Tex. Codes » Utilities Code · TITLE 3. GAS REGULATION · SUBTITLE A. GAS UTILITY REGULATORY ACT · CHAPTER 103. JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF MUNICIPALITY
Texas Codes

Tex. Util. Code § 103.055 (2026)

Hearing And Order

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 103.055. HEARING AND ORDER. (a) An appeal under this subchapter is de novo and based on the test year presented to the municipality adjusted for known changes and conditions that are measurable with reasonable accuracy.

(b) The railroad commission shall enter a final order establishing the rates the railroad commission determines the municipality should have set in the ordinance to which the appeal applies.

(c) If the railroad commission fails to enter a final order within 185 days after the date the appeal is perfected, the rates proposed by the gas utility are considered to be approved by the railroad commission and take effect on the expiration of the 185-day period.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 166, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2006–2015 · leading case: City of Port Neches v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 212 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Port Neches v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 212 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006). · cites it 2× “See Tex. UtiLCode Ann. § 103.055(a). The dispute about whether the awarded rate increase was excessive turns on a disagreement about whether the expenses of the acquisition should have been included as a “known and measurable change.”
Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas, 406 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013). “(citing prior version of GURA; current provision found at Tex. UtiLCode § 103.055). GURA vests the Railroad *262 Commission with “exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review all orders or ordinances of municipalities as provided in this Act.”
Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead Michael McCall Wayne Knox & the City of Hempstead v. Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality & Pintail Landfill, L.L.C., No. 03-14-00718-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 25, 2015). · cites it 3× “174 and Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 105.001 ; further, the Commission did not err by including the gas utility's costs in acquiring its predecessor as a known and measurable change" in its gas rate award because nothing in Tex.”
City of Port Neches v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, No. 03-05-00777-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 4, 2006). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 103.055 (a). The dispute about whether the awarded rate increase was excessive turns on a disagreement about whether the expenses of the acquisition should have been included as a "known and measurable change.”
City of Port Neches v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, No. 03-05-00777-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 4, 2006). “” See Tex. Util. Code Ann. §§ 103.055 (a), 104.”
Tex. Util. Code § 103.055(a): 1 case
City of Port Neches v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 212 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006). “See Tex. UtiLCode Ann. § 103.055(a). The dispute about whether the awarded rate increase was excessive turns on a disagreement about whether the expenses of the acquisition should have been included as a “known and measurable change.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.