stating that there is a bedrock principle in Texas jurisprudence that no court can grant relief against a person or entity that is not a party to the litigation
How later courts described this case
- stating that there is a bedrock principle in Texas jurisprudence that no court can grant relief against a person or entity that is not a party to the litigation
- observing that “[sjtranded costs are a potential byproduct of Texas’s transition from the former rate-regulated electricity system to competition”
- observing that "[s]tranded costs are a potential byproduct of Texas's transition from the former rate-regulated electricity system to competition"
- ABecause the generating companies and retail electric providers must use the existing power lines to move electricity from the plant to the retail customer . . ., the transmission and delivery companies . . . remain regulated monopolies.@
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this original proceeding, relator is TXU Electric Co. and respondents are the Public Utility Commission and its three members. TXU seeks relief from portions of the Commission’s orders requiring TXU to reverse efforts it has undertaken to mitigate its estimated stranded costs as part of the transition to a deregulated, competitive retail market for the sale of electricity in Texas.
Six Membees of the Court vote to deny relief for different reasons. Chief Justice Phillips, joined by Justice Enoch and Justice Godbey, would not exercise mandamus jurisdiction because TXU has an adequate remedy at law. Justice BakeR, joined by Justice RodRiguez, would hold that the relief TXU seeks is against the Commission, over which the Court has no original mandamus jurisdiction. Justice BristeR would hold that the portions of the Commission’s orders of which TXU complains do not constitute a clear abuse of discretion. Justice Hecht, joined by Justice Owen and Justice Jefferson, would grant relief.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Chief Justice PHILLIPS filed a concurring opinion in which Justice ENOCH and Justice GODBEY (Assigned) 1 joined.
Justice BAKER concurred in the judgment and filed an opinion in which Justice RODRIGUEZ joined.
Justice BRISTER (Assigned) 2 concurred in the judgment and filed an opinion.
*132 Justice HECHT filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice OWEN and Justice JEFFERSON joined.