Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

In re Centerpoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC

In re Centerpoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC

Supreme Court of Texas

October 8, 2020, Argued; June 30, 2021, Opinion Delivered

No. 19-0777

Opinion

 [*152]  On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Three cases we decide this term address whether the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) over an electric utility's rates, operations, and services extends to certain issues raised in common-law tort suits against utilities.1 In this case, a good Samaritan  [*153]  was electrocuted while attempting to help the victims of a wreck that downed a CenterPoint power line, and his estate and family sued CenterPoint for negligence. CenterPoint's plea to the jurisdiction presents the following question: does the PUC have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of duty and breach [**2]  that underlie these plaintiffs' claims?

We hold that the PUC does not have exclusive jurisdiction because the plaintiffs and their decedent are not "affected persons" statutorily authorized to bring a complaint in the PUC. ] In addition, whether a regulatory scheme has displaced the common-law duty of reasonable care is a matter for courts—not agencies—to decide, and CenterPoint correctly argued in the trial court that the common-law standard applies. It is for a trier of fact to determine whether the utility breached that standard, as the PUC itself has long acknowledged. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying CenterPoint's plea to the jurisdiction, and we deny its petition for writ of mandamus.

Background

Two vehicles were involved in a collision in southern Harris County after the driver of one vehicle ran a red light. The vehicle that ran the light hit a wooden utility pole, causing the pole and the power line attached to it—owned and maintained by CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC—to fall to the ground. Glenn Wood Higgins was driving near the wreck and stopped to render aid. While walking toward the vehicle, plaintiffs allege that Higgins [**3]  came into contact with electricity radiating through the ground from the downed power line. The contact knocked his body onto the line, shocking him and catching his clothes on fire. Higgins suffered severe burns and passed away three weeks later.

Higgins's family members2 and estate (collectively, plaintiffs) brought wrongful-death and survival claims against CenterPoint in Harris County Probate Court. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for common-law negligence and gross negligence.3 They alleged that CenterPoint has a duty to design, construct, operate, and maintain its electricity distribution system to de-energize portions of the distribution lines promptly when they experience faults. Plaintiffs asserted that CenterPoint's line protection scheme was not prudently designed, and that CenterPoint chose and installed an inappropriately sized fuse. Fuses are placed on power lines to stop the flow of electricity and de-energize the line in the event of a fault. Plaintiffs contended that an appropriate fuse would have de-energized the downed power line in five seconds or less—before Higgins had even exited his truck.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

629 S.W.3d 149 *; 2021 Tex. LEXIS 659 **; 64 Tex. Sup. J. 1625

IN RE CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC, RELATOR

Subsequent History: Motion for rehearing on petition for review denied by In re Centerpoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC, 2021 Tex. LEXIS 999 (Tex., Oct. 15, 2021)

Prior History: In re Centerpoint Energy Hous. Elec., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 904, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7078, 2019 WL 3783110 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist., Aug. 13, 2019)

CORE TERMS

exclusive jurisdiction, electric, fuse, adjudicate, plurality, affected person, common-law, plaintiffs', rates, regulation, tariff, electric utility, probate court, exclusive original jurisdiction, regulatory scheme, trial court, customers, complaints, provisions, public utility, power line, district court, facilities, disputes, landowners, conferred, pervasive, complain, probate, construct

Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Torts, Duty, Standards of Care, Reasonable Care, Common Law, Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, General Jurisdiction, Energy & Utilities Law, Public Utility Commissions, Hearings & Orders, Judicial Review, Administrative Proceedings, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Jurisdiction, Administrative Law, Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Writs, Common Law Writs, Mandamus, Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Estate, Gift & Trust Law, Estate Administration, Probate, Probate Proceedings, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Probate Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Ancillary Matters, Wrongful Death & Survival Actions, Potential Plaintiffs, Legislation, Interpretation, Survival Actions, Wills, Will Contests, Time Limitations, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Application Process, Utility Companies, Liability, Separation of Powers, Primary Jurisdiction, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Agency Rulemaking, State Proceedings, Business & Corporate Compliance, Electric Power Industry, State Regulation, Rate Setting & Tariffs, Rates, Overcharging, Ratemaking Factors, Rate of Return, Stranded Cost Recovery, Regulators, Ratemaking Procedures, Buying & Selling of Power, Operating Expenses, Ownership & Restructuring, Legislative Controls, Explicit Delegation of Authority, State & Territorial Governments, Legislatures, Costs & Attorney Fees