Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

Opinion

FILED 15-0005 7/29/2015 11:25:10 AM tex-6270462 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

No. 15-0005 ______________________________

In the Supreme Court of Texas ______________________________

ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, ET AL., Petitioners

v.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS, ET AL., Respondents ______________________________

ONCOR’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED WORD LIMITATION ______________________________

From the Third Court of Appeals at Austin, Texas No. 03-11-00072-CV ______________________________

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:

Petitioner Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor”) respectfully

requests permission to exceed the 2,400 word limit for a reply to a response for a

petition for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(E) & 9.4(i)(4).

1. This case is an appeal from a 2008 administrative ratemaking

proceeding involving Oncor before the Public Utility Commission of Texas

(“PUC”). The PUC issued a final Order on Rehearing on November 30, 2009,

from which several interested parties appealed to Travis County District Court. The District Court signed its final judgment in January 2011. On further appeal,

the Third Court of Appeals, after considering motions for rehearing and en banc

reconsideration, issued a modified opinion on December 4, 2014, of its August 6,

2014 opinion. Oncor filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas on

February 19, 2015, raising six points of error. Two other parties to the case

below—Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor (“Cities”), and State of

Texas’ Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning (“State Agencies”)—also

filed petitions for review. On June 25, 2015, six different parties, including Oncor,

filed responses to the three petitions. The three petitioners then filed a joint,

unopposed motion for extension of time to file replies, which this Court granted on

July 6, 2015. Replies are now due on July 30, 2015.

2. Oncor requests permission to exceed the 2,400 word limit for a reply

brief by no more than 600 words. Good cause supports this request.

3. Oncor requires a longer reply to address the multiple responses to its

petition for review. The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that “[a] reply to a

response to a petition for review” may not exceed 2,400 words. Tex. R. App. P.

9.4(i)(2)(E) (emphasis added). However, the rules do not specifically address the

case of a single, combined reply to multiple responses. Here, Oncor must reply to

four responses totaling more than 16,000 words. PUC filed a 4,369-word response

2 addressing all six of Oncor’s issues,1 and the remaining three respondents filed

responses concerning Oncor’s issues 1-3: Cities filed a 3,197-word response;

Texas Industrial Energy Consumers filed a 4,343-word response; and the Office of

Public Utility Counsel filed a 4,477-word response. In this case, Oncor requests to

exceed the prescribed word limit by only the amount necessary to fairly reply to

the points raised in each response.

4. The nature and complexity of the case also supports Oncor’s request

to exceed the word limitation. The issues in Oncor’s petition concern the

interpretation of multiple statutory provisions that are part of a complex regulatory

framework. The administrative record contains thousands of pages, and three

different adjudicative bodies have issued opinions on the issues. In view of the

complexity of the case, the number of issues presented, and the number of

respondents to Oncor’s petition, Oncor’s request for up to an additional 600 words

to reply is warranted.

5. Counsel for all parties have conferred by email and/or telephone about

this matter, and no party opposes the relief sought in this motion.

1 A portion of PUC’s response addressed issues raised in Cities’ petition for review.

3 PRAYER

6. For the reasons above Oncor respectfully requests that the Court grant

leave to file a combined reply brief totaling no more than 3,000 words in length,

600 words in excess of the limit prescribed by Rule 9.4(i)(2)(E), and for such other

and further relief to which they may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury Howard Fisher Thomas S. Leatherbury State Bar No. 07051500 State Bar No. 12095275 Senior Counsel Matthew C. Henry Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC State Bar No. 00790870 1601 Bryan Street, Suite 23-035C VINSON & ELKINS LLP Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 Trammell Crow Center 214.486.3026 (phone) 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 214.486.3221 (fax) Dallas, Texas 75201 howard.fisher@oncor.com 214.220.7700 (phone) 214.999.7792 (fax) tleatherbury@velaw.com mhenry@velaw.com

Jonah D. Jackson State Bar No. 24071450 VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746-7568 (512) 542-8536 (phone) (512) 236-3208 (fax) jjackson@velaw.com

Counsel for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC

4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on July 28 & 29, 2015, I conferred with counsel for all parties by email and/or telephone regarding the relief requested in this motion. All counsel indicated that they do not oppose the relief requested.

/s/ Thomas S. Leatherbury Thomas S. Leatherbury

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed and served on July 29, 2015, on the following counsel of record:

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ALLIANCE OF TXU/ONCOR CUSTOMERS

Elizabeth R. B. Sterling Alfred R. Herrera Office of the Attorney General Jason Wakefield Environmental Protection Division Herrera & Boyle PPLC 300 W. 15th Street 816 Congress Ave., Suite 1250 Austin, TX 78701 Austin, TX 78701 Elizabeth.sterling@texasattorneygeneral.gov (512) 474-1492 aherrera@herreraboylelaw.com jwakefield@herreraboylelaw.com

OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY STEERING COMMITTEE OF COUNSEL CITIES SERVED BY ONCOR

Christiaan Siano Thomas L. Brocato Office of Public Utility Counsel Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & 1701 N. Congress Ave Townsend PC Suite 9-180 816 Congress Ave., Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Austin, TX 78701 Christiaan.siano@opuc.texas.gov tbrocato@lglawfirm.com

5 STATE AGENCIES & INSTITUTIONS OF TEX-LA ELECTRIC HIGHER LEARNING COOPERATIVE OF TEXAS INC

Katherine H. Farrell Mark C. Davis Office of the Attorney General John T. Wright Administrative Law Division Holland & Knight Energy Rates Section 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 950 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 Austin, TX 78701 mark.davis@hklaw.com (512) 475-4237 john.t.wright@hklaw.com katherine.farrell@texasattorneygeneral.gov

RAYBURN COUNTRY ELECTRIC CENTERPOINT ENERGY COOPERATIVE, INC. HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC

Campbell McGinnis Macey Reasoner Stokes Shawn P. St. Clair Baker Botts L.L.P. McGinnis Lochridge & Kilgore One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana 600 Congress Ave., Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Austin, TX 78701 macey.stokes@bakerbotts.com cmcginnis@mcginnislaw.com sstclair@mcginnislaw.com

TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS

Debora Alsup Phillip Oldham Benjamin Hallmark Thompson & Knight LLP 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 debora.alsup@tklaw.com phillip.oldham@tklaw.com benjamin.hallmark@tklaw.com

/s/ Jonah Jackson Jonah Jackson