AEP Texas Central Co. v. Hudson

Full title: AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul HUDSON, Chairman of…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2007

259 F. App'x 625 (5th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-51129.

December 11, 2007.

David C. Duggins, Clark, Thomas Winters, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas Burt Fraser, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Natural Resources Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-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:[fn*] [fn*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

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.

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, 123 S.Ct. 2050, 156 L.Ed.2d 34 (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.").