Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller County Circuit Court, Second Division, 370 Ark. 190

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas considered a petition for a writ of prohibition concerning a class action alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy arising from natural-gas pricing. The court held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission had sole and exclusive jurisdiction over claims relating to Arkansas customers because the alleged damages required evaluating regulated rates, while declining to determine the jurisdiction of Texas regulators over Texas customers. The writ was granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. The Arkansas Public Service Commission has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims insofar as they concern Arkansas customers because the claims challenge rates and seek damages measurable only by comparing the rates charged with the rates that allegedly should have been charged.
2. The APSC may investigate the conduct of unregulated affiliates of public utilities when that conduct affects rates charged by the regulated utility, and it may provide refunds, billing credits, or other appropriate prospective relief to Arkansas customers.
3. The court declined to adjudicate the jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission over Texas customers under Texas law and denied the writ as to potential Texas class members.
4. A writ of prohibition may issue following a circuit court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Arkansas Public Service Commission had sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the claims of Arkansas customers challenging allegedly excessive natural-gas charges.
2. Whether the Arkansas Public Service Commission had jurisdiction over claims involving unregulated affiliates and suppliers whose conduct allegedly affected rates charged by a regulated utility.
3. Whether a writ of prohibition could issue after the circuit court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
4. Whether the court should determine the Texas Railroad Commission's jurisdiction over Texas customers under Texas law.

Disposition

writ_granted