Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas ( 2015 )

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
6