Texas § 2003.049 UTILITY HEARINGS.

Texas Statutes

§ 2003.049 — UTILITY HEARINGS.

Texas § 2003.049

Code GVGovernment Code

This text of Texas § 2003.049 (UTILITY HEARINGS.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tex. Government Code Code Ann. § 2003.049 (2026).

Text

Sec. 2003.049. UTILITY HEARINGS.

(a)The office shall perform contested case hearings for the Public Utility Commission of Texas as prescribed by the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995 and other applicable law.

(b)The office shall conduct hearings relating to contested cases before the commission, other than a hearing conducted by one or more commissioners. The commission by rule may delegate the responsibility to hear any other matter before the commission if consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the office.

(c)The office may contract with qualified individuals to serve as temporary administrative law judges as necessary.

(d)To be eligible to preside at a hearing, an administrative law judge, regardless of temporary or permanent status, must be licensed to practice law

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

Sec. 2003.049. UTILITY HEARINGS. (a) The office shall perform contested case hearings for the Public Utility Commission of Texas as prescribed by the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995 and other applicable law.
(b) The office shall conduct hearings relating to contested cases before the commission, other than a hearing conducted by one or more commissioners. The commission by rule may delegate the responsibility to hear any other matter before the commission if consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the office.
(c) The office may contract with qualified individuals to serve as temporary administrative law judges as necessary.
(d) To be eligible to preside at a hearing, an administrative law judge, regardless of temporary or permanent status, must be licensed to practice law in this state and have not less than five years of general experience or three years of experience in utility regulatory law.
(e) At the time the office receives jurisdiction of a proceeding, the commission shall provide to the administrative law judge a list of issues or areas that must be addressed. In addition, the commission may identify and provide to the administrative law judge at any time additional issues or areas that must be addressed.
(f) The office and the commission shall jointly adopt rules providing for certification to the commission of an issue that involves an ultimate finding of compliance with or satisfaction of a statutory standard the determination of which is committed to the discretion or judgment of the commission by law. The rules must address, at a minimum, the issues that are appropriate for certification and the procedure to be used in certifying the issue. Each agency shall publish the jointly adopted rules.
(g) Notwithstanding Section 2001.058 , the commission may change a finding of fact or conclusion of law made by the administrative law judge or vacate or modify an order issued by the administrative law judge only if the commission:
(1) determines that the administrative law judge:
(A) did not properly apply or interpret applicable law, commission rules or policies, or prior administrative decisions; or
(B) issued a finding of fact that is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; or
(2) determines that a commission policy or a prior administrative decision on which the administrative law judge relied is incorrect or should be changed.
(h) The commission shall state in writing the specific reason and legal basis for its determination under Subsection (g).
(i) An administrative law judge, on the judge's own motion or on motion of a party and after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, may impose appropriate sanctions as provided by Subsection (j) against a party or its representative for:
(1) filing a motion or pleading that is groundless and brought:
(A) in bad faith;
(B) for the purpose of harassment; or
(C) for any other improper purpose, such as to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the proceeding;
(2) abuse of the discovery process in seeking, making, or resisting discovery; or
(3) failure to obey an order of the administrative law judge or the commission.
(j) A sanction imposed under Subsection (i) may include, as appropriate and justified, issuance of an order:
(1) disallowing further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind by the offending party;
(2) charging all or any part of the expenses of discovery against the offending party or its representative;
(3) holding that designated facts be deemed admitted for purposes of the proceeding;
(4) refusing to allow the offending party to support or oppose a designated claim or defense or prohibiting the party from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(5) disallowing in whole or in part requests for relief by the offending party and excluding evidence in support of such requests;
(6) punishing the offending party or its representative for contempt to the same extent as a district court;
(7) requiring the offending party or its representative to pay, at the time ordered by the administrative law judge, the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by other parties because of the sanctionable behavior; and
(8) striking pleadings or testimony, or both, in whole or in part, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed.
(k) Repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 , Sec. 26(1), eff. September 1, 2015.
(l) Repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 , Sec. 26(1), eff. September 1, 2015.

Office of Public Utility Counsel and Steering Committee of Cities of Camp Wood, Carrizo Springs, Corpus Christi, Eagle Pass, Edinburg/ Public Utility Commission of Texas Constellation New Energy, Inc. And AEP Texas Central Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas/Office of Public Utility Counsel and Steering Committee of Cities Served by Central Power & Light Co.

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)

GTE Southwest, Incorporated D/B/A Verizon Southwest/MCI Communications Corporation and MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas MCI Communications Corporation And MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc./GTE Southwest Incorporated D/B/A Verizon Southwest, Inc.

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Southwestern Public Service Company/Public Utility Commission of Texas and City of Amarillo v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, City of Amarillo, ASARCO, Inc., and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers/Southwestern Public Service Company

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Robert "Lee" Hammack, Kevin Hammack, Chris L. Hammack, Jeanette H. Wharton, J.D., Henry Miller, Marceline B. Reed, Yanta Cattle Company, Gary Walton, Larami, Ltd., John H. Dreier, La Nell Ressman, Jane R. Montgomery, Burton A. Utley v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Patrick Wood, III, Former Chairman of the Commission and Former Board of Director of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, in His Official & Individual Capacity, Judy Walsh

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)

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)

Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.// Cap Rock Energy Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Cap Rock Energy Corporation// Public Utility Commission of Texas and Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)

Harris County Hospital District v. the Public Utility Commission of Texas

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)

Public Utility Commission of Texas and Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Texas Industrial Energy Consumers

(Texas Supreme Court, 2021)

the City of El Paso// El Paso Electric Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// El Paso Electric Company and the City of El Paso

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)

The City of College Station v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025)

Opinion No.

(Texas Attorney General Reports, 2002)

Public Utility Commission of Texas and North Fort Bend Water Authority v. City of Fulshear, Texas

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025)

Public Utility Commission of Texas // City of Denton Operating as Denton Municipal Electric v. City of Denton Operating as Denton Municipal Electric // Cross-Appellee Public Utility Commission of Texas

(Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025)

Legislative History

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 765, Sec. 1.35, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Renumbered from Government Code Sec. 2003.047 by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 31.01(49), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 85, Sec. 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2000. Amended by: Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 (H.B. 2154 ), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2015. Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 (H.B. 2154 ), Sec. 10, eff. September 1, 2015. Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 (H.B. 2154 ), Sec. 26(1), eff. September 1, 2015.