Aep Texas Central Company v. PAUL HUDSON, Chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-51129
AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PAUL HUDSON, Chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas;
JULIE PARSLEY, Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas;
BARRY SMITHERMAN, Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of
Texas
Defendants-Appellants
v.
CPL CITIES STEERING COMMITTEE, consisting of the cities of Alton,
Aransas Pass, Big Wells, Dilley, Freer, Ganado, George West, Goliad, Indian
Lake, La Feria, Laguna Vista, Los Fresnos, Luling, Lyford, Mercedes, Palm
Valley, Port Aransas, Port Isabel, Port Lavaca, Rancho Viejo, Refugio,
Rockport, and Santa Rosa, Texas
Intervenor-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:05-CV-619
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 11, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-51129
R. 47.5.4.
1 AEP Tex. Cent. Co. v. Hudson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 810 (W.D. Tex. 2006).
2 See Entergy La., Inc. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39, 50 (2003) (“It matters not
whether FERC has spoken to the precise classification of ERS units, but only whether the
FERC tariff dictates how and by whom that classification should be made. The amended
system agreement clearly does so, and therefore the LPSC’s second-guessing of the
classification of ERS units is pre-empted.” (emphasis added)); AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Tex. Indus.
Energy Consumers, 473 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Here, we also consider a tariff which
designates an agent to perform an allocation (although Entergy involved an allocation of costs,
rather than revenues). . . . The states are bound to implement a FERC-approved agreement,
and the agreement authorizes only AEPSC to implement the formula.”).
2
Having reviewed the district court’s decision,1 the parties’ briefs, and the
record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s analysis of the tariffs.2
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --