Sec. 52.002. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. (a) To carry out the public policy stated by Section 52.001 and to regulate rates, operations, and services so that the rates are just, fair, and reasonable and the services are adequate and efficient, the commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over the business and property of a telecommunications utility in this state subject to the limitations imposed by this title.
(b) The commission's regulatory authority as to a telecommunications utility other than a public utility is only as prescribed by this title.
(c) The commission may not require a telecommunications utility that is not a public utility, including a deregulated or transitioning company, to comply with a requirement or standard that is more burdensome than a requirement or standard the commission imposes on a public utility.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a department, agency, or political subdivision of this state may not by rule, order, or other means directly or indirectly regulate rates charged for, service or contract terms for, conditions for, or requirements for entry into the market for Voice over Internet Protocol services or other Internet Protocol enabled services. This subsection does not:
(1) affect requirements pertaining to use of a right-of-way or payment of right-of-way fees applicable to Voice over Internet Protocol services under Chapter 283, Local Government Code;
(2) affect any person's obligation to provide video or cable service, as defined under applicable state or federal law, the applicability of Chapter 66, or a requirement to make a payment under Chapter 66;
(3) require or prohibit assessment of enhanced 9-1-1, relay access service, or universal service fund fees on Voice over Internet Protocol service;
(4) affect any entity's obligations under Sections 251 and 252, Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sections 251 and 252), or a right granted to an entity by those sections;
(5) affect any applicable wholesale tariff;
(6) grant, modify, or affect the authority of the commission to implement, carry out, or enforce the rights or obligations provided by Sections 251 and 252, Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sections 251 and 252), or of an applicable wholesale tariff through arbitration proceedings or other available mechanisms and procedures;
(7) require or prohibit payment of switched network access rates or other intercarrier compensation rates, as applicable;
(8) limit any commission authority over the subjects listed in Subdivisions (1)-(7) or grant the commission any authority over those subjects; or
(9) affect the assessment, administration, collection, or enforcement of any tax or fee over which the comptroller has authority.
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 166, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 98 (S.B. 980), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. Lp, 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007).
“” Tex. Util.Code § 52.002(a). In addition to this explicit grant of exclusive original jurisdiction, chapter 56 constitutes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for a Texas Universal Service Fund administered by the PUC.”
At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Tex. 1998).
“See Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 52.002 (1998) ("the commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over the business and property of a telecommunications utility in this state”); General Tel.”
At & T Commc'ns of the Sw., Inc. v. City of Dallas, 52 F. Supp. 2d 763 (N.D. Tex. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1998), and the Texas Public Utilities Regulatory Act (“PURA”), TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. §§ 52.002, 14.008 (West 1998), largely preempted the City’s authority to regulate telecommunications providers except for the City’s authority to manage or control its public rights-of-way and to…”
Big Bend Tel. Co. v. Halo Wireless, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 558 (W.D. Tex. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Tex. UtiLCode § 52.002. A party aggrieved by a state-commission decision approving or rejecting an agreement may seek review of that determination in federal court.”
City of Dallas v. GTE Sw., Inc., 980 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. App. 1998).
“The first upheld GTESW’s assertion that the Legislature has vested in this state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) the exclusive jurisdiction over the business and property of all telecommunications utilities in Texas, see Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 52.002(a) (Vernon 1997)…”
ASAP Paging Inc. v. Centurytel of San Marcos Inc., 137 F. App'x 694 (5th Cir. 2005).
“Tex Util. Code § 52.002(a) (stating that the PUC “has exclusive original jurisdiction over the business and property of a telecommunications utility,” subject to certain limitations).”
in Re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. Llc (Tex. 2021).
“68 “When the Legislature uses certain language in one part of the statute and different language in another, the Court assumes different meanings were intended.”69 There is no basis for imposing a “business affairs” limitation on the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 32.”
— Tex. Util. Code § 52.002(a) — 4 cases
In Re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. Lp, 235 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2007).
“” Tex. Util.Code § 52.002(a). In addition to this explicit grant of exclusive original jurisdiction, chapter 56 constitutes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for a Texas Universal Service Fund administered by the PUC.”
City of Dallas v. GTE Sw., Inc., 980 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. App. 1998).
“The first upheld GTESW’s assertion that the Legislature has vested in this state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) the exclusive jurisdiction over the business and property of all telecommunications utilities in Texas, see Tex. Util.Code Ann. § 52.002(a) (Vernon 1997)…”
ASAP Paging Inc. v. Centurytel of San Marcos Inc., 137 F. App'x 694 (5th Cir. 2005).
“Tex Util. Code § 52.002(a) (stating that the PUC “has exclusive original jurisdiction over the business and property of a telecommunications utility,” subject to certain limitations).”
in Re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. Llc (Tex. 2021).
“68 “When the Legislature uses certain language in one part of the statute and different language in another, the Court assumes different meanings were intended.”69 There is no basis for imposing a “business affairs” limitation on the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 32.”
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.