Texas residents and businesses who sued utility companies for cutting power during the 2021 winter storm didn鈥檛 adequately prove the companies were intentionally negligent in causing widespread blackouts, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The justices ruled plaintiffs didn鈥檛 put forth enough evidence to show Oncor, CenterPoint Energy and other utilities were purposely negligent or caused a nuisance when they were ordered to cut power to homes across the state and allegedly failed to adequately mitigate the harm.
鈥淭he plaintiffs have nowhere alleged facts supporting an inference that the Utilities were not doing the best they could in those time-sensitive circumstances,鈥� Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote for the court.
Justices ruled, however, that the plaintiffs should get the chance to replead their gross negligence claims at the trial court level now that the high court has clarified what does and doesn't classify as "conscious indifference" in cases like this. The decision provides a relatively narrow pathway for the plaintiffs to try and prove the utility companies鈥� liability.
A spokesperson for CenterPoint said the company is pleased with the court's ruling.
"While the Texas Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to replead their gross-negligence claims, CenterPoint is confident that plaintiffs will be unable to support any claim for gross negligence," the statement reads. "If plaintiffs replead, CenterPoint will continue to vigorously defend against plaintiffs鈥� remaining claim in the trial and appellate courts."
In a statement to 四虎影院, Oncor said it's confident the case will be fully dismissed should the plaintiffs replead.
"Furthermore, we continue to maintain that every action Oncor took during Winter Storm Uri was for the purpose of successfully preventing the collapse of the Texas grid," the statement reads. "We recognize this does not lessen the anguish experienced by our customers and by Texans across the state during that time. We are also certain, as reinforced by today鈥檚 ruling, that these actions were in line with regulatory directives and guidelines."
American Electric Power Texas, which serves parts of south and west Texas, declined to comment.
When the statewide freeze put record-high demand on the state鈥檚 electrical grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 鈥� which maintains the grid 鈥� ordered the utilities to 鈥渓oad shed,鈥� or cut power to homes. , mostly from hypothermia.
, alleging the power cuts worsened the situation and the companies could have reasonably prepared for the freeze. The plaintiffs said the power companies鈥� actions caused an intentional nuisance 鈥� in other words, unreasonable discomfort or annoyance that interferes with the use of land 鈥� but the court found that鈥檚 not a good enough argument.
鈥淥f course, that is not to say that something cannot be an intentional nuisance just because natural forces play a role,鈥� Lehrmann wrote. 鈥淏ut for intentional-nuisance liability to attach, the defendant must in some way have been a source of the nuisance.鈥�
Plaintiffs also claimed the companies promised rolling blackouts, which are supposed to be temporary. Dallas attorney Ann Saucer, who represents some of the plaintiffs, said that鈥檚 not what happened.
鈥淲hat these companies did was to cut the power off to people for days, causing them to freeze to death,鈥� she told 四虎影院. 鈥淭hey did not execute the load shed orders with any degree of responsibility.鈥�
But justices ruled there鈥檚 not enough proof yet that the utilities acted with conscious indifference, especially as the companies have to comply with ERCOT鈥檚 orders under state law.
The plaintiffs plan to replead their case, Saucer said. While not impossible, conscious indifference is a difficult legal standard to meet, said Chad Ruback, a Dallas appellate attorney uninvolved with this case.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 see a lot of plaintiffs鈥� lawyers being eager to take on this sort of case in the future in light of this morning鈥檚 (Texas) Supreme Court ruling that gross negligence, that conscious indifference would be required to be shown,鈥� Ruback said.
The lawsuits were compiled into one multidistrict litigation case in Harris County because of the sheer volume of plaintiffs, and that鈥檚 where the suit will remain as proceedings return to the trial court level. There鈥檚 no clear timeline for when that will happen. A separate appeal to dismiss the case is pending in the Houston First Court of Appeals.
This story has been updated with comments from Oncor, CenterPoint Energy and AEP Texas.
Got a tip? Email Toluwani Osibamowo at tosibamowo@kera.org. You can follow Toluwani on X .
四虎影院 is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider . Thank you.
