CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// Cross-Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

ACCEPTED 03-14-00340-CV 5451028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/28/2015 12:22:07 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF MainAPPEALS Tel +1 312 782 0600 AUSTIN,Main Fax +1 312 701 7711 TEXAS May 28, 2015 www.mayerbrown.com 5/28/2015 12:22:07 PM JEFFREY D. KYLET. Sullivan Michael Clerk Direct Tel +1 312 701 7251 Direct Fax +1 312 706 8689 Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk msullivan@mayerbrown.com Court of Appeals Third District of Texas P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711-2547 Re: Case No. 03-14-00340-CV Appellants, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T/Cross Appellant, Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Appellee, Public Utility Commission of Texas/Cross Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Dear Mr. Kyle: On May 8, 2015, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas (“AT&T”) and Time Warner Cable Texas LLC (“TWC”) filed its Joint Response. In that Joint Response, AT&T and TWC argued that the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ (“Commission”) determination that Public Utility Regulatory Act (“PURA”) § 54.204 automatically incorporates revisions to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) Telecom Formula was a declaratory judgment, not an “advisory opinion,” and that CPS has standing to appeal. Specifically, AT&T and TWC argued that the Commission’s determination resolved a pure legal issue: the clarification of the meaning of the statute, and the parties’ rights under that statute, without dependence on hypothetical or theoretical future events – a circumstance that courts find as a proper subject for a declaratory judgment. See Joint Response, pp. 4-6, citing State v. Montgomery Cnty., 338 S.W.3d 49, 57-58 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied); Bexar Metropolitan Water Dist. v. City of Bulverde, 156 S.W.3d 79, 88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied); Brennan v. City of Willow Park, 376 S.W.3d 910, 922 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied.) In its brief filed on May 22, 2015, the Commission correctly notes that the Joint Response cites a brief, instead of a Commission decision, in Docket No. 36763, Complaint of Chermac Energy Corp. Regarding Certain Qualifying Facilities Under PURPA. The purpose of Mayer Brown LLP operates in combination with other Mayer Brown entities with offices in Europe and Asia and is associated with Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership. Mayer Brown LLP Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk May 28, 2015 Page 2 this letter is to apologize to the Court for the error in the Joint Response. Despite our sincere regret, AT&T’s and TWC’s basic position remains firmly grounded in applicable law, including the other decisions cited in the Joint Response at pages 4-8. See, e.g., City of Waco v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 83 S.W.3d 169, 178 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (“Because we find that the City's declaratory judgment request turns on a purely legal issue, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand this cause for consideration of the issue presented.”); Bexar Metropolitan Water Dist., 156 S.W.3d at 88 (“Declaratory-judgment actions are intended to determine the rights of parties when a controversy has arisen, before any wrong has actually been committed, and are preventative in nature.”). We respectfully thank the Court for its consideration of this matter and regret any inconvenience that this may have caused. Sincerely, /s/ Michael T. Sullivan Michael T. Sullivan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served electronically and/or by regular U.S. mail upon the following attorneys of record on this 28th day of May, 2015. /s/ Michael T. Sullivan Counsel for Public Utility Commission Counsel for Time Warner Cable Texas LLC: of Texas: Valerie P. Kirk Douglas Fraser Melissa Lorber Kellie E. Billings-Ray Enoch Kever PLLC Megan M. Neal 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2800 Office of the Attorney General Austin, Texas 78701 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Phone: (512) 615-1200 Austin, Texas 78711-02548 Fax: (512) 615-1198 Phone: (512) 463-2012 vkirk@enochkever.com Fax: (512) 457-4610 mlorber@enochkever.com douglas.fraser@texasattorneygeneral.gov kellie.billings- ray@texasattorneygeneral.gov megan.neal@texasattorneygeneral.gov Counsel for CPS Energy: Counsel for Time Warner Cable Texas LLC: Curt D. Brockman J.D. Thomas CPS Energy Paul A. Werner 145 Navarro Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP P.O. Box 1771 1300 I Street, N.W. San Antonio, TX 78296 11th Floor East Phone: (210) 353-5689 Washington DC 20005 Fax: (210) 353-6832 Phone: (202) 218-0000 cdbrockman@cpsenergy.com Fax: (202) 312-9504 dthomas@sheppardmullin.com pwerner@sheppardmullin.com Counsel for CPS Energy: Alfred R. Herrera Sean Farrell HERRERA & BOYLE, PLLC 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-1492 Fax: (512) 474-2507 aherrera@herreraboylelaw.com sfarrell@herreraboylelaw.com mwood@herreraboylelaw.com llindsey@herreraboylelaw.com