Texas Industrial Energy Consumers v. Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Public Utility Commission of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that prior case law, which relied on the agency’s own severability rule, had invalidated a Public Utility Commission rule only as to the timing portion of the rule, not the interest rate portion of the rule
• stating that “if an agency ‘does not follow the clear, unambiguous language of its own regulation, we reverse its action as arbitrary and capricious’” (quoting Rodriguez v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co., 997 S.W.2d 248, 255 (Tex. 1999))
• declining to use one provision to prevail over another where the two provisions could be “easily harmonized”
• if generally applicable laws conflict with specific or local laws, court should endeavor to give both meaning if able
• resort to “specific-controls-over-general maxim” is unnecessary because maxim only applies if overlapping statutes cannot be reconciled and court was able to construe two provisions to harmonize rather than conflict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).