal from a final order of the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) involving Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) and others. In 1989, the PUC initiated an inquiry into the reasonableness of Bell’s existing rates pursuant to section 42 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). 1 In 1990, the PUC ordered Bell to reduce its rates to decrease its annual revenue by approximately $73 million. When the PUC determined Bell’s reasonable and necessary operating expenses, it considered, among other things, Bell’s federal income tax liability. In calculating Bell’s federal income tax liability, the PUC did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3) of PURA The Office of Public Utility Counsel, the City of McKinney and numerous other cities sought judicial review of the PUC’s order. The trial court affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the PUC erroneously calculated Bell’s federal in *494 come tax liability in estimating its operating expenses when it did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3). 854 S.W.2d 932.

In Public Util. Comim’n v. GTE Southwest Inc., 901 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.1995), this court held that when calculating GTE’s federal income tax liability for the purpose of determining GTE’s reasonable and necessary operating expenses, the PUC was not required to include the income tax deductions actually taken by GTE for expenses disallowed by section 41(c)(3) of PURA. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a majority of the court grants the applications for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverses that portion of the court of appeals’ judgment concerning the calculation of Bell’s federal income tax liability which did not include the income tax deductions actually taken by Bell for expenses disallowed by section 41(e)(3). The remainder of the court of appeals’ judgment is affirmed.

1

. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 1446c, § 42.

Cities of Abilene v. Public Utility Commission, 909 S.W.2d 493, 1995 WL 434476 (Tex. 1995).

Pincite

909 S.W.2d 493 (Cities of Abilene v. Public Utility Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n Inc.

500 S.E.2d 693 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1998)

Public Utility Commission v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

960 S.W.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Opinion

Related