Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The owner of a Houston office building, as well as the building’s property manager and the telecommunications service manager (the building owners) attempted to negotiate with Time Warner to reach an amount the telecommunications company would pay to serve some of the tenants in the building. Most other companies were providing service at $500 per month to $1,000 per month to other tenants, but Time Warner offered only $208.03 per month. When the building owners rejected the offer, Time Warner sought to force the building owners to go through the rate negotiation process set forth in the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Util. Code ��54-259-.261. PURA requires a public or private property owner to give a telecommunications utility access to the property for the purposes of installing a service facility at a tenant’s request. Instead of going through the administrative process, the building owners filed suit against the Public Utilities Commission and the state, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional because they resulted in a taking of the property without adequate compensation. The building owners also sought an injunction against the PUC from enforcing the statutes. The trial court rendered judgment for the PUC, ruling the statutes were constitutionally sound. HOLDING:Affirmed. The PUC’s enforcement power includes the power to settle a dispute between a utility and a property owner, two private parties, over a dispute about what rate the utility will pay for access to the property owner’s property. The court explains that in charging the PUC with the task of balancing property rights with the goals of ensuring market-based competition for telecommunications service in multi-tenant buildings, the Legislature included express authorization to resolve the inevitable disputes to arise. “Furthermore, when the legislature expressly confers power on an agency, as it does here, it also impliedly intends that the agency have whatever powers are reasonably necessary to fulfill its express duties.” Next, the court rules that the statutes contain sufficient standards to guide the PUC in making its determinations. The court notes that a standard does not have to be so specific as to anticipate every circumstance, and that a standard that is broad and encompasses many factors that are no broader than necessary may still be constitutional. The terms used in PURA � “reasonable” and “nondiscriminatory” � give the PUC discretion to make a determination after a fact-intensive inquiry. Finally, the court disagrees that the statutory process is an unconstitutional physical taking of their property. A lack of adequate procedures to establish compensation is a necessary element to establish a claim under the takings doctrine and, as mentioned above, the procedures are in fact adequate. OPINION:Law, C.J.; Law, C.J., Smith and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.