Texas Codes

Tex. Util. Code § 14.101 (2026)

Report Of Certain Transactions; Commission Consideration

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 14.101. REPORT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS; COMMISSION CONSIDERATION. (a) Unless a public utility reports the transaction to the commission within a reasonable time, the public utility may not:

(1) sell, acquire, or lease a plant as an operating unit or system in this state for a total consideration of more than $10 million; or

(2) merge or consolidate with another public utility operating in this state.

(b) A public utility shall report to the commission within a reasonable time each transaction that involves the sale of at least 50 percent of the stock of the utility. On the filing of a report with the commission, the commission shall investigate the transaction, with or without a public hearing, to determine whether the action is consistent with the public interest. In reaching its determination, the commission shall consider:

(1) the reasonable value of the property, facilities, or securities to be acquired, disposed of, merged, transferred, or consolidated;

(2) whether the transaction will:

(A) adversely affect the health or safety of customers or employees;

(B) result in the transfer of jobs of citizens of this state to workers domiciled outside this state; or

(3) whether the public utility will receive consideration equal to the reasonable value of the assets when it sells, leases, or transfers assets; and

(4) whether the transaction is consistent with the public interest.

(c) If the commission finds that a transaction is not in the public interest, the commission shall take the effect of the transaction into consideration in ratemaking proceedings and disallow the effect of the transaction if the transaction will unreasonably affect rates or service.

(d) This section does not apply to:

(1) the purchase of a unit of property for replacement;

(2) an addition to the facilities of a public utility by construction; or

(3) transactions that facilitate unbundling, asset valuation, minimization of ownership or control of generation assets, or other purposes consistent with Chapter 39.

Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 166, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 405, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 129 (H.B. 1753), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 2006–2015 · leading case: Nucor Steel-Texas v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 363 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nucor Steel-Texas v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 363 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “See Tex. UtiLCode Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Cities of Harlingen, 311 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101(b). At the district court, only the State argued that substantial evidence did not support the Commission's determination that ETT's formation transactions complied with PURA section 14.”

CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 212 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2006). “See Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp.2005).”

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Div. of Nucor Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas, Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. & Texas Energy Future Holdings Ltd. P'ship (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Consequently, Texas Energy and Oncor filed various business commitments with the Commission regarding the acquisition and asserted that the proposed acquisition was in the public interest.”

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Div. of Nucor Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas, Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. & Texas Energy Future Holdings Ltd. P'ship (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 14.101 . A restriction relevant to this case states that if a public utility is going to enter into a transaction that “involves the sale of at least 50 percent of the stock of the utility,” the utility must report the transaction to the Commission…”

Dos Republicas Coal P'ship v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Adm'r & Cnty. Judge of the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court, & the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

Centerpoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC & Texas Genco, LP v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas & City of Houston (Tex. App. 2006). “See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp.”

Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas & Elec. Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, & Victoria State of Texas & Texas Indus. Energy Consumers (Tex. App. 2010). “Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 14.101 (b). At the district court, only the State argued that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s determination that ETT’s formation transactions complied with PURA section 14.”

Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas & Elec. Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, & Victoria State of Texas & Texas Indus. Energy Consumers (Tex. App. 2010). “Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 14.101 (b). At the district court, only the State argued that substantial evidence did not support the Commission's determination that ETT's formation transactions complied with PURA section 14.”

— Tex. Util. Code § 14.101(b) — 2 cases

Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Cities of Harlingen, 311 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App. 2010). “Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101(b). At the district court, only the State argued that substantial evidence did not support the Commission's determination that ETT's formation transactions complied with PURA section 14.”

Nucor Steel-Texas v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 363 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App. 2012). “See Tex. UtiLCode Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

— Tex. Util. Code § 14.101(b)(1) — 1 case

Dos Republicas Coal P'ship v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Adm'r & Cnty. Judge of the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court, & the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

— Tex. Util. Code § 14.101(c) — 2 cases

Nucor Steel-Texas v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 363 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App. 2012). “See Tex. UtiLCode Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

Dos Republicas Coal P'ship v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Adm'r & Cnty. Judge of the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court, & the Maverick Cnty. Commissioners Court (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 14.101 (West Supp. 2011).”

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.