TTA v. PUC Lawsuit

1/20/2021 4:14 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-21-000311 D-1-GN-21-000311
CAUSE NO. ____________
Ruben Tamez
TEXAS TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

TEXAS STATEWIDE TELEPHONE §
COOPERATIVE, INC., AND THEIR §
PARTICIPATING MEMBERS §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF § 200TH
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TEXAS, DEANN T. WALKER, Chairman, §
ARTHUR C. D’ANDREA, Commissioner, §
and SHELLY BOTKIN, Commissioner, §
each in his or her official capacity at the §
Public Utility Commission of Texas, §
§
Defendants. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND REQUEST
FOR COMPENSATION FOR REGULATORY TAKING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN................................................................................................. 3
II. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 4
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 5
IV. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 10
V. JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................. 11
VI. LEGAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 12
A. LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 12
B. THE DEC. 17, 2020, CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS VOID ................................................ 18
i. The Contract Amendment Violates the Open Meetings Act.................................. 18
ii. The Contract Amendment Constitutes Ad Hoc Rulemaking................................. 21
iii. The Contract Amendment Exceeded Mr. Gleeson’s Authority............................. 22
C. PRIOR COMMISSION ORDERS REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND ALL TUSF
PROGRAMS..................................................................................................................... 24
i. Orders from at Least Six Financial Needs Test Proceedings (Under SB 583 and
16 TAC §§ 26.403 and 26.405, Relating to both the THCUSP and SRILEC USP
programs) ................................................................................................................ 25
ii. Orders Related to Over 100 Small Provider Proceedings (Under SB 586 and 16
TAC § 26.407, relating to the SRILEC USP program) ......................................... 28
Page 1 of 113 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION,

APPLICATION FOR TRO, TI, AND PI,
WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND REQUEST FOR
COMPENSATION FOR REGULATORY TAKING
iii. Orders from Over 85 Federal USF Replacement Proceedings (Under PURA
§ 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406) .............................................................................. 33
D. COMMISSION RULES REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND TUSF ........................ 35
i. 16 TAC §§ 26.403 and 26.405 (Related to the THCUSP) ..................................... 38
ii. 16 TAC §§ 26.404 and 26.407 (Related to the SRILEC USP) .............................. 39
iii. 16 TAC § 26.406 (Related to PURA § 56.025 Support)......................................... 41
E. STATUTES REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND ALL TUSF PROGRAMS ............. 42
F. RECENT BILLS MANDATED TUSF REFORMS FOR HIGH-COST SUPPORT IN
PARTICULAR .................................................................................................................. 46
i. SB 583 Reformed Mid-Sized Carriers’ Support in 2013 (PURA § 56.023(f)-(q)) 46
ii. SB 586 Reformed Small Provider Support in 2017 (PURA § 56.032)................. 47
G. SIMILAR COMMISSION EFFORTS TO DECLINE TO FUND USF IN OTHER STATES WERE
FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL BY THEIR STATE SUPREME COURTS ...................................... 49
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION ........................................................................................................... 52
A. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ........................................................................................... 52
B. WRIT OF MANDAMUS .................................................................................................... 55
C. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ........................... 56
D. PERMANENT INJUNCTION ............................................................................................. 58
E. COMPENSATION FOR REGULATORY TAKING ............................................................... 59
VIII. PRAYER AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ………………………………..…………………………….. 62
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ………………………….……………………………………….... 63
VERIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………...64
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT A - LIST OF ASSOCIATIONS’ PARTICIPATING MEMBER PLAINTIFFS ……………..... 66
EXHIBIT B - LIST OF ACRONYMS ………….………………………………………………….. 67
EXHIBIT C – MAPS OF TEXAS TELEPHONE SERVICE AREAS……………………………..….. 68
EXHIBIT D - DEC. 17, 2020 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 473-19-00006 BETWEEN THE
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AND SOLIX, INC………………………….70
EXHIBIT E - JAN. 7, 2021 SOLIX LETTER …………………………………………………….100
EXHIBIT F - DEC. 17, 2020 OPEN MEETING AGENDA……………………………………….. 103
EXHIBIT G - LIST OF EXISTING ILEC TUSF HIGH-COST SUPPORT PAYMENTS NECESSARY TO
PRESERVE STATUS QUO …………………………………………………………………. 108

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, Texas Telephone Association (“TTA”), Texas Statewide Telephone
Cooperative, Inc., (“TSTCI”) (the “Associations”) and their participating members (collectively,
the “Plaintiffs”)1 and file this Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for
Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, Writ of Mandamus,
and Request for Compensation for Regulatory Taking (the “Petition”) requesting that the Court
order the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “Commission” or “PUC”)2 and Commission
Chairman DeAnn T. Walker, Commissioner Arthur C. D’Andrea, and Commissioner Shelly
Botkin (the individuals collectively referred to as the “Commissioners” and, together with the
Commission, collectively as the “Defendants”), sued in their official capacities, to perform their
mandatory statutory duties and desist from violating those applicable statutes, the agency’s rules,3
or valid existing final orders issued by the Commission with respect to the Texas Universal Service
Fund (“TUSF” or “Fund”).
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Plaintiffs intend that discovery be conducted under a level 3 discovery control plan,
pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4.
1
The Associations’ participating member companies and cooperatives are listed in Exhibit A for ease of
reference.
2
See Exhibit B for a glossary of acronyms.
3
16 Texas Administrative Code (“TAC”) Chapter 26, Subchapter P.
II.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2. The PUC has unlawfully ordered reductions in legislatively-mandated TUSF
funding to more than 50 telecommunications companies which provide basic local
telecommunications services in the State of Texas. The PUC has done so:
x in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act4 (see pp. 18 - 21 below for more detail);
x by conducting a statutorily and procedurally unlawful ad hoc rulemaking through oral
proclamations and a third-party contract amendment (see pp. 21 - 22); and
x by unlawfully taking revenues from telecommunications entities without notice and
hearing, in violation of long-standing utility ratemaking principles required by law (see
pp. 25, 43).
3. Additionally, these actions by the PUC constitute ultra vires acts that:
x are in violation of due process (see pp. 25-37);
x amount to unconstitutional and arbitrary “taking” of prior regulatorily-approved revenues
in complete absence of notice and hearings required for both contested cases and
rulemakings (see pp. 24-34 and 35-41); and
x are a capricious action in direct violation of express statutory language (see pp. 42-48).
4. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request that this court issue on an expedited basis:
x A temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction to maintain

the status quo by enjoining the Commission from violating applicable orders, rules, and
statutes;
x A declaratory judgment that the PUC’s refusal to fully fund the TUSF and its decision to
create an artificial hierarchy among TUSF programs that does not exist in rule or law:
o Violates the Texas Open Meetings Act;
o Violates a multitude of past Commission proceedings, constituting a government
taking without due process of law in violation of orders from, including at least six
granular financial needs test proceedings for mid-sized providers and many reports
filed under Senate Bill (“SB”) 583; over 150 elections, reports, and adjustment
proceedings for small providers filed under SB 586; and at least 87 cases filed under
Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act (“PURA”)5 § 56.025. The PUC cannot change
its past orders and take known required revenues, set by rate-making proceedings,
without notice and a hearing as that constitutes a government taking without due
process of law;
4
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.
5
TEX. UTIL. CODE ANN. §§ 11.001-66.016 (West 2007 & Supp. 2014).
o Violates Commission rules requiring that it fund TUSF, including at least
16 TAC §§ 26.401, 26.403, 26.404, 26.405, 26.407, and 26.420, and constitutes
prohibited ad hoc rulemaking;
o Violates Texas statutes requiring the Commission to fund TUSF, including at
least PURA §§ 51.001, 52.051(1)(a), 53.051, 56.021 (which, in part, requires the
PUC to assist telecommunications providers “in high cost rural areas”), 56.022,
56.023, 56.025, 56.026 (which mandates that TUSF disbursements be made
“promptly and efficiently so that a telecommunications provider does not
experience an unnecessary cash-flow change as a result of a change in
governmental policy”), 56.028, 56.031, and 56.032; and
x A writ of mandamus, compelling the Commission to fulfill its statutory duty under PURA
to fund the TUSF sufficiently so that the Fund can meet its current obligations.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. The PUC has statutory obligations to create and administer the 11 various programs
of the TUSF and issue disbursements on a non-discriminatory basis.6 Every TUSF recipient is
entitled to very specific amounts of support established by order, rule, and/or statute.7 These
specific amounts are typically set through contested cases, governed by legislative mandate, which
are ultimately approved by the Commission.8 Yet the Commission now seeks to overturn this
entire body of prior decisions, regulations, and statutory direction by refusing to fund amounts it
previously determined must be distributed.
6. Starting in late 2019, Plaintiffs began discussing TUSF issues and potential
shortfalls with the PUC. In May of 2020, PUC staff formally recognized it would be appropriate
to increase the TUSF assessment rate to meet TUSF’s ongoing obligations:
6
These statutory obligations are outlined more specifically in Section VI, Subsections E and F, pp. 42-48
below.
7
Relevant rules are outlined in Subsection D (pp. 35-41).
8
Prior orders are outlined more specifically in Section VI, Subsection C, pp. 24-34 below. See examples of
such contested cases listed below, n70.
9
7. A timely and adequate TUSF assessment rate is crucial. Rural telecommunications
providers rely very heavily on their ordered TUSF support because it is not economic to provide
basic local telecommunications service without support in sparsely populated rural areas where
they are legally obligated to extend service.10 In this instance, Plaintiffs are small and rural
telephone providers that build, maintain, and operate the state’s wireline telephone network and
provide services to over 55% of Texas’s land mass—an area of over 148,000-square-miles, larger
than the state of Montana.11 Many of these providers are member-owned, not-for-profit telephone
cooperatives. Each carrier receiving TUSF support serves sparsely populated areas. Their
infrastructure is critical to the state-wide telecommunications network.
8. The Plaintiffs must painstakingly account for every dollar spent or collected to
demonstrate TUSF funds are spent properly.12 They are very transparent with the PUC: in 2020
alone, Texas providers collectively filed over 81,000 pages of information detailing their services,
support, and revenues.
9. Despite this unprecedented transparency, at the end of 2020, the PUC decided not
to adopt what PUC Staff had proposed and continue to adequately fund TUSF. This is the first
9
See Review of TUSF Rate, Project No. 50796 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Memorandum
of Jay Stone, Budget and Fiscal Oversight Division, to Commissioners (Jun. 5, 2020).
10
By way of example, upon review of annual reports filed in 2020, TTA has determined that on average,
about 60% of its members’ intrastate, regulated revenues come from TUSF.
11
See maps of Texas telephone service areas, attached as Exhibit C. The shaded areas on this map combined
would be the fourth largest U.S. state—larger than 46 .
12
The rules and regulations that require such exacting accounting are described below, particularly in Section
VI, Subsection D.ii. (pp. 38-41 below) regarding a recently developed state rule, 16 TAC § 26.407.
time in history this has occurred. In fact, the PUC has adjusted the TUSF assessment rate up or
down by order at least seven times between 2004 and 2014 alone.13
10. The disastrous 2020 decision was not implemented through a duly noticed
rulemaking proceeding or through orders in contested cases. Instead, this unilateral and massive
policy reversal was carried out in direct contravention to the plain wording of the statute behind
closed doors through a contract amendment between the PUC’s Executive Director and the TUSF
administrator. This amendment is the first time TUSF recipients were provided any notice of
exactly what was going to happen to their TUSF disbursements. In this contract, for the first time
in history, the PUC arbitrarily created an artificial hierarchy among TUSF programs that does not
exist in rule or statute:
13
See Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF Administration), Project No. 21208, Orders Changing the TUSF
Assessment (Jul. 28, 2004 (increasing the assessment rate from 3.6% to 5.65% effective Sep. 1, 2004)); Jul. 24, 2006
(decreasing to 5% eff. Oct. 1, 2006); Apr. 13, 2007 (decreasing to 4.4% eff. Jul. 1, 2007); Aug. 8, 2008 (decreasing to
3.4% eff. Jan. 1, 2009); Nov. 10, 2011 (increasing to 4.3% eff. Jan. 1, 2012); Jul. 19, 2013 (decreasing to 3.7% eff.
Sep. 1, 2013); Dec. 18, 2014 (decreasing to 3.3% eff. Mar. 1, 2015)).
14
11. According to the PUC’s own analysis, the result of this policy shift is an immediate, drastic
cut in funding of the high-cost programs that rural providers rely upon most to keep all Texans
connected:
15
12. This sudden, significant loss of 60%-70% of high-cost funding is a dire crisis for
the Texas telephone industry because TUSF support is needed for Texans in many rural areas to
14
See Exhibit D, the “Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment.”
15
See Exhibit E, the “Jan. 7, 2021, Solix Letter.” The Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment and the Jan. 7,
2021, Solix Letter are collectively referred to herein as the “January Action.”
obtain basic local exchange telephone services at all.16 Telephone service is much more costly to
provide in rural areas—often more than three times higher than in urban areas.17 Many rural areas
are uneconomic to serve without support.
13. Given what has happened, Plaintiffs are unfortunately left with no recourse at the
Commission, and therefore have no choice but to file this lawsuit to seek to compel the
Commission to continue paying TUSF disbursements, consistent with the Commission’s own
orders and statutory and regulatory mandates to preserve the status quo. Using the PUC’s own
projections, with about $10 million in collective losses anticipated every month beginning in
January 2021, it is crucial that injunctive relief be granted immediately to preserve TUSF until the
matter can be finally resolved. If existing levels of TUSF funding are not preserved, all Texans
may not continue to receive vital basic local telecommunications services as the law currently
requires.
14. Preserving the rural telecommunications network benefits all – not just rural –
Texans; it allows urban users to transmit information to and receive information from remote users
(whether national or state parks, rural hospitals, wind farms, oil derricks, border points of entry,
or relatives or friends). A robust telephone network also enables other advanced services which
may share the network.
16
In exchange for receiving support to maintain a network in these high cost areas, the Associations’ ILEC
members have obligations—known as Provider of Last Resort or “POLR” obligations—to serve all potential
customers in their service areas, and they also must meet service quality and cost standards and undergo thorough
regulatory oversight. Meeting these regulatory and legal obligations is very costly and cannot be accomplished
without TUSF support.
17
See Balhoff, Michael J. and Bradley P. Williams, Texas Universal Service Policy: Perspectives for Reform
Small Texas ILECs at p. 43 (Feb. 2016), available at
http://www.balhoffwilliams.com/pdf/Texas%20USF%20Study.pdf
15. Similar attempts to withhold mandatory state USF have been found illegal by the
supreme courts of both Oklahoma and New Mexico.18
IV.
PARTIES
16. Plaintiff TTA is a trade association, organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Texas, with offices at 208 W. 14th St., Austin, TX 78701. Its participating members are
listed in Exhibit A.
17. Plaintiff TSTCI is a trade association, organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Texas, with offices at 3112 Windsor Road, Suite A #338, Austin, TX 78703. Its
participating members are also listed in Exhibit A.
18. The Associations have standing in this lawsuit through their participating members,
as each participating member is a TUSF recipient and has standing in its own right, and the interests
Plaintiffs are seeking to protect here are germane to their purposes, and neither the claims asserted
nor the relief requested requires the participation of their individual members.19
19. Defendant Public Utility Commission of Texas is an administrative agency of the
State of Texas, with offices at 1701 N. Congress Avenue, 7th Floor, Austin, TX 78701. Among
18
In this state, no prior Texas Commission has ever refused to provide sufficient TUSF funding, so no court
has yet had to speak to PURA’s obligations that the Commission fund TUSF. However, both the New Mexico and
Oklahoma Supreme Courts were faced with similar situations in which their state commissions declined to provide
mandated USF funding. In both cases, the states’ high courts expressly rejected those refusals to fund USF (see pp.
49-51 below). Dobson Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 2019 OK 24, ¶ 30, 441 P.3d 138, 146 (2019);
N.M. Exch. Carrier Grp. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 2016-NMSC-015, 369 P.3d 1058, 1062 (2016).
19
See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas
Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 447 (1993). The Associations’ purposes are stated in their missions. Founded in
1905, the mission of TTA is to promote and enhance the performance of its member companies and protect the
integrity of the local exchange telephone industry and the services offered within each company’s certificated
exchange areas within the State of Texas. TSTCI’s mission is to represent and serve the interests of the Texas rural
independent telecommunications providers and their customers.
the responsibilities delegated to the agency by the Texas Legislature is the obligation to establish
and administer each program of the Texas Universal Service Fund.
20. Chairman Walker, Commissioner D’Andrea, and Commissioner Botkin are
commissioners of the PUC, and are sued in their official capacities.
21. Under 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 22.22 and Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.176(b)(2), service
on all Defendants may be made on the Commission’s Executive Director, Thomas Gleeson, or its
registered agent for service of process, Stephen Journeay, at 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, Texas
78701.
22. A copy of the Petition must be mailed to the Attorney General for the State of
Texas, Ken Paxton, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Office of the Attorney General,
300 West 15th Street, Austin, TX 78701.
V.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has jurisdiction over this case because the nonmonetary relief and
attorney’s fees sought are within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47.
24. Plaintiff may institute this suit against the Commission under the Uniform
Declaratory Judgment Act to construe the construction of the statutory requirements relating to
TUSF. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.004(a). In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over
alleged violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and over alleged violations of Texas’
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)20 regarding rulemaking processes and procedures that
interfere with or impair a right or privilege of the Plaintiffs. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.143; TEX.
GOV’T CODE § 2001.038.
20
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2001.001-.902 (West 2008 & Supp. 2014).
25. The Commissioners’ actions are ultra vires because, as shown in the Petition, they
acted without legal authority, and thus are not entitled to sovereign immunity against these
claims.21
26. Venue is mandatory in the Travis County district courts under the APA
§ 2001.038(b) regarding declaratory judgments and TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.014
regarding “mandamus against the head of a department of the state government.” Venue is also
proper in this county because all or a substantial part of the acts or events giving rise to this lawsuit
occurred in Travis County.22
VI.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND
27. Telephone service cannot be economically provided in many rural and high cost
areas. Recognizing this economic reality, the Legislature created the TUSF as an explicit cost
recovery mechanism to (among other things) help defray the costs of extending the network to
rural, high-cost parts of the state and to ensure all Texas have “access to telecommunications and
information services … that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas
and that are available at prices that are reasonably comparable to prices charged for similar services
in urban areas.”23
28. Continued TUSF support is necessary for all Texans to continue receiving the
reliable, affordable telecommunications services they currently access—services that are not only
21
Honors Acad., Inc. v. Tex. Educ. Agency, 555 S.W.3d 54, 68 (Tex. 2018); City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284
S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009).
22
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002.
23
PURA § 51.001(g). Note that the need for support for high-cost areas was not a new concept created by
TUSF. TUSF was an explicit replacement of a prior implicit support mechanism by which revenue pooling occurred
using investment, expense and revenue data from Texas Intra-LATA jurisdictional operations.
mandated by statute but also that are especially crucial during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
because people rely on network access more than ever before for remote learning and working, e-
commerce, telemedicine, and connection to others.24
29. PURA directs the PUC to adopt rules to create a mechanism to fund the TUSF, with
the proceeds of certain TUSF programs to be disbursed to help small and rural telephone providers
build their part of the state-wide telecommunications network.25 The PUC, via its rules, has long
since created a process for calculating, collecting, and disbursing TUSF funds.26 The PUC sets an
assessment rate applied to voice telephone receipts, and the revenues from those assessments are
managed by the PUC’s Fund administrator, which is currently Solix, Inc. (“Solix”).
30. TUSF spending has been carefully controlled, with total TUSF disbursements near
historical lows.27 At one time approaching $600 million per year, annual TUSF spending is now
close to $200 million.
31. Since 2018, TUSF revenues and the Fund balance have decreased, largely because
some telecommunications providers reapportioned revenues from voice services (assessed) to data
services (unassessed).28 By 2019, it had become apparent that the TUSF program, left unchanged,
24
While high-cost TUSF is used only for BLTS and does not support data services such as broadband internet,
the wireline telephone network supported by TUSF is a hybrid network that can assist in the provision of other
advanced services as well.
25
See Section V. C, infra., including discussion of (among others) PURA § 51.001(g), § 56.021; § 56.023; §
56.025; and § 56.026.
26
See Section V. B, infra., including discussion of (among others) 16 TAC § 26.401; § 26.403; § 26.404; §
26.405; § 26.406; § 26.407; and § 26.420(e).
27
TUSF has disbursed as much as $572 million per year, but due to various reforms, its disbursements have
shrunk to under $200 million per year recently. See Texas Universal Service Fund Administrator, Texas Universal
Service Fund Financial Reports Pursuant to Project No. 39939 (FY 2019 Q1 – FY 2019 Q4), available at
https://powertochoose.org/agency/resources/reports/.
28
See Review of TUSF Rate, Project No. 50796 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Memorandum
of Jay Stone, Budget and Fiscal Oversight Division, to Commissioners (Jun. 5, 2020). Filings in this proceeding can
be accessed electronically at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Search/Filings?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=50796&ItemMatch=Equal&Docu
mentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending (the “June 5 Proposed Order”).
was heading toward insolvency due to decreased revenues.29 The Commission has never before
allowed TUSF to run out of funds, and in fact, has routinely adjusted the assessment rate as needed
to cover required disbursements.30
32. To avoid an unprecedented result of the Fund not having enough revenues to cover
disbursements, the Commission staff proposed increasing the TUSF assessment rate from its
existing historically low rate of 3.3% to 6.4% effective July 1, 2020, noting that the “current
funding requirement for the TUSF… requires an increase to the assessment rate.”31 Such an
increase is not only consistent with the PUC’s own precedent but also with legislative direction;
one Commissioner observed “the statute charges us with administering a plan like this. ... [A]t
least in the short-term, it seems . . . we are . . . charged with making this work.”32
33. However, at the June 12, 2020, PUC open meeting, the Commissioners ignored
their charge to “make it work.” They rejected their staff’s Proposed Order to increase in the
assessment rate. Instead, without issuing an order, the Commissioners verbally decided to do
nothing and let the Fund become insolvent (the “June 12 Decision”). The Commissioners knew
their inaction would result in TUSF insolvency and directed staff verbally to handle the shortfall
by “triage” by prioritizing allocation of TUSF funds to support low-income programs over high-
cost programs,33 even though PURA does not allow discrimination among support recipients.
29
Review of TUSF Rate, Project No. 50796, Commissioner Memorandum of Chairman DeAnn T. Walker at
2 (May 13, 2020).
30
See Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF Administration), Project No. 21208, Orders Changing the TUSF
Assessment (Jul. 28, 2004 (increasing the assessment rate from 3.6% to 5.65% effective Sep. 1, 2004)); Jul. 24, 2006
(decreasing to 5% eff. Oct. 1, 2006); Apr. 13, 2007 (decreasing to 4.4% eff. Jul. 1, 2007); Aug. 8, 2008 (decreasing to
3.4% eff. Jan. 1, 2009); Nov. 10, 2011 (increasing to 4.3% eff. Jan. 1, 2012); Jul. 19, 2013 (decreasing to 3.7% eff.
Sep. 1, 2013); Dec. 18, 2014 (decreasing to 3.3% eff. Mar. 1, 2015)).
31
Project No. 50796, Memorandum of Jay Stone, at 2.
32
Open Meeting Tr. at 22:13-24 (May 14, 2020) (comments of Commissioner D’Andrea).
33
Review of TUSF Rate, Project No. 50796, Open Meeting Tr. at 39:2-6 (Jun. 12, 2020) (Chairman Walker:
“[M]y position at this point would be to leave the Fund as it is but to direct Staff and Jay Stone, in particular, to begin

Until the January Action, the Plaintiffs and the Texans they serve were not made aware of which
specific programs would be targeted, how it would be implemented, what process would be used,
or how much their support would be reduced. Even in the January Action, the Commission did
not say precisely how much support would be reduced, but only indicated that cuts would be up to
70% for the affected TUSF programs.
34. Since the June 12 Decision, 33 Texas State Representatives, seven Texas State
Senators, and a county judge have filed letters in support of the rural providers with the PUC.34
Select members of the Agricultural Council, the Texas Association of Rural Schools, the Texas
Border Sheriff’s Coalition, the Texas Association of School Administrators, the Texas Association
of Midsize Schools, the Texas High School Coaches Association, the Texas Association of
Community Schools, and the Texas Family Leadership Council also filed letters in support.35
paying out of the Fund to only fund lifeline projects so that those continue to be funded but to leave everything else
as is.”); at 40:14-22 (Commissioner D’Andrea: “I think this is not a time when we should be raising taxes on people,
particularly not in the – in the way – this almost irrational singling out of this group of people who we would be taxing.
So, I agree with you. I think we leave it as is, and we ask Staff to get with Solix [the fund administrator] and figure
out a way to triage the – I think – I’m certain the social welfare programs are such a small piece of this that we can
fund those with what we’re getting in forever”); at 41:15-16 (Commissioner Botkin: “I’m comfortable moving forward
as you propose.”). At this meeting, seven months before TUSF recipients were notified of what shortfalls might occur
and when or how they would be implemented, the Commissioners did not mention the Solix contract or provide any
material details regarding how it might be amended.
34
See Review of TUSF Rate, Project No. 50796, accessible through https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/ (letters
from Reps. Eddie Lucio III, Drew Darby, Ken King, Drew Springer, Charles Doc Anderson, Travis Clardy, Four
Price, Chris Paddie, Ernest Bailes, James White, J.D. Sheffield, Tracy O. King, Andrew Murr, Stan Lambert, Dan
Huberty, Brooks Landgraf, John Raney, and Hugh D. Shine (Jul. 16 through Sep. 14, 2020); letter from Senators
Charles Perry, Pete Flores, Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, Bryan Hughes, Lois Kolkhorst, and Eddie Lucio, Jr. (Jul. 28, 2020);
letter from Judge J.D. Clark (Jul. 29, 2020). In addition, a letter from 24 members of the Texas Rural Caucus—both
senators and representatives, including many committee chairmen—was filed on August 21, 2020. Reps. King, Darby,
Ashby, and Paddie filed another letter on September 25, 2020.
35
See id., Letter from the Texas Corn Producers Association, Plains Cotton Growers, Inc., Texas Cattle
Feeders Association, Texas Farm Bureau, Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council, Agriculture Teachers Association
of Texas, Association of Rural Communities in Texas, Earth Moving Contractors of Texas, Exotic Wildlife
Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain Association, Texas Association of Dairymen, Texas Cotton Association,
Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association, Texas Food Processors Association, Al B. Wagner, Texas Forestry Association,
Texas Grain and Feed Association, Texas Grain Sorghum Association, Texas Independent Cattlemen, Texas Nursery
and Landscape Association, Texas Pest Management Association, Texas Poultry Federation, Texas Seed Trade
Association, Texas Sheep and Goat Association, Texas Soybean Association, and Texas Wheat Producers Association
(Jul. 29, 2020); Letter from the Texas Association of Rural Schools (Jul. 30, 2020); Letter from the Border Sheriff’s

However, the Commission has not changed course, with the Chairman responding via letter that
she has “serious concerns” about “imposing” a fee on Texans during a pandemic.36
35. Although the Commission did not issue a written order implementing its June 12
Decision, in an abundance of caution, on July 8, 2020, the Associations asked the Commission to
reconsider its verbal decision in both a Motion for Reconsideration and in a separate Petition for
Rulemaking. The Motion for Reconsideration was ignored.37 The separate Petition for
Rulemaking was docketed and scheduled for open meeting discussion, then rejected38 after
Chairman Walker filed a memo recommending denial insisting that the Legislature must address
the TUSF assessment before the Commission could do so39—despite the fact that the Commission
has clear legislative direction under existing law to create and fund each TUSF program, and is
simply choosing not to follow that unchanged legislative direction. (Again, until 2020, the
Commission had historically adjusted the assessment rate at least seven times without any added
legislative intervention.) On August 27, 2020, the Commission’s order denying the Petition for
Rulemaking stated that “[t]he Commission has previously indicated that the TUSF assessment is
an issue that needs to be addressed by the Legislature. It would not be a useful exercise or efficient
Coalition (Aug. 12, 2020); Letter from the Texas Association of School Administrators (Aug. 26, 2020); Letter from
the Texas Association of Midsize Schools (Aug. 26, 2020); Letter from the Texas High School Coaches Association
(Sep. 21, 2020); Letter from the Texas Association of Community Schools (Sep. 21, 2020); and Letter from the Texas
Family Leadership Council – Texas Rural Advocacy Coalition (Dec. 21, 2020).
36
See id., Memo from Chairman Walker (Jul. 30, 2020); see also July 31, 2020 PUC Open Meeting Agenda,
Item No. 25, available at http://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/om/073120seq.pdf (this item was on the agenda’s list of
items not to be taken up, but the Commission did discuss TUSF during the open meeting in any event, and they
reiterated the letter’s concerns and took no steps to resolve funding shortfalls).
37
See Project No. 50796, available at
mentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending.
38
See Petition of the Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for
Rulemaking to Amend 16 TAC § 26.420 Related to Assessments for the Texas Universal Service Fund, Project No.
51020, Petition for Rulemaking (July 8, 2020), available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/51020_1_1074564.PDF
39
See id., Memo from Chairman Walker (Aug. 26, 2020), available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/51020_3_1082703.PDF.
use of agency resources to open a rulemaking in this area until after the Commission receives
guidance from the Legislature.”40
36. The Commissioners did this knowing TUSF was expected to approach insolvency
around the end of 2020, before the Legislature could possibly act to save the Fund from their
unprecedented inaction. By refusing to perform a legislatively-mandated duty, the Commission
violated express statutory law and existing legislative direction by taking required revenues from
the Plaintiffs without due process.
37. Plaintiffs did not learn until January that the current PUC Executive Director,
during his first day on the job, executed the aforementioned Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment
with Solix, directing Solix to follow an artificial new hierarchy among TUSF programs. As noted
above, the Contract Amendment directs Solix for the first time to pay certain TUSF programs first
(social programs such as Lifeline, then PURA § 56.025 support), then to maintain a $4,000,000
fund, and only then to pay the high-cost funds most crucial to many of the Plaintiffs.41
38. Shortly thereafter, Solix advised the industry of the contract addendum in its Jan.
7, 2021, Solix Letter, explaining that normal payouts would be delayed from the 10th to the 15th
each month, and that in the very first month, payment amounts would be reduced 60% - 70% below
the amount to which each provider was entitled.42
39. Plaintiffs are sympathetic to the economic stresses caused by the COVID-19
pandemic and the difficult decision the Commission faces in increasing a fee during an ongoing
40
See id., Order Denying Petition for Rulemaking (Aug. 27, 2020), available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/51020_4_1082961.PDF.
41
See Exhibit D at pp. 28-29.
42
See Exhibit E at p. 2.
public health crisis. To this end, several of the Plaintiffs were recognized by the FCC for going
“above and beyond” during this crisis to help ensure Texans stay connected.43
40. Simply stated, the law does not allow the Commission to decline to fund TUSF;
this is because the consequences of doing such would be dire for rural Texans, especially given
the heightened reliance on telecommunications during the pandemic. The June 12 Decision and
the subsequent January Action are unprecedented, illegal, and poor public policy. Bankrupting
the TUSF may in turn bankrupt telecommunication providers who rely on it, which could in turn
strand rural Texans without basic local telecommunications services. Failure to fund the TUSF
will widen an already huge digital divide and will take place during a pandemic when access to
telecommunications is especially vital.
41. The January Action not only has deeply troubling ramifications which violate the
clear intent of countless Texas orders, rules, and laws, but it also has glaring procedural defects,
as explained below.
B. THE DEC. 17, 2020, CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS VOID
i. The Contract Amendment Violates the Open Meetings Act
42. The PUC action is in clear violation of two prominent elements of the Texas Open
Meetings Act due to:
(1) the absence of required public notice (item not listed on the Open Meeting Agenda);
and
(2) the taking of “final action” outside the legal context of an open meeting (no vote taken
in a legal, noticed open meeting).
43
See https://www.fcc.gov/companies-have-gone-above-and-beyond-call-keep-americans-connected-
during-pandemic (recognizing several Texas providers who are Plaintiffs here); see also Exhibit A.
43. The PUC is a “governmental body” pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act.44
The Texas Open Meetings Act requires every governmental body provide advance notice of the
matters that are to come before the agency.45
44. Texas courts have mandated that pre-meeting and posted agendas must provide
certain detail that must describe the subject matter to be addressed by the governing body.46 The
Supreme Court in Cox found a 1977 Attorney General Opinion persuasive when it stated that
proper prior notice had to provide “reasonable specificity,” especially when the subject matter was
one of “special interest” to the public.47
45. The contractual relationship between the PUC and Solix is a major agency
agreement, as Solix administers more than $200 million annually to the TUSF programs. For
example, as noted in the original contract’s “Attachment A — Statement of Work” at subsection
II(a)(i) and (ii),48 at the time of signing more than $13.8 million per month was anticipated to be
dispersed by the fund administrator to telecommunications entities, the majority of which are the
Plaintiffs herein. As a matter of law, Plaintiffs are effective “third-party beneficiaries” of the PUC-
Solix Agreement.
46. The Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment was executed not by the Commissioners
but by the newly appointed Executive Director of the Commission, Thomas Gleeson. Any
direction given by the Commission to Mr. Gleeson was provided in secret and without notice, as
this matter was not listed on any pertinent open meeting agenda.49 It is important to note the
44
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3)(A).
45
See TEX. GOV’T CODE §551.041.
46
See Cox Enterprises v. Board of Trustees of Austin I.S.D., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986).
47
Id.; see also Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. No. H-1045 (1977).
48
See Exhibit D at pp. 18-19.
49
See Exhibit F, the Dec. 17, 2020, Open Meeting Agenda, also publicly available at
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/om/121720seq.pdf.
absence of any reference regarding any intended discussion or action, in either open or executive
session, of a proposed amendment to the Solix contract. However, at item 49.b of the Agenda, the
PUC gave notice that in Closed Session it would consider “personnel matters,” which included the
“appointment, … of the Executive Director …”
47. At the end of the PUC meeting that day, the Commissioners emerged from closed
session to announce the employment of Thomas Gleeson as the new Executive Director of the
Commission, replacing John Paul Urban, who had just resigned. There was no notice, no
announcement, and no reference by the Commissioners regarding the Dec. 17, 2020, Contract
Amendment.
48. Certainly, the PUC was aware of the high level of interest in the matter, given how
many letters had been filed in Project No. 50796 at that time by the Plaintiffs, elected officials,
and major rural educational and agricultural industry associations. This makes the failure of the
PUC to provide any public notice of its action an especially egregious and express violation of the
posting mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
49. Texas law requires that every “final action, decision, or vote” may be made only in
an open meeting that is held in compliance with notice provisions.50 In addition, a governmental
body may not take action or “enter into an agreement” in a closed meeting.51 In fact, well-
established Texas law expressly specifies a governmental body may not take action by written
agreement without a public meeting.52
50
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.102; see also Cox, 706 S.W.2d at 956.
51
See Tex. Atty. Gen. Opinion No. H-1198 (1978)).
52
See Webster v. Tex. & Pac. Motor Transpor. Co., 166 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex. 1942); Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. No.
GA-0264 (2004) at 6-7, JM-120 (1983) at 4; Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. No. DM-95 (1992).
50. Here, it appears the PUC proposed, negotiated, and executed a material amendment
to the Solix contract outside the context of an open meeting; the TUSF Administrator’s contract
has not been noticed for an open meeting since the meeting on August 8, 2019. The PUC knew
that contract amendment would have a major, detrimental financial impact on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
will suffer extensive financial harm as a result of this action.
ii. The Contract Amendment Constitutes Ad Hoc Rulemaking
51. The Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment is illegal because it violates Commission
precedent, rules, and Texas statutes, as argued in the following sections. The violation of
procedural rulemaking processes is particularly blatant here.
52. “Ad hoc rulemaking occurs when the agency makes a determination that has
implications beyond the instant parties, but prefers not to make a formal rule … An ad hoc rule is
an agency statement that interprets, implements, or prescribes agency law or policy.”53 The APA
is clear: no state agency can rewrite or reinterpret its own rules without undergoing a formal
rulemaking process. The Commission cannot make major policy decisions—such as creating an
artificial hierarchy among TUSF programs that does not exist in rule or statute, and directing Solix
to withhold TUSF high-cost funding—behind closed doors through a contract amendment dictated
by its Executive Director, without so much as an open meeting discussion regarding the process
or the amounts/calculations.
53. Here, there is no question as to whether the procedures of the APA were followed—
there was no process at all. Myriad Commission rules, each described below, were all simply
ignored or effectively improperly amended without notice, through a contract signed by a newly
53
CenterPoint Energy Entex v. R.R. Comm’n, 213 S.W.3d 364, 369 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.)
(internal citations omitted).
appointed Executive Director, without following any of the procedural requirements of APA §§
2001.0025-2001.034.
54. The Contract Amendment expressly contemplates the PUC allowing TUSF to
become insolvent. However, the PUC has a statutory mandate to keep the TUSF solvent and not
doing so is a major violation of statute by the PUC, the subject of which is also complained of
herein. Many Commission rules also require funding of all TUSF obligations. Further, any
decision to discriminately fund some programs and not others is not “competitively neutral” as 16
TAC § 26.401 expressly requires. The Commission cannot rewrite its rules by contract.
iii. The Contract Amendment Exceeded Mr. Gleeson’s Authority
55. Alternatively, Mr. Gleeson could not have executed the Dec. 17, 2020 Contract
Amendment without Commissioner direction. Commission staff’s actions cannot exceed the
authority delegated by the Commissioners. Here, Mr. Gleeson could only have relied on a 2019
delegation of authority that directed the prior executive director to award, negotiate, and execute
a contract with a TUSF administrator and then to “administer the contract”; the contract with the
administrator had not been on any open meeting agenda since August of 2019.54
56. The prior Executive Director validly executed a contract with Solix under that
delegation of authority on August 13, 2019.55 That contract’s statement of work directed Solix to
accept reports from various “entitles eligible to receive disbursements,” to “verify that all
appropriate information has been provided,” and then to “issue the disbursements within 45 days
54
RFP to Administer the Texas Universal Service Fund, Project No. 49273, Order (Aug. 8, 2019, 19 months
before TUSF payments were withheld)), available at
http://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/49273_4_1028486.PDF. Note that when the PUC first discussed letting
TUSF run out and performing a “triage” among programs, the only noticed TUSF item on their open meeting agenda
was a “review of the TUSF rate.” See Open Meeting Agenda at pp. 2-3 (June 12, 2020), available at
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/om/20200612seq.pdf. Thus, the public had notice only that the PUC might change
the TUSF assessment rate, not that it might change TUSF disbursements.
55
See Exhibit D, p. 17.
of the due date.”56 In other words, the prior Solix contract directed Solix to promptly pay owed
TUSF disbursements in full.
57. The Dec. 17, 2020, contract amendment thus exceeded the new Executive
Director’s authority to “administer” the contract. It fundamentally changes Solix’s contractual
duties from simply verifying provider information and promptly disbursing funds: after the
amendment, Solix now must delay payments, perform a complex priority analysis to determine
which funds shall be paid first, and then calculate short-paid amounts for only certain programs in
a discriminatory manner – a series of calculations to be performed at such time the PUC
“determines” that the TUSF is “at risk of becoming insolvent.”57 The wholesale rewrite of the
contract is not mere “administration,” but rather is a new contract implementing a new policy that
does not exist in rule or statute and that was never presented or decided in any duly noticed Open
Meeting.
58. The Executive Director does not have the authority to redraft the Solix contract
without Commission direction, and the Commission does not have the authority to take final
actions on a major agency contract outside of a properly noticed open meeting.
59. For all the foregoing reasons, this court should void the invalid contract amendment
because it is illegal. Solix must proceed under the preceding August 13, 2019, statement of work
directing it to make TUSF disbursements promptly. The Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment is
illegal because the Commission violated the Open Meetings Act both by acting without notice and
56
See Exhibit D, p. 19.
57
See Exhibit D, at p. 29. Plaintiffs have not discovered any evidence of any required contractual
“determination” order by the PUC that formally indicates the TUSF is “becoming insolvent” to trigger Solix
proceeding under the Contract Amendment and withholding up to 70% of Texas’s high-cost support. Such a
determination would also need to comply with the Open Meetings Act and would likely constitute ad hoc rulemaking
if the correct procedural processes were not followed.
by taking a final action on a written contract outside an open meeting. Furthermore, that action
constituted impermissible ad hoc rulemaking. And finally, if the Commission did not violate the
Open Meetings Act by directing Mr. Gleeson to sign the contract amendment, then he acted well
outside of his authority to execute such a drastic revision on his first day of work in the role of
Executive Director.
C. PRIOR COMMISSION ORDERS REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND ALL

TUSF PROGRAMS
60. Even if the Dec. 17, 2020, contract amendment is valid, the June 12 Decision and
January Action remain in violation of a vast body of Commission precedent.
61. There are well over two hundred past projects and contested cases spanning decades
that prescribe very specific amounts of TUSF support by program and either by individual eligible
telecommunications providers (“ETPs”), or by specific exchanges.58 A list of such orders as
applied to support from the two high-cost programs for incumbent local exchange carriers
(“ILECs”) is included in Exhibit G attached hereto. There is no dispute that these orders are final
valid, still in effect, and have not been altered. They were adopted, in many cases after contested
rate-making proceedings, under valid rules and statutes outlined below.
62. The January Action effectively ignores or rewrites each of these. The Commission
cannot violate its own final orders. After the expiration of the time to file a motion for rehearing,
if no motion is filed, it becomes final.59 The Commission lacks authority to review its orders that
have become final.60
58
ILECs provide wireline service within “a given geographical calling area”—called an “exchange area”—
via networks of wires and switching equipment. Alenco Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 201 F.3d 608, 617 (5th Cir. 2000).
59
See Tex. Govt. Code § 2001.144.
60
Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Brazos Elec. Power Coop., 723 S.W.2d 171, 173 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, writ ref.
n.r.e.).
63. In the subsections below, the Plaintiffs address three groups of orders in particular
that have been directly altered by:
(i) the needs test proceedings under SB 583,
(ii) the small provider elections, reports, and adjustments under SB 586, and
(iii) PURA § 56.025 proceedings.
63. Plaintiffs seek only to have the PUC follow its own orders, rules, and governing
statutes. If left to stand, the Commissioners’ June 12 Decision and January Action violate
Commission final orders in dozens or hundreds of contested cases.
64. Without individual notices and hearings to the affected providers, the January
Action deprives affected providers of due process. “A deprivation of personal property without
due process violates the United States and Texas Constitutions. Due process at a minimum
requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”61
65. In addition, state law explicitly requires that revisions to high-cost per-line support
amounts require “notice and an opportunity for hearing.”62
i. Orders from at Least Six Financial Needs Test Proceedings

(Under SB 583 and 16 TAC §§ 26.403 and 26.405,
Relating to both the THCUSP and SRILEC USP programs)
66. The Commission is currently obligated to administer 11 existing programs of the
TUSF.63 The two largest programs are the Texas High Cost Assistance Universal Service Plan
61
Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advocates, 136 S.W.3d 643, 658 (Tex. 2004) (internal citations
omitted); see also U.S. CONST, amend. XIV and TEX. CONST. art. I, § 19. In addition to barring the taking of property
without due process, the Constitution further prohibits the taking of property “without adequate compensation.” TEX.
CONST. art. I, § 17.
62
PURA § 56.031.
63
The Commission describes “the 11 programs of the TUSF” in various reports. See, e.g., Report to the 83rd
Texas Legislature: Review and Evaluation of the Texas Universal Service Fund Pursuant to Senate Bill 980, 82 nd
Legislature, Regular Session, at p. ix (Nov. 1, 2012), available at
https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/communications/reports/TUSF/TUSF_Report_83rdLeg.pdf (“the Commission

(“THCUSP”) and the Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Universal Service Plan
(“SRILEC USP”), sometimes collectively referred to as “High-Cost Support.”
67. Through individual contested cases in 2016, two mid-sized incumbent local
exchange carriers (“ILEC”) companies receiving THCUSP funding chose to undergo costly,
granular financial needs test proceedings to establish their financial need for continued TUSF
support and eliminate funding in any exchanges where support was no longer needed.64 The orders
in those proceedings ultimately set forth specific per-line THCUSP support levels by exchange
and mandated TUSF disbursements accordingly.65 For example:
66
reports that the 11 programs of the TUSF, along with the process for designation of ETPs, are fulfilling the fund’s
purposes, as prescribed by PURA § 56.021.
64
“Mid-sized” providers are not defined by the rules, but the term is colloquially used to refer to providers
that serve more than 31,000 access lines, other than the two largest carriers. Companies and cooperatives under this
threshold are typically defined as “small” providers.
65
Application of Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC dba Windstream Communications Southwest
Pursuant to Section 56.023 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket No. 45472, Order at COL 5 and OP 2 (May 6,
2016) (“The ongoing monthly per-line THCUSP support amounts established in this proceeding for Windstream
Southwest are consistent with achieving universal affordable service and assisting Windstream Southwest in providing
basic local telecommunications service at reasonable rates in high cost rural areas, pursuant to PURA § 58.021(1)”
and “Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, the Commission establishes the ongoing monthly per-line THCUSP
support amounts for Windstream Southwest in each of its supported exchanges, as set forth in Attachment 1 to Exhibit
A.”); Petition of Central Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. dba CenturyLink and United Telephone Company of
Texas, Inc. dba CenturyLink Pursuant to Section 56.023 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket No. 45473, Order
at COL 5 and OP 2 (May 5, 2016) (similarly, “Consistent with the terms of the attached Agreement, the Commission
establishes the ongoing monthly per-line THCUSP support amounts for CenturyLink in each of its supported
exchanges, as set forth in Attachment 1 to Exhibit A.”). See also Exhibit G.
66
See Docket No. 45472, Order at OP 2.
68. Similarly, through individual contested cases in 2017, three mid-sized ILEC
companies and one mid-sized ILEC cooperative receiving SRILEC USP funding also chose to
undergo the costly and granular needs test process to establish their financial need and to eliminate
support in any of their exchanges where it was no longer needed.67 Again, the resulting orders set
forth specific per-line SRILEC USP support levels on an exchange-by-exchange basis going
forward:
68
69. The Commission cannot, by its failure to act, change these specific, ongoing
support levels mandated by six contested case proceedings – proceedings that were decided
through open meeting discussion consistent with statutory directives and the rules implementing
those statutes. The Commission’s lack of discretion to ignore statutes and its lack of authority to
rewrite rules ad hoc are further addressed below, but as noted above, the Commission’s inaction
would also violate these providers’ due process rights to notice of hearing and the right to be heard,
after they voluntarily undertook the aforementioned costly proceedings.
67
Application of Texas Windstream, LLC dba Windstream Communications Under Section 56.023 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket No. 46697, Order (Jun. 7, 2017); Application of Windstream Communications
Kerrville, LLC dba Windstream Communications Under Section 56.023 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket
No. 46698, Order (Jun. 7, 2017); Application of Consolidated Communications of Texas Company and Consolidated
Communications of Fort Bend Company Under Section 56.023 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket
No. 46699, Order (Jun. 7, 2017); and Application of Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Under Section
56.023 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Docket No. 46700, Order (May 4, 2017). See also Exhibit G.
68
Docket No. 46700, Order at OP 2 (emphasis added).
ii. Orders Related to Over 100 Small Provider Proceedings
(Under SB 586 and 16 TAC § 26.407, relating to the SRILEC USP program)
70. By both statute and rule, all 43 electing providers are entitled to receive their high-
cost support until adjusted in accordance with the law.69 Forty-three small ILECs relied on the
law and the Commission’s rule and opted into regulation under 16 TAC § 26.407, discussed further
69
PURA §§ 56.032(c), (j); 16 TAC § 26.407(d). The 22 providers who have had their support adjusted under
16 TAC § 26.407(h) have orders in those proceedings setting forth their current TUSF support amounts as adjusted.
See n70, below. The remaining 21 providers who elected into regulation under this rule have their support frozen at
levels specifically set forth in each provider’s notice. See Notice of Alenco Communications, Inc. for Texas Universal
Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 48995, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Big
Bend Telephone Company, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49020,
Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Blossom Telephone Company for Texas Universal Service Fund Election
under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49027, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Border to Border
Communications, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 48996, Notice
of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Brazoria Telephone Company for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under
16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49024, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Cameron Telephone Company for
Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 48985, Notice of Election (Dec. 13, 2018);
Notice of Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC §
26.407, Docket No. 49000, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Dell Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas
Notice of Electra Telephone Company for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket
No. 49001, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2020); Notice of ENMR Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas Universal
Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49016, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2020); Notice of Five
Area Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No.
49002, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2020); Notice of Ganado Telephone Company d/b/a YK Communications for
Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49011, Notice of Election (Dec. 14,
2020); Notice of La Ward Telephone Exchange, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC §
26.407, Docket No. 49013, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Lake Livingston Telephone Company for
Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49012, Notice of Election (Dec. 14,
2018); Notice of Lipan Telephone Company for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407,
Docket No. 48984, Notice of Election (Dec. 13, 2018); Notice of Livingston Telephone Company, Inc. for Texas
Notice of Muenster Telephone Corporation of Texas d/b/a Nortex Communications for Texas Universal Service Fund
Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49003, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Poka Lambro
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 48988,
Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Southwest Texas Telephone Company d/b/a Southwest Texas
Communications for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49026, Notice of
Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Tatum Telephone Company for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16
TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49007, Notice of Election (Dec. 14, 2018); Notice of Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49023, Notice of Election (Dec. 14,
2018); Notice of West Texas Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16
TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 48987, Notice of Election (Dec. 13, 2018); and Notice of XIT Rural Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. for Texas Universal Service Fund Election under 16 TAC § 26.407, Docket No. 49010, Notice of Election (Dec.
14, 2018). The 44th small ILEC, Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative, Inc. did not opt into regulation under
this rule and thus its support is now determined by prior per-line amounts. See Compliance Proceeding for
Implementation of the Small and Rural ILEC Universal Service Plan, Docket No. 18516, Final Order at Attachment
1 (Jan. 14, 2000). See also Exhibit G.
below. They have followed all applicable rules, timely filed their notices to elect into this program,
timely filed detailed annual financial reports longer than any earnings monitoring reports the
Commission has ever received in any industry, had their data reviewed by Staff, responded to
Staff’s questions both formally and informally, and ultimately received recommendations from
Staff either confirming or adjusting their reported rates of return. This has happened in 129
proceedings so far. These annual report proceedings are exhaustive and subject to close scrutiny
by Commission Staff. For example, in 2019, the 43 small providers collectively provided over
3,500 pages of information in their annual report proceedings in response to extensive Commission
Staff questions in these adjustment proceedings—and this extensive production occurred in
addition to and after the small providers had already provided about 9,000 cumulative pages of
reports and supporting materials in each proceeding.
71. In addition to the 129 election and report proceedings, the Commission has
approved certain applications to adjust support under 16 TAC § 26.407(h) in 22 separate contested
cases, five of which were approved since the June 12 Decision.70 The 22 adjustment packages
70
See Application of Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50026, Notice of Approval (Jan. 22, 2020); Application of Peoples Telephone
Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50208, Notice of Approval
(Mar. 5, 2020); Application of Taylor Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50225, Notice of Approval (Mar. 4, 2020); Application of Santa Rosa Telephone
(Mar. 24, 2020); Application of Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50287, Notice of Approval (Apr. 9, 2020); Application of Etex Telephone
(Mar. 25, 2020); Application of North Texas Telephone Company to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50336, Notice of Approval (Mar. 24, 2020); Application of Hill Country Telephone
(Mar. 19, 2020); Application of Community Telephone Company, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50338, Notice of Approval (Feb. 24, 2020); Application of Totelcom
Communications, LLC to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50339, Notice of
Approval (Mar. 20, 2020); Application of Coleman County Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support
Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50397, Notice of Approval (Apr. 29, 2020); Application of Cap Rock
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50416, Notice of

were hundreds of pages long and provided the Commission with unprecedented detail regarding
each provider’s revenues, expenses, and earnings, which were extensively reviewed by
Commission Staff. Third parties had the opportunity to intervene, and voluminous formal and
informal discovery has been conducted before applications have been finally approved by the
Commission.
72. Each of the 22 resulting orders sets forth precisely what annual SRILEC USP
support the small provider would receive. Each of the orders provides that Solix “must distribute”
those funds “in accordance with this Notice of Approval promptly and efficiently.”71 For example,
on July 15, 2020, in a recently-approved adjustment proceeding, the Commission required the
TUSF administrator to increase Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc.’s TUSF support:
Approval (Apr. 29, 2020); Application of Brazos Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50451, Notice of Approval (Apr. 29, 2020); Application of Industry Telephone
Company to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50486, Notice of Approval (May 5,
2020); Application of Wes-Tex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h),
Docket No. 50491, Notice of Approval (May 5, 2020); Application of West Plains Telecommunications, Inc. to Adjust
High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50492, Notice of Approval (May 5, 2020); Application of
Colorado Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No.
50610, Notice of Approval (Jun. 9, 2020); Application of Mid Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust
High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50441, Notice of Approval (June 19, 2020); Application
of South Plains Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No.
50658 (Jul. 8, 2020); Application of Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50699 (Jul. 15, 2020); Application of Five Area Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to
Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50956 (Sep. 18, 2020); and Application of Blossom
Telephone Company, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under 16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 51165 (Nov. 20, 2020).
See also Exhibit G. Given that five were approved after June 12, it is odd the Commission would approve funding
increases as necessary to comply with rules and laws while simultaneously avowing not to fund TUSF High-Cost
Programs going forward.
71
See, e.g., Docket No. 50026 at OP 2 and 3 (emphasis added).
72
73. In other words, last July, in a noticed case with opportunity for a hearing, the
Commission determined the legislatively-mandated support amount for Cumby, down to the
dollar, and issued a mandatory directive to Solix to pay Cumby $434,267 per year. Now just a
few months later, the Commission’s January Action would undo this specific order and issue
Cumby approximately $147,651 per year, just over 30% of what the above order so explicitly
states. On an annual basis, Cumby will be deprived of $286,616, without any notice or
opportunity for a hearing. In varying amounts, similar harm befalls each Association member
participating in this lawsuit.
74. Given the extensive annual reports already being provided by small companies and
cooperatives, the Commission has more than ample discretion to monitor TUSF recipients’
earnings and spending and could initiate individual contested cases to seek to adjust any provider’s
support if it so wished. For example, in addition to the voluminous productions mentioned above
in individual providers’ annual report proceedings, in October of 2020, the Commission opened
generic Project No. 51433, Review of Telecommunications Providers Receiving Texas Universal
Service Fund Support Under the Texas High Cost Universal Service Plan and Small and Rural
72
Application of Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. to Adjust High Cost Support Under
16 TAC § 26.407(h), Docket No. 50699, Notice of Approval at 5 (Jul. 15, 2020).
Incumbent Local Exchange Company Universal Service Plan. In this project, the Commission
issued 55 questions to all recipients under either of these TUSF programs. By early December of
2020, there were almost 140 filings in the project. At great expense and effort and over the
holidays, responding companies and cooperatives—many of whom have very small staffs—
collectively provided at least 68,000 pages of information in this proceeding in response to the
Commission’s questions.73 No other industry the Commission regulates provides such detail or
transparency to the Commission, especially outside rate cases in generic proceedings that apply to
the entire industry.
75. The Commission cannot and should not abruptly change the funding requirements
set after consideration of over 150 proceedings to date. Even with existing TUSF support, the 43
electing small and rural providers who participate under 16 TAC § 26.407 are on average earning
less than the return on investment deemed reasonable by the Legislature. They collectively
reported for 2018 an average intrastate, regulated rate of return of 6.42% and a median intrastate,
regulated rate of return of 4.48%, with 27 of the 43 providers’ adjusted reported returns deemed
less than reasonable by statutory standards. It is hard to imagine that the small companies and not-
for-profit cooperatives who were generally under-earning with TUSF support could possibly serve
all their customers or meet POLR and other obligations without TUSF support, which in some
instance make up more than 50% of their state revenues.
73
See requests issued on Oct. 19, 2020, available at
mentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending.
iii. Orders from Over 85 Federal USF Replacement Proceedings
(Under PURA § 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406)
76. Under PURA § 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406, there have been over 85 contested
case proceedings including original applications for replacement support as well as true-up
proceedings required by statute.74 At least six such cases are currently pending. The applicants in
the pending matters have relied upon mandatory statutory language and a detailed Commission
rule to undertake their applications.75 They have provided extensive information to the
Commission Staff for review regarding federal and other support in their true-up proceedings. The
Commission cannot summarily, without due process, deny them the pending relief to which they
are statutorily entitled by prioritizing other TUSF program payments before these.76
77. Typical ordering language in these orders clearly states, “The Commission
approves [Provider’s] request to recover [amount] from the TUSF for [year].” There is no
discretion to withhold such payments once they have been ordered, or to make these payments
second priority behind other TUSF programs. For example:
74
Although not cited individually here for length, the Plaintiffs have identified at least 87 original and/or
true-up proceedings filed under this statute since September of 2012.
75
Application of Border to Border Communications, Inc. for True Up of 2017 Federal Universal Service
Fund Impacts to the Texas Universal Service Fund, Docket No. 50188 (pending); Application of Community
Telephone Company, Inc. to Recover Funds from the Texas Universal Service Fund Under PURA § 56.025 and 16
TAC § 26.406 for Calendar Year 2019, Docket No. 50965 (pending); and Application of Community Telephone
Company, Inc. to Recover Funds from the Texas Universal Service Fund Under PURA § 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406
for Calendar Year 2018, Docket No. 50970 (pending); Application of Border to Border Communications, Inc. for
True-up of 2018 Federal Universal Service Fund Impacts to the Texas Universal Service Fund, Docket No. 51473
(pending); Application of Blossom Telephone Company for True-up of 2018 Federal Universal Service Fund Impacts
to the Texas Universal Service Fund, Docket No. 51626 (pending); Application of Border to Border Communications,
Inc. to Recover Funds from the Texas Universal Service Fund Under PURA § 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406 for
Calendar Year 2020, Docket No. 51645 (pending).
76
See also APA § 2001.051.
77
78. To summarize the Commission’s violations of its own orders, generally, the
Commission has the authority to determine whether a provider qualifies to receive support from
TUSF programs as part of the its administration of the TUSF.78 In fact, as noted above, it has
ample opportunity to examine each providers qualifications—over 81,000 pages of supporting
documentation has been provided in 2020 alone. By following its own rules and Texas laws over
the years, the Commission has already properly determined each provider’s qualifications to
receive specific amounts of TUSF—as illustrated in Exhibit G, every TUSF recipient has a
Commission final order determining how much support that provider should receive, often reached
through contested cases with public notices and opportunities for hearings.
79. In the January Action, the PUC acted outside of and in contravention of those final
orders. The Commission cannot re-open a final proceeding, as doing so would constitute an
unlawful collateral attack.79 Past orders are res judicata and cannot be changed absent changed
circumstances.80
77
Application of Blossom Telephone Company to Recover Funds from the Texas Universal Service Fund
under PURA § 56.025 and 16 TAC § 26.406, Project No. 50220, Final Order (May 1, 2020) (approving recovery for
two years).
78
16 TAC § 26.420(g).
79
Brazos Elec. Power Coop., 723 S.W.2d at 173.
80
Coalition of Cities for Affordable Utility Rates v. Public Utility Commission, 798 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1990).
D. COMMISSION RULES REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND TUSF
80. The above-cited examples of contested cases and other proceedings were carried
out under valid Commission rules that remain unchanged and uncontested. The Commission has
adopted various rules implementing procedures for meeting PURA’s TUSF mandates at 16 TAC
Chapter 26, Subchapter P. These rules reflect the exercise of the Commission’s discretion as to
how it funds and administers TUSF, but the Commission has no discretion under PURA, or even
its own rules, to decline to fund any TUSF program altogether—especially after it has already
determined exactly how much recipients need from each program. The Commission has no
discretion under its rules to create a new, artificial hierarchy of how funds will be administered
through a stand-alone contract amendment.
81. The following Commission substantive rules show that PURA mandates TUSF
funding, beginning with noting that the TUSF’s purpose:
81
82. The Administration of Texas Universal Service Fund, 16 TAC § 26.420, explains
how TUSF funds are collected and disbursed. As in other sections, there is no authority to
81
16 TAC § 26.401(a) (emphasis added).
prioritize or prorate payment of any program under the fund. In fact, the rule represents just the
opposite, mandating that:
x “The TUSF administrator will administer the TUSF in accordance with the rules
set forth in this section and in accordance with the guidelines established by the
commission in its contract with the TUSF administrator. The TUSF administrator’s
general duties shall include … calculating and collecting the proper assessment
amount from every telecommunications provider and … disbursing the proper
support amounts, ensuring that only eligible recipients receive” (16 TAC §
26.420(d) [emphasis added]);
x “The amount needed to fund the TUSF shall be composed of … [the cost of the
various programs supported, the costs of administering the Fund, and a reserve for
contingencies]” (16 TAC § 26.420(e)(1) [emphasis added]);
x “the TUSF administrator shall determine, on a periodic basis, the amount needed
to fund the TUSF. The determined amount shall be approved by the commission
(16 TAC § 26.420(e)(2) [emphasis added]);
x “The TUSF assessments shall be payable by all telecommunications

providers….”82 and will be supplied by monthly assessments on
telecommunications providers calculated by applying the Commission-approved
percentage rate to monthly taxable actual intrastate telecommunications services
receipts. 83
x “The commission shall determine whether an [applicant] qualifies to receive funds

from the TUSF” and the “TUSF administrator… shall issue disbursements to
[Commission-qualified applicants]. (16 TAC § 26.420 (g)(1) and 16 TAC § 26.420
(g)(3)(A) [emphasis added]).
83. With the Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment, the PUC now is choosing to have
the administrator determine how much can be distributed from the TUSF rather than having the
administrator determine the amount of revenue needed to fund the required TUSF distributions.
This contravenes (or, if given effect, illegally amends) TAC §§ 26.420(d) and (e) in addition to
violating statute.
82
16 TAC § 26.420 (f)(1) (emphasis added).
83
16 TAC § 26.420 (f)(3)(A), 16 TAC § 26.420 (f)(4).
84. The Commission has the authority to “revise rules related to the operation and
administration of the TUSF and to monitor and supervise such operation and administration.”84
Here, however, the Commission took its January Action without revising its rules. In fact, the
January Action is in direct contravention with many rules properly promulgated years before. The
Commission is attempting to rewrite its rules, and avoid statutory mandate, by simply refusing to
collect the needed funds.
85. Given the unambiguous requirements in its existing rules, the Commission may not
decide, ad hoc, to refuse to assist telecommunications providers in providing basic local
telecommunications services at reasonable rates in high-cost, rural areas, or refuse to reimburse
providers for lifeline, relay, and other services. Even if the Commission could reverse its own past
orders sua sponte, the new orders would be in violation of the PUC’s existing rules. The APA sets
out that a rule is a state agency statement of general applicability that includes the amendment or
repeal of a prior rule.85 The Texas APA does not allow rules to be ignored or summarily revised
without due process. APA § 2001.033 sets forth with great specificity what findings an agency’s
written, rulemaking order must contain. Oral decisions such as the June 12 Decision are prohibited
in setting or amending agency rules.
86. As outlined above, the Associations filed a Petition for Rulemaking which would
have provided the Commission a proper legal avenue to exercise its discretion to address the
methods with which the Commission could adjust its method of funding TUSF while still
84
16 TAC § 26.420(c).
85
APA § 2001.003(6)(B).
maintaining the funding required to support TUSF as required by statute.86 However, the
Commission denied the Petition for Rulemaking at its August 27 open meeting.87
87. While the Plaintiffs do not address every Commission rule regarding every TUSF
program in this pleading, they do address some of the most pertinent rules related to the two
programs providing High-Cost Support. Key rules are also cited in Exhibit G as relevant to each
specific ILEC receiving TUSF.
i. 16 TAC §§ 26.403 and 26.405 (Related to the THCUSP)
88. 16 TAC § 26.403 (d)-(f) provides: “The THCUSP shall support basic local
telecommunications services provided by an ETP in high cost rural areas of the state.”88 It further
provides that, “The commission shall determine the amount of per-line support to be made
available to ETPs in each eligible wire center. The amount of support available to each ETP shall
be calculated using the base support amount as of the effective date of this section and applying
the annual reductions as described in this subsection ...”89 The rules also mandate that “the
commission shall adjust the support to be made available from the THCUSP” under the applicable
criteria set forth in the rule.90 Given this mandatory rule language, it is apparent that THCUSP
requires a specific methodology be followed to calculate and disburse THCUSP support payments
and subjects recipient providers to extensive reporting requirements in 16 TAC § 26.403(g). As
such, the Commission cannot summarily rewrite carefully drafted rules with ad hoc statements at
open meetings or back-door contract amendments.
86
See Petition of the Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for
Rulemaking to Amend 16 TAC § 26.420 Related to Assessments for the Texas Universal Service Fund, Project No.
51020, Petition for Rulemaking (July 8, 2020), accessible through https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/.
87
See id., Order Denying Petition for Rulemaking (Aug. 27, 2020), accessible through
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/.
88
16 TAC § 26.403(d) (emphasis added).
89
16 TAC § 26.403(e) (emphasis added).
90
16 TAC § 26.403(f) (emphasis added).
89. PURA § 56.023(f)-(q) allows mid-sized carrier recipients of THCUSP to perform
a “needs test” to determine whether there was a financial need for continued THCUSP support in
each of the company’s supported exchanges.91 Providers who established a need for continued
THCUSP support through this complex, rule-based process must continue to receive their
prescribed THCUSP support, as noted above.
90. There is no authority or language in 16 TAC § 26.403 that would subject a recipient
of TUSF under the THCUSP program to proration once its support is determined.
ii. 16 TAC §§ 26.404 and 26.407 (Related to the SRILEC USP)
91. Pursuant to 16 TAC § 26.404(d), “The Small and Rural ILEC Universal Service
Plan shall support the provision by ETPs of basic local telecommunications service” (emphasis
added). Further, “The commission shall determine the amount of per-line support to be made
available to ETPs in each eligible wire center. The amount of support available to each ETP shall
be calculated using the small and rural ILEC ETP base support amount and applying the annual
reductions as described in this subsection.”92 Finally, the law provides that “[t]he TUSF
administrator shall disburse monthly support payments to ETPs qualified to receive support
pursuant to this section.”93 Again, the Commission cannot alter these rules ad hoc and change
course to order the Fund administrator not to disburse monthly support amounts under the SRILEC
USP.
91
See Rulemaking to Amend PUC Subst. R. 26.403, 26.404, and 26.420 to Address Certain Provisions of the
TUSF Including Eligibility of Certain Lines, Number of Business Lines Receiving Support, and Entities Required to
Pay TUSF Assessments, Project No. 42600, Order Adopting Amendments to § 26.403, 26.404, and 26.405 as
Approved at the August 18, 2016 Open Meeting (Aug. 25, 2016).
92
16 TAC § 26.404(e) (emphasis added).
93
16 TAC § 26.404(f) (emphasis added).
92. The financial needs test applies to mid-sized recipients of the SRILEC USP as
well.94 The needs test specifically allows eligible ILECs to “file a petition to show financial
need.”95 The needs test rule requires that those who have established a financial need receive
continued SRILEC USP support.
93. In addition, the SRILEC USP’s small provider funding was reformed by SB 586 in
2017, codified by PURA § 56.032, and discussed below. This directed the Commission to set up
a mechanism for small providers to report their intrastate regulated rates of return, and if such
providers were over- or under-earning based upon a reasonable rate set forth in statute, the
providers were eligible to obtain support adjustments. The rule, 16 TAC § 26.407, was
promulgated over the course of more than 12 months in 2017 and 2018 with broad input from
Commission staff and industry stakeholders.96
94. In adopting this rule, the Commission established: which providers are eligible in
Subpart (b), how they must elect into this regulation in Subpart (d), what their annual reports must
include in Subpart (e) (note the resulting reports are more extensive than any earnings monitoring
report the Commission receives in any industry to date),97 the procedure for Commission review
94
16 TAC § 26.405.
95
16 TAC § 26.404(g).
96
See Rulemaking to Revise 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26.407 Small and Rural Incumbent Local Exchange
Company Universal Service Plan (SRILEC USP) Support Adjustments Pursuant to S.B. 586, Project No. 47669, Order
Adopting New § 26.407 as Approved at the October 12, 2018 Open Meeting (Oct. 16, 2018).
97
At the June 12 open meeting, Chairman Walker stated “I think that the Commission likely could have and
maybe should have been reviewing these rate cases to set the rates and look at the cost and expenses whether or not
these general managers and stuff should be paid the amount that I hear they’re paid and stuff.” Tr. at 39:13-18. But
thanks to these reports, Commission Staff has, in fact, been examining how general managers and other executives
are compensated, as well as small company expenses generally: such providers are expressly obligated to report their
intrastate regulated expenses, and related executive/owner/family compensation, by rule. 16 TAC § 26.407(e)(2)(I)
(must report “the name, job title, and total annual compensation of each officer, director, and, for investor-owned
companies, owners and former owners (including each general manager and any other highly compensated employee
that may not be designated as an officer of the company), and the name and compensation of each family member of
officers, directors, owners, and former owners employed by the small ILEC.”). Put another way, the Legislature and
the Commission already recognized this concern and set up a mechanism to address it. The Commission need not
pursue costly rate cases to find out this sort of data about small providers: they already have that information.
and adjustment of reported rates of return in Subparts (f) and (g), and procedures for contested
cases in Subparts (h-j). The rule gives the Commission authority to adjust not only support but
also to increase local rates, so long as rate adjustments do “not adversely affect universal
service.”98
95. In addition to small ILECs, this rule applies to CLECs or wireless carriers that are
designated as ETPs. 16 TAC § 26.407(j)(3) provides that SRILEC USP “support for ETPs other
than a small ILEC will be determined by calculating the per-line support for each small ILEC’s
study area based on the most recent monthly support using December line counts for the small
ILEC.”
96. There is no authority or language in 16 TAC § 26.404 that would subject a recipient
of TUSF under the SRILEC USP program to proration once its support is determined.
97. The Commission cannot rewrite this entire rule ad hoc, rendering the 43 companies’
elections meaningless, ignoring the 129 unprecedented annual reports the Commission has
reviewed so far, and violating the specific orders achieved through at least 22 contested cases. The
June 12 Decision, the August 27 Order Denying Petition for Rulemaking, and now the January
Action render this entire regulatory mechanism meaningless.
iii. 16 TAC § 26.406 (Related to PURA § 56.025 Support)
98. PURA § 56.025 was legislatively created in 2005. This law and the related
Commission rule, 16 TAC § 26.406, allow small providers to seek to recover replacement funds
from TUSF when they lose certain other funding. The rule states that the Commission “shall
allow” replacement either through TUSF funds or rate increases when there is a Commission order,
98
16 TAC § 26.407(g)(1).
rule, or policy (other than an individualized proceeding) that effectively reduces the provider’s
high-cost assistance funding below 1998 levels; a Commission change in intraLATA dialing
access policies; a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) order, rule, or policy that
changes federal USF revenues; or other governmental agency action.99 Subject to certain
requirements, applications under this rule shall be processed promptly and efficiently, and ILECs
shall provide Solix with a copy of the final order indicating the amount of support it should
receive.100 Support awarded by this section is typically a one-time payment, subject to true-up.
99. In the January Action, the Commission prioritized all social TUSF programs above
support set through 16 TAC § 26.406. Nowhere in the Commission’s rule are 16 TAC § 26.406
payments made conditional or subject to available funding / other disbursements.
100. While the above-referenced rules are only some of the Commission’s rules that
address specific TUSF program funding, their mandatory language supports the hundreds of
contested cases that reply upon them. They also reflect the clear statutory mandates that directed
the Commission to promulgate each of these rules in the first place. The Commission cannot
rewrite, ad hoc, the existing funding mandates.
E. STATUTES REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND ALL TUSF PROGRAMS
101. The above contested cases and rules all draw directly from statute. The Legislature
has spoken repeatedly on TUSF and given specific direction to the Commission. While the
Commission has broad discretion to administer the Fund and set the assessment rate to provide the
mandated revenues,101 the Commission has been directed by the Legislature, which deliberately
99
16 TAC § 26.406(b) (emphasis added).
100
16 TAC § 26.206(c-e).
101
See PURA § 56.022(c) “The uniform charge is on services and at rates the commission determines.” See
also PURA § 56.023, generally.
used mandatory language, to create and fund the TUSF programs and to disburse funds promptly
and efficiently. Key provisions in PURA that mandate universal service include the following102:
x Statute setting forth universal service policy: PURA § 51.001(g) enunciates the
longstanding policy of this state, which is to “ensure that customers in all regions
of this state, including low-income customers and customers in rural and high-
cost areas, have access to telecommunications and information services,
including … advanced telecommunications and information services… that are
available at prices that are reasonably comparable to prices charged for similar
services in urban areas.” [Emphasis added.] Sufficient TUSF funding is critical
to assist companies in providing such services.
x Statutes establishing the Fund and relevant programs:
o PURA § 56.021(1)(A): the “Commission shall adopt and enforce rules

requiring local exchange companies to establish a universal service fund to:
... assist telecommunications providers in providing basic local
telecommunications service at reasonable rates in high cost rural areas
under ... the Texas High Cost Universal Service Plan (16 T.A.C. Section
26.403).” (emphasis added).
PURA § 56.031 further states that revisions to high cost per line
support amounts require “notice and an opportunity for hearing,”
and that the Commission “shall consider the adequacy of basic rates
to support universal service.”
PURA § 56.032(b) also states that changes to SRILEC USP monthly

support amounts can occur only “after notice and an opportunity for
a hearing” and considering “the adequacy of basic rates to support
universal service.” See also PURA § 56.031.
o PURA § 56.025: “(a) In addition to the authority provided by Section

56.021: (1) for each local exchange company that serves fewer than 31,000
access lines and each cooperative, the commission may adopt a mechanism
necessary to maintain reasonable rates for local exchange telephone service;
and (2) for each local exchange company and each cooperative that serves
31,000 or fewer access lines and that on June 1, 2013, is not an electing
company under Chapter 58 or 59, the commission shall adopt rules to
expand the universal service fund in the circumstances prescribed by this
section. (b) The commission shall implement a mechanism through the
universal service fund to replace the reasonably projected reduction in high
102
For ease of reference, certain key statutes are also cited in Exhibit G as relevant to each specific ILEC
receiving TUSF.

cost assistance revenue caused by a commission order, rule, or policy. This
subsection does not apply to an order entered in a proceeding related to an
individual company’s revenue requirements.” (emphasis added).
x Statutes requiring the PUC to administer the Fund, collect fees, and disburse
funds:
o PURA § 56.022(c) states, “In establishing the charge and the services to
which the charge will apply, the commission may not: (1) grant an
unreasonable preference or advantage to a telecommunications provider; ...
or (3) subject a telecommunications provider to unreasonable prejudice or
disadvantage” (emphasis added).
o PURA § 56.023(a)(1) says the Commission shall “adopt eligibility criteria”

in “a manner that assures reasonable rates for basic local
telecommunications service.” If abrupt changes to high-cost or other TUSF
funding were ever to cause increases to local rates—which are currently
reasonable—this would likely thwart the fundamental policy goal of
universal service.
o PURA § 56.023(a)(4) states that the commission shall “establish and collect
fees from the universal service fund necessary to recover the costs the
department and commission incur in administering this chapter and Chapter
57.”
o Particularly relevant in this situation is PURA § 56.026, which requires

prompt, efficient TUSF disbursements to avoid policy changes causing
unnecessary impacts to ILEC cash-flow:
102. In creating broad universal service policy goals and then each of the existing TUSF
programs over time, the Legislature did not identify any hierarchy among the programs; the
statutes direct that the Commission shall adopt and fund each program. However, in taking the
January Action, the Commission adopted a very clear artificial hierarchy among TUSF programs,

even though no such hierarchy exists in rule or law, and without stating any statutory authority for
discriminating among these providers.103
103. Funding certain programs over others grants a preference for certain providers and
subject others to disadvantage in violation of PURA § 56.022(c). The Legislature directed the
Commission to make all these programs work; there is no statutory authority allowing the
Commission to prioritize or “triage” among these programs as it has done in the January Action.
104. The Commission has specific authority to “act as necessary and convenient to
administer the fund . . . .”104 The allegations here are not about how the Commission is
administering the TUSF, but rather its refusal to fully administer all fund programs—each of which
is created by statute. The Commission must “act as necessary,” and yet in June, when action was
necessary, the Commission refused to take such action even though appropriate action consistent
with many years of past Commission practice was laid out by Commission staff in their proposed
order presented on June 12, 2020.
105. The Commission may certainly debate how to best manage the Fund, whether
through a simple increased assessment rate as requested in the Motion for Rehearing in Project
No. 50796 or through the broader reforms suggested in the Petition for Rulemaking in Project No.
51020. But the Commission cannot abdicate its statutory responsibility to fund TUSF programs,
arbitrarily pick “winners” and “losers” among the programs, and allow some of the programs—
and the small and rural providers and the Texas citizens who rely upon them—to fail. This is
especially true considering the Commission itself approved and authorized how much funding
each provider shall receive on a monthly and annual basis.105
103
See Exhibits C and D.
104
PURA § 56.023(d).
105
See, e.g., the orders listed supra n70.
F. RECENT BILLS MANDATED TUSF REFORMS FOR HIGH-COST SUPPORT IN
PARTICULAR
106. The Chairman has said she needs legislative direction before the Commission can
raise the assessment rate. However, as illustrated through all the PURA provisions cited above,
the Commission already has such definitive legislative direction – the Legislature has never capped
the assessment rate but has repeatedly acted to require the Commission to create and administer
the TUSF programs and to ensure that small and rural providers have prompt TUSF disbursements,
consistent cash flows, and reasonable returns.
107. By way of specific example, current small and mid-sized company funding
mechanisms discussed above are based upon two recent, significant universal service reform bills.
Each of these bills was implemented through a lengthy Commission rulemaking that required
companies to submit a plethora of detailed documents. After extensive review, the Commission
issued orders under those rules to help ensure the funds were spent as intended. These two bills
directly impact many of the Plaintiffs, and the Commission’s inaction would violate the above-
discussed rules and orders that followed both bills and be inconsistent with the legislative history
and intent of the bills.
i. SB 583 Reformed Mid-Sized Carriers’ Support in 2013 (PURA § 56.023(f)-(q))
108. In 2013, the Legislature passed SB 583, which required mid-sized carriers to show
continued need for TUSF high-cost support in their exchanges. The bill created PURA
§ 56.023(f)-(q), which required the Commission to set up a mechanism for the financial “needs
tests” to determine whether these carriers needed continued TUSF support in each of their
exchanges. The mid-sized carriers each provided exchange-by-exchange competitive analysis and
financial tests to demonstrate exactly where continued TUSF support was needed.

109. Inaction now would rewrite this bill, these PURA provisions, the following cases,
and the PUC decisions. Once set, these payments are not discretionary. As in the statutes
discussed above, the statutory directive is mandatory:
106
This law resulted in amendments to 16 TAC §§ 26.403, 26.404, and 26.405, all discussed above.
The rule amendments resulted in a series of contested case needs test proceedings in 2016 and
2017 to determine the continued need for TUSF support for the mid-sized carriers, also discussed
below. The Commission cannot ignore its obligation to fund the support levels that were
determined through such involved and legislatively-mandated processes.
ii. SB 586 Reformed Small Provider Support in 2017

(PURA § 56.032)
110. In 2017, the Legislature adopted SB 586 and set forth a comprehensive reporting
and rate- and support-adjustment mechanism for small providers. As with SB 583, the resulting
statute, PURA § 56.032, is not optional or discretionary; it requires among other things that:
106
PURA § 56.023(g) (emphasis added).
107
Each small provider that has elected under the relevant rule shall continue to receive funding until
the PUC adjusts that funding through the contested case process set forth very explicitly in this
rule, and then shall receive the amount of funding set out in that order.
111. Commentary in the bill analysis of SB 586 highlights the importance of the
mandate, TUSF as a whole and provides a clear indicative of the legislative intent behind these
laws:
108
Plaintiffs cannot imagine legislative direction that is any clearer or timelier than the above. At a
time when all Texans, including rural residents, rely on telecommunications more than ever, the
Commission would reduce the TUSF funding that keeps all of Texas connected. Small and rural
companies that rely heavily on TUSF to serve their otherwise uneconomic service territories are
facing high operating costs and unique challenges under COVID-19 protocols. Many may not be
107
PURA § 56.032(c) (emphasis added).
108
House Research Org., Bill Analysis, S.B. 586, 85th Leg., R.S. (2017).
able to meet service requests, continue planned investment projects, or perhaps even keep their
doors open.
112. In addition, SB 586 requires the Commission to evaluate and report to the
Legislature by September 1, 2022, as to how well the reporting, monitoring, and adjusting process
that is outlined in the statute is working.109 If the PUC shortcuts this legislatively-mandated
timeline now and removes funding from the program before studying it and giving the Legislature
the opportunity to review it, then it renders this entire reporting process moot. The Legislature
clearly intended the Commission to implement this mechanism and provide related support
through at least 2023 until the Legislature has the chance to consider its efficacy.
G. SIMILAR COMMISSION EFFORTS TO DECLINE TO FUND USF IN OTHER STATES

WERE FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL BY THEIR STATE SUPREME COURTS
113. Given all the legal and procedural barriers to making the significant reversal
summarily executed through the January Action, it is not surprising that similar actions by
Commissions in other states have been expressly rejected by their courts.
114. In 2014, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (“PRC”) adopted a 3%
surcharge rate for 2015. The New Mexico surcharge rate is collected for its State Rural Universal
Service Fund similar to that of Texas. Applicable New Mexico regulations require its fund size to
be “equal to the sum of each [eligible ILEC’s] revenue requirement[] ... plus projected
administrative expenses and a prudent fund balance.” 17.11.10.19(C) NMAC. At the time the
PRC adopted the 3% surcharge, GVNW Consulting, Inc. (New Mexico’s Universal Service Fund
administrator), the PRC’s Fund Advisory Board, and the PRC’s own counsel all agreed that a
3.62% Surcharge Rate was needed to support their fund’s obligations. A group of exchange
109
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 1116 (SB 586), § 2(b).
carriers sued, and the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected the cap and remanded it to the PRC
for further proceedings. The court found that were the 3% surcharge to be adopted, it would result
in a projected deficit of $3,870,813. They called the deficit “a clear violation of 17.11.10.19(C)
NMAC, which requires the Fund to have ‘a prudent fund balance.’”110 Thus, the Court found the
rate to be “arbitrary, not supported by substantial evidence, and [that it was] a clear violation of
[PRC’s] own rules, which require that the surcharge be large enough to allow for a prudent Fund
balance.”111 The Court found it “immaterial” that the 3% surcharge was higher than previous
surcharge rates; never in the history of setting rates had the PRC ever approved a rate that would
result in a projected deficit.
115. Similarly, when the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) denied a valid
request from Dobson Telephone Company (“Dobson”) for funding from the Oklahoma Universal
Service Fund (“OUSF”), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the statutory mandates to provide
the funding and vacated the OCC’s denial.112 Under Oklahoma law, eligible telecommunications
providers serving fewer than 75,000 access lines are entitled to recover increases in costs as a result
of changes to facilities that are required by state or federal law.113 As an eligible provider, Dobson
requested funding after it was required to relocate certain lines by the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation.114 Oklahoma law mandates that where changes are “required by existing or future
federal or state regulatory rules, orders, or policies or by federal or state law,” and such changes
cause an eligible provider to experience an increase in costs, the provider “shall recover” such
110
N.M. Exch. Carrier Grp. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 2016-NMSC-015, 369 P.3d 1058, 1062.
111
Id. at 1063.
112
Dobson Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 2019 OK 24, ¶ 30, 441 P.3d 138, 146.
113
17 O.S.Supp.2016, § 139.106 (K).
114
Dobson, 441 P.3d at 144.
“cost increases from the OUSF.”115 The Oklahoma Supreme Court interpreted “the word ‘shall’
by the Legislature ‘as a legislative mandate equivalent to the term ‘must’, requiring interpretation
as a command.’ ... Thus, under the express provisions of the Act, Dobson was entitled to receive
reimbursement from the OUSF for these cost increases.”116
116. In addition to a plain reading of the statute, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
emphasized the underpinnings of universal-service laws. The Court cited the 1996 federal
Telecommunications Act, which Congress passed in part, “to promote a policy of universal service
that would provide telecommunication services to consumers all over the country, including ‘those
in rural, insular, and high cost areas.’”117 Indeed, “[u]nder the state and federal Acts, certain
telecommunications providers known as ‘carriers of last resort’ are required to provide, without
discrimination, telephone service to any customer requesting it.”118 Understanding that the USF
is essential to carry out such providers’ statutorily required obligations, the Court highlighted the
USF’s role in universal-service laws:
In an effort to defray the costs of delivering phone service in rural, more remote
areas, the federal and state Acts each established a fund to help support eligible
service providers. Within Oklahoma’s Act, the Legislature created the OUSF to
help pay for reasonable investments and expenses incurred by “eligible local
exchange telecommunications service providers” in providing primary universal
services to customers in rural and high-cost areas “at rates that are reasonable and
affordable.”119
117. Given the clear policy underlying these universal-service laws, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court agreed with Dobson’s contention that the OCC’s denial of funding “disregards the
very purpose of the OUSF to ensure the availability of affordable telephone service to customers
115
17 O.S.Supp.2016, § 139.106 (K)(1)(b) (emphasis added).
116
Dobson, 441 P.3d at 144.
117
Id. at 140.
118
Id. (emphasis added).
119
Id. at 149 (internal citations omitted).
in rural and high cost areas where, absent the subsidies, their provision would be cost-
prohibitive.”120
118. Consequently, the Court summarily rejected any and all OCC attempts to deny
Dobson the funding the OCC was statutorily required to provide.121
VII.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
119. Preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
120. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil
Practices & Remedies Code (the “Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act” or the “UDJA”), holding
that the Commission violated the Texas Open Meetings Act in its meeting of December 17, 2020:
(1) by failing to provide notice of its action regarding the amendment to the Solix contract; and (2)
by its failure to take its “final action” regarding the Solix contract amendment in open session.
121. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Section 2001.038 of the
APA, holding that the Dec. 17, 2020, Contract Amendment violated the APA by making the act
an unlawful ad hoc rulemaking in violation of the notice and procedural requirements for
rulemaking mandated at Subchapter B of the Act.
122. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment, pursuant to the UDJA, holding that the
Commission must follow its own orders, its own rules, and PURA to ensure appropriate funding
for the TUSF.
120
Id. at 146.
121
Id.
123. The stated purpose of the UDJA is “to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty
and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.”122
124. A declaratory judgment is appropriate only where there is a justiciable controversy
about the rights and status of the parties and the declaration will resolve the controversy. 123 To
constitute a justiciable controversy, there must exist a real and substantial controversy involving
genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a theoretical dispute.124
125. Here, there is a ripe justiciable controversy. The Commission has directed Solix in
writing to fund certain programs (such as Lifeline) to the detriment of other support (such as High-
Cost Support). Solix has indicated that by January 15, 2021, the Commission’s action will result
in High-Cost Support being cut by 60% – 70%.125 The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the
Commission’s failure to preserve the status quo and continue funding all TUSF programs violates
its own orders and rules as well as numerous provisions of PURA.
126. To the extent the oral June 12 Decision or the January Action may be viewed as a
rule, “The validity or applicability of a rule ... may be determined in an action for declaratory
judgment if it is alleged that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs, or
threatens to interfere with or impair, a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.” APA § 2001.038(a).
There can be no question that the January Action is an act of general applicability which impairs
the legal rights of the Plaintiffs, as they were each given a few days’ notice by Solix that their
122
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.002(b); Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex.
1995).
123
Bonham State Bank, 907 S.W.2d at 467.
124
Id.
125
See Exhibits C and D.
TUSF support could be reduced up to 70%.126 This reduction will place many, if not all, of the
small and rural providers below the reasonable return threshold set by statute.
127. “A court may render a declaratory judgment without regard to whether the plaintiff
requested the state agency to rule on the validity or applicability of the rule in question.”127
128. The June 12 Decision and January Action are ultra vires actions exceeding the
Commission’s statutory authority. The Commission has discretion to decide how to fund TUSF
but does not have discretion not to fund it. Simply put, its discretion is not absolute: it has no
authority to deny mandated TUSF funding to any provider who is entitled to such funding,
especially after the Commission itself set precisely how much each provider must receive. Further,
it has no authority to fund certain programs over others, a potentially discriminatory act that further
violates its authority. Thus, there can be no question that the June 12 Decision and the January
Action implementing that decision—both of which contradict the Commission’s own orders and
rules as well as the Texas Legislature’s clear statutory direction—fall within the ultra vires
exception to sovereign immunity. An ultra vires lawsuit seeking to compel state officials to
comply with statutory provisions is not prohibited by sovereign immunity.128
129. TTA and its individual Plaintiff members have retained the firm of Naman, Howell,
Smith & Lee, PLLC to represent it in this action and has agreed to pay the firm’s reasonable and
necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses. TSTCI and its individual Plaintiff members have retained
the firm of Richards, Elder & Gibson, PLLC to represent it in this action and has agreed to pay the
firm’s reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses. Such representation is costly to the
Plaintiffs—many of whom are very, very small rural companies or not-for-profit, member-owned
126
See Exhibit E.
127
APA § 2001.038(d).
128
See City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372.
telephone cooperatives. An award of reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses to the
Plaintiffs would be equitable and just and is authorized by Section 37.009 of the UDJA. In
addition, the Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees under
the Texas Open Meetings Act.129
B. WRIT OF MANDAMUS
131. Mandamus is available in certain limited circumstances such as to compel
ministerial acts or when necessary to “correct a clear abuse of discretion or the Commission’s
violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.”130
132. Here, there has been a clear abuse of discretion and violation of a legal duty. The
Commission violated the Open Meetings Act in approving the Dec. 17, 2020, Contract
Amendment. The amendment also amounted to an ad hoc rulemaking which undeniably changes
Commission policy and reduces Plaintiffs’ receipt of TUSF monies. The Commission has orders
dictating precisely how much support to provide each TUSF recipient, including TTA and TSTCI
members. Yet by its June 12 Decision and January Action, the Commission has knowingly
allowed the TUSF funds to run out and withheld the majority of High-Cost Support in
contravention of those clear orders. The Commission has some statutory discretion over how it
administers TUSF, but it has statutory and regulatory obligations to promptly provide requisite
TUSF support, however that may be funded. PURA does not give the Commission discretion to
129
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.142(b)).
130
Republican Party v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex. 1997) (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals,
700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985)); see also Dykes v. City of Houston, 406 S.W.2d 176, 183 (Tex. 1966) (observing
that mandamus can compel only ministerial acts, not discretionary ones, but it may also be used to correct clear abuses
of discretion); Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1956).
fund or not fund TUSF. The Commission’s failure to provide required TUSF, in violation of its
own orders, is a clear abuse of its discretion which warrants mandamus.
133. TTA, TSTCI, and their affected members have no other adequate remedy at law, as
they have already asked the Commission to reconsider its inaction, and the Commission still
refuses to take steps to correct the TUSF budget shortfall. The shortfall will imminently or has
already affected the Commission’s ability to fund all TUSF programs as required.
134. Therefore, the Plaintiffs ask that this Court issue a writ of mandamus to correct the
Commission’s abuse of discretion and ensure sufficient TUSF funding so that the existing TUSF
programs continue to receive their existing, statutorily mandated levels of funding.
135. Again, the Plaintiffs may recover their costs of litigation and reasonable attorney
fees under the Texas Open Meetings Act.131 This action is brought by the Plaintiffs in good faith,
without any alternative recourse, and the Commission had no reasonable basis in law for its
actions.
C. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
137. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order maintaining the status
quo by (1) voiding the Dec. 17, 2020 Contract Amendment, (2) enjoining the Commission from
deviating from orders in dozens of individual entities’ contested cases requiring specific
disbursement amounts from TUSF as well as established rules requiring that funding, promulgated
under clear Texas laws, and (3) requiring the PUC to take immediate action to adequately fund all
current obligations of the TUSF, either through an assessment rate increase or any other lawful
131
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.142(b)).
method, during the pendency of this proceeding. Without such intervention, the Plaintiffs – and
thus the Texans living in the 55% of Texas that the Plaintiffs serve – will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage before a hearing can be held on its request for a temporary
injunction.132 The January Action makes it clear that the recipients of High-Cost Support are being
and will be imminently harmed. Without immediate action to preserve TUSF funding, the
Association members’ support and thus their ability to operate will be significantly impaired. This
will lead to insufficient revenues to maintain their networks, perform upgrades, construct new
facilities, make service calls, or pay their employees or contractors, with resulting permanent and
irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs.
138. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of
the subject matter of the suit pending a judicial resolution of the merits. 133 A plaintiff seeking a
temporary injunction must plead and prove three elements: (1) a cause of action against the
defendant and a probable right to the relief sought; (2) a probable and imminent injury, and (3) an
irreparable injury or inadequate remedy at law.134
139. The Plaintiffs have asserted multiple valid causes of action and established a
probable right to recover. Their members and the customers they serve have undeniably
experienced harm already, and will continue to experience imminent and irreparable harm. The
Commission has refused to adjust the assessment rate as necessary to fully fund existing TUSF
obligations, has directed Solix to prioritize certain programs over others, and has directed Solix to
short-pay the high-cost programs as needed, with a predictable and immediate loss of 60-70% of
that crucial support. As a direct result, the Plaintiffs are losing some of the High-Cost Support
132
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680.
133
See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002).
134
Id.
they rely upon beginning in January 2021. The first month alone, their collective losses are
approximately $10 million.
140. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. As they lose the funds they need to
operate, they may fall short of their service obligations, be unable to extend service(s) to requesting
customers, be unable to invest in their networks, and be unable to maintain the costly networks
they already have. If they lose customers due to such issues, they may never get those customers
back. If they are unable to replace or upgrade their networks into certain areas, competitors may
obtain perpetual advantages over them. Such harms would affect service immediately, damage
the goodwill the providers have built up over decades, and could not be remedied by future legal
outcomes.135
141. Plaintiffs are willing to post bond if the Court deems it appropriate. However,
pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 684, given that injunctive relief is sought against a State agency,
and that State agency has no pecuniary interest in the suit and no monetary damages can be shown
by said State agency in the event a writ is dissolved, the bond is left to the discretion of the Court,
and Plaintiffs suggest that the bond either be waived or fixed in an amount of no more than $500.
D. PERMANENT INJUNCTION
143. In accordance with the declaratory judgment and temporary injunction requested
herein, Plaintiffs also petition the Court for the permanent and final injunctive relief needed to
effectuate this Court’s binding judgment. Specifically, the Plaintiffs respectfully seek an order
permanently enjoining the Defendants from violating Open Meetings laws, deviating from their
135
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 65.011.
own TUSF orders, or deviating from the regulatory and statutory requirements to which
Defendants are bound with respect to the management and distribution of TUSF. The Plaintiffs
ask that the Court order the Commission to fully fund existing TUSF obligations, including High-
Cost Support.
E. COMPENSATION FOR REGULATORY TAKING
145. The Commission’s actions constitute a regulatory taking completely depriving
Plaintiffs of the beneficial use of their investment, as well as contracts and tariffs with their
customers. The Commission’s actions to deny TUSF support interferes with the investment-
backed expectations in owning and operating a telecommunications company in Texas. Absent a
temporary injunction requiring the continuation of all obligatory TUSF support payments, then
Plaintiffs seek compensation from the Commission in the amount of the authorized TUSF support
due, but unpaid. Assuming the calculations in the January Action hold true, Plaintiffs and their
members estimate that approximately $60 million in compensation will be due based on an
estimated non-payment of approximately 6 months, excluding attorney’s fees or other costs.
VIII.
PRAYER AND CONCLUSION
The Plaintiffs were reticent to file suit and attempted every other course to try to avoid this
result. Unfortunately, after months of outreach at the Commission and multiple legal filings to ask
for reconsideration, no progress was made. The recent January Action is so drastic, they now have
no choice but to proceed with this litigation. The extensive history and citations recounted above
illustrate that the Commission’s inaction with respect to raising the assessment rate and action to
create an artificial hierarchy and short pay certain TUSF obligations are illegal. The Commission

must preserve the status quo by adhering to its prior orders which were issued consistent with
properly promulgated rules in order to fulfil its statutory duty of fully funding the TUSF. TTA
and TSTCI ask this Court to declare and enforce the Commission’s legal obligation to fully fund
TUSF.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully prays
(1) For a declaratory judgment that Defendants actions in violation of the Texas Open
Meetings Act are void; that Defendants actions that constitute ad hoc rulemaking
are void; and that Defendants must follow valid Commission orders, rules and laws
to fully fund all programs of the TUSF;
(2) For emergency, temporary, and permanent injunctive relief ordering the
Defendants to maintain the status quo and desist from deviating from the
Commission’s existing orders and rules, thus ensuring TUSF is adequately funded
and disbursed;
(3) For a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to fulfill their duty imposed by law to
adequately fund all TUSF programs and make all required disbursements;
(4) If injunctive relief is not promptly granted to preserve the status quo, then the TUSF
recipient Plaintiffs seek compensation from the Commission in the amount of
authorized TUSF support each is due, but is unpaid, at the time a final judgment is
rendered, as well as pre-judgement and post-judgement interest. Plaintiffs estimate
approximately $60 million in compensation would be due based on an estimated
66% non-payment over approximately 6 months;
(5) For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including post-judgment interest, as allowed
by the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Texas Open Meetings Act, or other law; and
(6) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

dÈ¼vÎâèÉ×q¥ÏÎè
ZDYE[èR_iLVV èeYTgSèèVLM
èaWVGè
8)#è\èHj¼Ðjè·ègàjÊèRÝj èe×Ïè,9
ã
EØÊÐèhàjÊè484($è
g¼·®<è 0%',69)è
OjwÊ¥ <è0#',5,#9&è
F
ã
=è åæJ·çU
fÑjÒèFjÇè]×¥r¾è',,2' è

}¸¯äA°k¦l¯·Þ¡x¹§è
fÒ¼p®èfèb·Ö¿è
fÒjÒèFj¿è[Ù¨q¿è'-!20:'(è
@Ü»ÔÕÀB±m©n²ºßy·ªè
:8(,&?1A -A 6A "'7 A

>2A #*('A
34(8(&A
dwjÁ~ÊèNÂèèQrÊ·³ ècVVIè

c`èF·áè2,306è
XÚss·wègájËè79,2,.216è
g¢¼»´>è8"2è4:88828è
PjwÌ¨£?è82è4;88868è
Fâè
j|èQrÊ·³è
fÒjÏèFjÃè^×¨t¿è',/09*:è
uÍ·µÄ¤½z»«è
K·¶èdèdwoÀÊè
eÓjÒèFoÅèZÛ¬¾è#28,2+è
¾wj¾ÊCÆ¼{·¥è
67(.'@3A)/A%&8!A5A 9:=A $*(&A

((+0;<A'A

1$><M *7$M2?@/%M
34! A+&M+7MB8,MCKM'M2LM
I7>M+M"(#F=M $ M;6G=DM-9M

+"5)=>0(M.:M8H E0:JMC)M
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on January 20, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Defendants regarding the
relief sought in this Petition. On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff contacted the Office of the Attorney
General, who is expected to represent the Commission in this matter. At the time of filing,
Defendants have not publicly indicated their views on the matters of this Petition. Plaintiff
acknowledges that Defendants reserve the right to state a position on the Petition in the future.
___________________________________
Of Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this the 20th day of January, 2021, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing was served on all known parties and counsel of record as indicated below:
Thomas Gleeson, Executive Director, via certified mail, return receipt requested
Public Utility Commission of Texas
P.O. Box 13326
Austin, TX 78711
and Thomas.Gleeson@puc.texas.gov, via email
and
Office of the Attorney General, via certified mail, return receipt requested
300 West 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701
____________________________________
Of Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC


STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Mark Seale,
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed below, and upon his oath said that he
represents Texas Telephone Association as the Executive Director of such association, which is
the Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause, and that he has read the foregoing Petition,
that he has personal knowledge of the factual statements contained therein, and that such factual
statements are true and correct.
__________________________________
Mark Seale, Declarant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this the 20th day of January, 2021 to certify which
witness my hand and seal of office. This notarial act was an online notarization.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas

Exhibit A
List of the Associations’ Participating Member Plaintiffs*
TTA Members TSTCI Members
Big Bend Telephone Company, Inc. Alenco Communications, Inc.
Blossom Telephone Company, Inc. Border to Border Communications, Inc.
Brazoria Telephone Company Brazos Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Cameron Communications
CenturyLink (Central Telephone Company of Texas, Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Inc., CenturyTel of Lake Dallas Inc., CenturyTel Coleman County Telephone Cooperative,
of Port Aransas, Inc., CenturyTel of San Marcos, Inc.
Inc., and United Telephone Company of Texas, Colorado Valley Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.) Inc.
Coleman County Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Community Telephone Company Dell Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Consolidated Communications of Texas Company Electra Telephone Company
Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc ENMR Telephone Cooperative
Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Five Area Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Industry Telephone Company
Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. La Ward Telephone Exchange, Inc.
Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Lake Livingston Telephone Company
Lake Livingston Telephone Company Lipan Telephone Company. Inc.
Livingston Telephone Company Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative,
Muenster Telephone Corporation of Texas dba Inc.
Nortex Communications Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
North Texas Telephone Company Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Peoples Telephone Cooperative, Inc. South Plains Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative
Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Inc.
Southwest Texas Communications Tatum Telephone Company
Taylor Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Wes-Tex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Totelcom Communications LLC West Plains Telecommunications, Inc.
Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. XIT Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
West Texas Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Windstream Services, LLC (Texas Windstream, *Listed here are participating ILEC members of
LLC, Windstream Communications Kerrville, the Associations. Some of these ILECs have
LLC, Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC CLEC or other affiliates who are designated as
ETPs and which are also entitled to receive
dba Windstream Communications Southwest,
TUSF under the rules and laws cited in the
Windstream Sugar Land LLC) preceding petition.
XIT Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Ganado Telephone Company, Inc.

Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Draft
Privileged Attorney Work Product
1.15.21
Exhibit B
List of Acronyms
Acronym or
Definition
Abbreviation
Audio Newspaper Program, one of the 11 programs
ANP
of the TUSF
APA Administrative Procedure Act
BLTS Basic Local Telecommunications Service
CLEC Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
Eligible Telecommunications Provider, such as
ILECs or CLECs which have obtained ETP
ETP
designation under Commission rules and are eligible
for certain TUSF funding
FCC Federal Communications Commission
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier, typically
ILEC
wireline providers with certificated service areas
OCC Oklahoma Corporation Commission
OUSF Oklahoma Universal Service Fund
POLR Provider of Last Resort
PRC Public Regulation Commission of New Mexico
PUC Public Utility Commission of Texas
PURA Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act
Small and Rural ILEC Universal Service Plan, one
of the TUSF programs which provides high-cost
SRILEC USP support predominately for small companies and
cooperatives, referred to together with THCUSP as
“High-Cost Support”
Specialized Telecommunications Assistance
STAP
Program, another of the TUSF programs
TAC Texas Administrative Code
Texas High Cost Assistance Universal Service Plan,
another of the TUSF programs which provides high-
THCUSP cost support predominately for mid-sized companies
and cooperatives, referred to together with SRILEC
USP as “High-Cost Support”
TUSF Texas Universal Service Fund
Universal Service Fund, generally referring to
USF
federal or state funds
VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol

Exhibit C
Texas Telephone Service Area Maps
p. 1 – Map of All TTA and TSTCI Members’ Service Areas,

Color Coded by Member Company or Cooperative
p. 2 – Map of All TTA and TSTCI Members’ Service Areas,

Combined
Co Name
ALENCO COMMUNICATION - ACI
BIG BEND TEL CO - BBT
BLOSSOM TEL CO
BRAZORIA TEL CO - BTEL
BRAZOS TEL CO-OP
CAMERON TEL CO - TX
CAP ROCK TEL CO-OP
CENTRAL TEXAS CO-OP
CENTURYLINK - CENTEL
CENTURYLINK - LAKE DALLAS
CENTURYLINK - PORT ARANSAS
CENTURYLINK - SAN MARCOS
CENTURYLINK - UNITED
COLEMAN COUNTY TEL CO-OP
COLORADO VALLEY TEL CO-OP
COMMUNITY TEL CO
CONSOLIDATED - FORT BEND
CONSOLIDATED COMM - TX
CUMBY TEL CO-OP
DELL TEL CO-OP
EASTEX TEL CO-OP
ENMR TEL CO-OP
ETEX TEL CO-OP
FIVE AREA TEL CO-OP
GANADO TEL CO - YK COMM
GUADALUPE VALLEY TEL CO-OP
HILL COUNTRY CO-OP
HILLARY - BORDER TO BORDER
HILLARY - ELECTRA TEL CO
HILLARY - TATUM TEL CO
INDUSTRY TEL CO
LA WARD TEL EXCHANGE
LAKE LIVINGSTON TEL CO
LIPAN TEL CO
LIVINGSTON TEL CO - LIVCOM
MID-PLAINS RURAL TEL CO-OP
MUENSTER TEL CO - NORTEX
NORTH TEXAS TEL CO
PEOPLES TEL CO-OP
POKA-LAMBRO TEL CO-OP
RIVIERA TEL CO
SANTA ROSA TEL CO-OP
SOUTH PLAINS TEL CO-OP
SW TEXAS TEL CO
TAYLOR TEL CO-OP
TOTELCOM COMM
VALLEY TEL CO-OP
WES-TEX TEL CO-OP
WEST TEXAS RURAL TEL CO-OP
WINDSTREAM - KERRVILLE
WINDSTREAM - SOUTHWEST
WINDSTREAM - SUGARLAND
WINDSTREAM - TEXAS
XIT RURAL TEL CO-OP
Exhibit D
70
Exhibit D
71
Exhibit D
72
Exhibit D
73
Exhibit D
74
Exhibit D
75
Exhibit D
76
Exhibit D
77
Exhibit D
78
Exhibit D
79
Exhibit D
80
Exhibit D
81
Exhibit D
82
Exhibit D
83
Exhibit D
84
Exhibit D
85
Exhibit D
86
Exhibit D
87
Exhibit D
88
Exhibit D
89
Exhibit D
90
Exhibit D
91
Exhibit D
92
Exhibit D
93
Exhibit D
94
Exhibit D
95
Exhibit D
96
Exhibit D
97
Exhibit D
98
Exhibit D
99
Exhibit E
Texas Universal Service Fu

und 10 Lanidex Plazza West
Parsippany, NJJ 07054
TXUSFOperrations@solixin
nc.com www.solixin nc.com
January 7,
7 2021
Re: Notice
N of Changes
C to
o your Tex
xas Univerrsal Servicce Fund (T
TUSF) Sup
pport
Disburseement
The dead
dline for prroviding fun
nds to eligib
ble telecomm
munications providers ((ETPs) has been
extended
d from the 10
0th of the mo
onth to the 15th
1 of the m
month follow
wing the ETP
P’s submissiion of
remittancce and suppo
ort worksheeet for TUSF
F recipients ((RMT) form
ms to allow tthe Public U
Utility
Commisssion of Texaas and Solix
x time to callculate the ppercentage of funds to bbe utilized foor the
high cost reimbursem
ment distrib
bution. ETPs must still submit RM
MT forms byy the 25th tto be
eligible.
If the PU nes that the TUSF is at risk

UCT determin PUCT Contraact Administtrator
r of insolvvency, the P
will info
orm the TUS
SF Administtrator who must
m then aadjust the prrocess of prroviding funnds to
ETPs acccordingly:
a. Each
E month, lifeline programs inclu
uding tel-ass istance, Texxas relay serrvice, speciaalized
teelecommuniccations assistance pro
ogram, audiio newspapper program
m, intralata and
ad
dministrative costs willl be deemed
d “first prioority” disburrsements annd must be m
made
before all oth
her disbursem
ments.
b. Iff funds remaain in the TUSF
T after paying
p the m
month’s firsst priority diisbursementss, the
TUSF
T Admin
nistrator willl disburse su
upport awardded under P
Public Utilityy Regulatoryy Act
§56.025(a), created to maaintain reven
nue neutralityy when the T
TUSF was established.
c. Iff funds remaain in the TUSF after paying
p §56.0025(a) suppoort for the m
month, the T
TUSF
Administrator
A r will disb
burse supporrt awarded under Pubblic Utility Regulatoryy Act
§56.025(c) reelated to Fed
deral USF losss recovery.
d. Iff funds remaain in the TUSF after paying
p §56.0025(c) suppoort for the m
month, the T
TUSF
Administrator
A r will ensuree a minimum
m fund balannce as contracted with thee PUCT.
e. Iff the TUSF
F balance exceeds
e thee contractedd fund balaance after tthe first priority
disbursementts and paym
ment of §56.0
025(a)&(c) ssupport, exccess funds w
will be appliied to
TRATION • QUALIFICATION PR
PROGRAM ADMINIST ROCESSING • CU
USTOMER CAR
RE 100
Exhibit E
th
he Texas Hig
gh Cost Univ
versal Servicce Plan monnthly support
rt payments, Texas Highh Cost
Universal
U Serrvice Plan for
f Uncertifiicated Areass monthly support paym
ments, and S
Small
an
nd Local Ru
ural Incumbent Local Exchange
E Coompany Uniiversal Serviice Plan moonthly
su
upport paym
ments. The TUSF
T Administrator willl make whaatever perceentage of suupport
payments thee fund will su
upport, up to
o 100%, whhile maintainning the conttracted miniimum
fu
und balance. If the paym
ments will be
b less than 100% of thhe amount thhat the ETP
Ps are
elligible, the TUSF
T Admiinistrator will pay each ETP the sam
me percentagge of the am
mount
fo
or which thaat ETP is eliigible. For example, if thhe fund willl support maaking 75% oof the
to
otal eligible monthly sup
pport paymeents for the T
Texas High Cost Univerrsal Service Plan,
Texas
T High Cost
C Univerrsal Service Plan for U
Uncertificatedd Areas, annd the Small and
Local
L Rural Incumbent Local Exch
hange Comppany Univerrsal Service Plan, each ETP
elligible for on
ne of these programs
p willl receive 755% of the suppport to whiich they wouuld be
elligible. At prresent, the projected
p Jan
nuary payoutt for the Novvember 20200 reimbursem
ments
percentage is in the 30% - 40% rangee.
If you haave any questions, pleasee contact:
Jay Ston TDM

ne CTCM, CT
Progrram Administrator
Public
c Utility Comm
mission of Tex
xas
W: (51
12)936-7425 | jay.stone@p
puc.texas.govv
PROGRAM ADMINIST
TRATION • QUALIFICATION PR
ROCESSING • CU
USTOMER CAR
RE
101
Exhibit F
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

OPEN MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, December 17, 2020, 9:30 A.M.
Commissioners' Hearing Room
7th Floor, William B. Travis Building
The public may participate in this open meeting remotely by

calling in to this toll-free number: (844) 867-6163 and using
the access code 4339916#.
The following items will be taken up first without discussion: 29 and 45.
The followings items will not be taken up: 7, 8, 9, 10, 21 and 31.
Project No. 50275 - Open Meeting Agenda items without an associated control number.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Docket No. 50188 – Application of Border to Border Communications, Inc. for True-Up
of 2017 Federal Universal Service Fund Impacts to the Texas Universal Service Fund.
(Final Order) Judy King
2. Docket No. 50572 – Application of Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for True-Up
of 2017 Federal Universal Service Fund impacts to the Texas Universal Service Fund.
(Final Order) Judy King
3. Discussion and possible action regarding implementation of state and federal legislation
affecting telecommunications markets, current and projected rulemakings and other
projects, comments to other state and federal agencies, and Commission priorities.
WATER
4. Docket No. 49887; SOAH Docket No. 473-20-1116.WS – Application of Kendall West
Utility, LLC for Authority to Change Rates. (Order on Remand) Lorenzo Garcia
5. Docket No. 47161 – Application of Kerr County Water Systems, LLC for Authority to
Change Rates. (Final Order) David Hrncir
6. Docket No. 49272 – Application of Yancey Water Supply Corporation to Amend a Water
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Medina and Frio Counties. (Final Order)
David Hrncir
7. Docket No. 49596 – Application of Mark Patterson for Temporary Rates for a
Nonfunctioning Utility. (Final Order) Alex Scheifler
Nonfunctioning Utility. (Final Order) Alex Scheifler
103
Exhibit F
Page 2
OPEN MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2020
Nonfunctioning Utility. (Final Order) Austin Spraetz
10. Docket No. 50085 – Application of Castle Water, Inc. d/b/a Horseshoe Bend Water
System and Horseshoe Bend Water Company, LLC for Sale, Transfer, or Merger of
Facilities and Certificate Rights in Parker County. (Discussion and possible action)
Stephen Journeay
11. Docket No. 50445 – Petition of H20 Tech, Inc. to Discontinue Water Service and Cancel
its Water Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. (Final Order) Connor Kilgallen
12. Docket No. 50495 – Petition of the Sanctuary Texas LLC to Amend the City of
Lakewood Village’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Denton County by
Expedited Release. (Final Order) John Kelly
13. Docket No. 50787 – Petition of Tyler Oak Creek Development, LLC to Amend Liberty
Utilities (Tall Timbers Sewer) Corp.’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Smith
County by Expedited Release. (Final Order) Alex Scheifler
14. Docket No. 50792 – Petition of Val Verde Utility Company, LLC to Decertify its
Certificated Water Area and Cancel its Water Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
in Val Verde County. (Final Order) Connor Kilgallen
15. Docket No. 50914 – Application of HILCO United Services, Inc. dba HOLCO H2O for
Temporary Rates for a Nonfunctioning Utility. (Final Order) Austin Spraetz
16. Docket No. 51114 – Petition of Imperial Heights, LTD. to Amend Aqua Texas, Inc.’s
Certificates of Convenience and Necessity in Harris County by Expedited Release. (Final
Order) Austin Spraetz
17. Docket No. 51150 – Petition of DJD Land Partners LLC to Amend Mountain Peak
Special Utility District’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Johnson County by
Expedited Release. (Final Order). Austin Spraetz
18. Docket No. 51367 – Petition of Destiny Development, LLC, on Behalf of Cyd Bailey, to
Amend West Wise Special Utility District’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in
Wise County Expedited Release. (Final Order) Austin Spraetz
19. Project No. 50514 – Project to Amend Class A, B, C, D Water and Sewer Annual Report
Forms. (Proposal for Publication) Debi Loockerman
20. Discussion and possible action regarding implementation of state legislation affecting
water and sewer companies, current and projected rulemakings and other projects,
comments to other state agencies, and Commission priorities.
104
Exhibit F
Page 3
OPEN MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ELECTRIC
21. Docket No. 48205; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-3823 – Complaints of Multiple Tenants
Against Palm Shadows Resort, LLC, Palm Shadows MH & RV Park, and Affordable
Housing Communities, LLC (Electric Service Billings). (Final Order) Lorenzo Garcia
22. Docket No. 50065 – Complaint of Doug and Linda Crosson, Bo and Trish Lebo, and
Bruce and Ann Ahlhorn Against Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Final Order)
David Hrncir
23. Docket No. 50795 – Application of Forza Energy, LLC for a Retail Electric Provider
Certificate. (Final Order) John Kelly
24. Docket No. 50871 – Complaints and Appeals of DC Energy Texas, LLC and Monterey
TX, LLC Against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (Final Order) Lorenzo
Garcia
25. Docket No. 50917 – Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Waiver of
Rate Filing Package Schedule S. (Final Order) Connor Kilgallen
26. Docket No. 51136 – Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for a Non-Standard True-Up
under the Financing Order in Docket No. 37247 (Schedule SRC). (Final Order) John
Kelly
27. Docket No. 51154 – Agreed Notice of Violation and Settlement Agreement Relating to
Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC’s Violation of PURA § 39.151(j), 16 TAC §
25.503(f)(2), and ERCOT Nodal Protocols § 6.4.6(1) and Former § 5.5.2. (Final Order)
John Kelly
28. Docket No. 51162 – Joint Application of Southwestern Public Service Company and City
of Lubbock, Acting By and Through Lubbock Power & Light to Transfer Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity Rights. (Final Order) John Kelly
29. Docket No. 51247 – Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. to Revise Certain Meter-Related
Miscellaneous Electric Service Charges in Accordance with the Order in Docket No.
47416. (Final Order) Judy King
30. Docket No. 51277 – Agreed Notice of Violation and Agreement Relating to Direct
Energy, LP, First Choice Power, LLC, and Bounce Energy, Inc.’s Violations of PURA
§ 39.101 and 16 TAC §§ 25.474, 25.475, or 25.483. (Final Order) Connor Kilgallen
31. Docket No. 51381 – Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. to Establish a Generation Cost
Recovery Rider Related to the Montgomery County Power Station. (Discussion and
possible action)
105
Exhibit F
Page 4
OPEN MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2020
32. Docket No. 51415; SOAH Docket No. 473-21-0538 – Application of Southwestern
Electric Power Company for Authority to Change Rates. (Preliminary Order) Lorenzo
Garcia
33. Docket No. 51395 – Agreed Notice of Violation and Settlement Agreement Relating to
Texas-New Mexico Power Company’s Violation of PURA § 38.005 and 16 TAC §
25.52, Concerning Reliability and Continuity of Service. (Final Order) Judy King
34. Docket No. 51534 – Application of Cross Texas Transmission, LLC for Good Cause
Waiver of Rate Filing Requirement Under 16 TAC § 25.247 and Adoption of Rate
Settlement. (Discussion and possible action) Stephen Journeay
35. Docket No. 51547 – Joint Report and Application of Texas-New Mexico Power
Company, NM Green Holdings, Inc., and Avangrid, Inc. for Regulatory Approvals Under
PURA §§ 14.101, 39.262, and 39.915. (Discussion and possible action) Stephen Journeay
36. Docket No. 51583 – Application of Electric Transmission Texas, LLC for Good Cause
Waiver of Rate Filing Requirement Under 16 TAC § 25.247. (Discussion and possible
action) Stephen Journeay
37. Project No. 51501 – Application for Declaratory Order, Rate Complaint, and Petition for
Rulemaking. (Discussion and possible action)
38. Project No. 37344 - Information Related to the Entergy Regional State Committee.
(Discussion and possible action)
39. Project No. 41211 - Information Related to the Organization of MISO States.
(Discussion and possible action)
40. Project No. 41210 - Information Related to the Southwest Power Pool Regional State
Committee. (Discussion and possible action)
41. Discussion and possible action on electric reliability; electric market development;
power-to-choose website; ERCOT oversight; transmission planning, construction, and
cost recovery in areas outside of ERCOT; and electric reliability standards and
organizations arising under federal law.
42. Discussion and possible action regarding implementation of state and federal legislation
affecting electricity markets including current and projected rulemakings and other
projects, comments to other state and federal agencies and Commission priorities.
GENERAL
43. Project No. 49710 - Discussion and possible action regarding implementation activities,
86th Legislature (R.S). David Smeltzer
44. Project No. 50475 – Agency Report to the 87th Legislature. (Discussion and possible
action) Pai Liu
106
Exhibit F
Page 5
OPEN MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2020
45. Project No. 51502 – RFP for Technical Consulting Services Related to Texas New
Mexico Power Change of Control. (Discussion and possible action with respect to
delegation of authority to the Executive Director) Jay Stone
46. Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory
Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project
assignments, correspondence, staff reports, agency administrative issues, agency
organization, fiscal matters and personnel policy.
47. Discussion and possible action regarding customer service issues, including but not
limited to correspondence and complaint issues.
48. Discussion and possible action on infrastructure reliability, emergency management, and
homeland security.
49. Adjournment for closed session to consider one or more of the following items:
a. Discussions with its attorneys regarding contemplated litigation, settlement offers,
pending litigation, and other matters as allowed under section 551.071 of the
Texas Government Code;
b. Personnel matters, including the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the Executive Director, the
Deputy Executive Director, the Division Directors or any other public officer or
employee of the Commission as allowed under section 551.074 of the Texas
Government Code; and
c. Security matters, including deployment and implementation of security personnel
or devices or security audits; including matters under Project No. 24729, as
allowed under sections 551.076 and 551.089 of the Texas Government Code;
and reconvening in open session for discussion and decisions on matters considered in
closed session.
Persons planning to attend this meeting who have disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or
services should notify the Commission as far in advance as possible so that appropriate
arrangements can be made. Requests can be made by mail, telephone or in person to the
Commission's Office of Customer Protection, 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, Texas 78701,
phone number (512) 936-7150 or (512) 936-7136 for the teletypewriter for the deaf.
107
Exhibit G
List of Existing ILEC TUSF High-Cost Support Payments Necessary
to Preserve Status Quo*
Docket Required
Rules/Laws Requiring Requiring Date of Notice Amount of
ILEC
this High-Cost Support High-Cost or Order Support -
Support Annual
Alenco SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
Communications, § 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $2,056,608.00
48995
Inc. § 26.407(d)
SB 586 election - PURA
Big Bend Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $3,614,274.39
Company, Inc. 49020
§ 26.407(d)
SB 586 adjustment -
Blossom Telephone Docket No. (August 13,
PURA § 56.032(h) & $113,837.00
Company 51165 2020)
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Border to Border SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
Communications, § 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $308,436.00
48996
Inc. § 26.407(d)
Brazoria Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $2,946,942.34
Company 49024
§ 26.407(d)
SB 586 adjustment -
Brazos Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Apr. 29, 2020) $2,072,448.00
Cooperative, Inc. 50451
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Cameron Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 13, 2018) $531,192.00
Company, L.L.C. 48985
§ 26.407(d)
SB 586 adjustment -
Cap Rock Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Apr. 29, 2020) $1,916,326.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Specific
Central Telephone
SB 583 financial needs monthly
Company of Texas,
test (THCUSP) – PURA amounts per line
Inc. and United Docket
§ 56.023(g) (May 5, 2016) per exchange set
Telephone Company No. 45473
out in
of Texas, Inc., both & 16 TAC § 26.405(f) Attachment 1 of
dba CenturyLink
the order
Central Texas SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
Telephone § 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $2,523,576.00
49000
Cooperative, Inc. § 26.407(d)

Docket Required
ILEC
Support Annual
CenturyTel of Lake (SRILEC USP) - PURA
§ 56.023(b) Docket No.
Dallas, Inc. dba (Aug. 8, 2014) $10.94 per line
41682
CenturyLink & 16 TAC § 26.404
CenturyTel of Port (SRILEC USP) - PURA
Aransas, Inc. dba (Aug. 8, 2014) $8.61 per line
41682
CenturyTel of San (SRILEC USP) - PURA
Marcos, Inc. dba (Aug. 8, 2014) $ 16.42 per line
41682
Coleman County SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Apr. 29, 2020) $911,580.00
50397
Cooperative, Inc. 16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Colorado Valley SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Jun. 6, 2020) $2,337,907.00
50610
SB 586 adjustment -
Community Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Feb. 24, 2020) $963,127.00
Telephone Company 50338
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Specific
Consolidated monthly
Communications of SB 583 financial needs
test (SRILEC USP) - amounts per line
Texas Company and Docket
PURA § 56.023(i) (Jun. 7, 2017) per exchange set
Consolidated No. 46699
Communications of out in
& 16 TAC § 26.405(f) Attachment 1 of
Fort Bend Company
the order
SB 586 adjustment -
Cumby Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Jul. 15, 2020) $434,267.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Dell Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2020) $438,732.00
§ 26.407(d)
SB 586 adjustment -
Eastex Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Jan. 22, 2020) $8,484,134.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Electra Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2020) $739,996.80
Company 49001
§ 26.407(d)

Docket Required
ILEC
Support Annual
ENMR Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2020) $260,376.00
§ 26.407(d)
SB 586 adjustment -
Etex Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 25, 2020) $4,728,477.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
SB 586 adjustment -
Five Area Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Sep. 18, 2020) $1,224,348.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Ganado Telephone SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
Company d/b/a YK § 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2020) $871,635.89
49011
Communications § 26.407(d)
Specific
Guadalupe Valley test (SRILEC USP) - amounts per line
Docket
Telephone PURA § 56.023(i) (May 4, 2017) per exchange set
No. 46700
Cooperative, Inc. out in
the order
Hill Country SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 19, 2020) $5,455,246.00
50337
SB 586 adjustment -
Industry Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (May 5, 2020) $1,430,760.00
Company 50486
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
La Ward Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $519,702.07
Exchange, Inc. 49013
§ 26.407(d)
Lake Livingston Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $791,006.39
§ 26.407(d)
Lipan Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 13, 2018) $781,308.00
Company 48984
§ 26.407(d)
Livingston Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 13, 2018) $602,676.00
Company 48991
§ 26.407(d)

Docket Required
ILEC
Support Annual
Mid-Plains Rural SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Jun. 19, 2020) $1,035,703.00
50441
Muenster Telephone
Corporation of Texas Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $1,807,920.00
d/b/a Nortex 49003
§ 26.407(d)
Communications
SB 586 adjustment -
North Texas Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 24, 2020) $219,643.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
SB 586 adjustment -
Peoples Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 5, 2020) $2,822,215.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Poka Lambro SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
48988
SB 586 adjustment -
Riviera Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Apr. 9, 2020) $1,542,022.00
Company, Inc. 50287
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Santa Rosa SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 24, 2020) $746,861.00
50286
South Plains SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telephone PURA § 56.032(h) & (Jul. 8, 2020) $1,747,519.00
50658
Legacy per-line support /
Southwest Arkansas
did not elect under SB 586 Docket No.
Telephone (Jan. 14, 2000) $55.32 per line
- PURA § 56.021(1) & 18516
Cooperative, Inc.
16 TAC § 26.404(f)
Southwest Texas
Telephone Company SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
d/b/a Southwest § 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $2,338,078.00
49026
Texas § 26.407(d)
Communications
Tatum Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $602,002.01
Company 49007
§ 26.407(d)

Docket Required
ILEC
Support Annual
SB 586 adjustment -
Taylor Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 4, 2020) $1,760,572.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Specific
Texas Windstream, test (SRILEC USP) - amounts per line
Docket
LLC dba Windstream PURA § 56.023(i) (Jun. 7, 2017) per exchange set
No. 46697
Communications out in
the order
Totelcom SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Communications, PURA § 56.032(h) & (Mar. 20, 2020) $943,589.00
50339
LLC 16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Valley Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $6,309,660.00
§ 26.407(d)
Specific
Valor
Telecommunications
test (THCUSP) – PURA amounts per line
of Texas, LLC dba Docket
§ 56.023(g) (May 6, 2016) per exchange set
Windstream No. 45472
out in
Communications & 16 TAC § 26.405(f) Attachment 1 of
Southwest
the order
West Plains SB 586 adjustment -
Docket No.
Telecommunications, PURA § 56.032(h) & (May 5, 2020) $1,214,774.00
50492
Inc. 16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
West Texas Rural SB 586 election - PURA
Docket No.
48987
SB 586 adjustment -
Wes-Tex Telephone Docket No.
PURA § 56.032(h) & (May 5, 2020) $947,813.00
16 TAC § 26.407(g) & (h)
Specific
Windstream SB 583 financial needs monthly
Communications test (SRILEC USP) - amounts per line
Docket
Kerrville, LLC dba PURA § 56.023(i) (Jun. 7, 2017) per exchange set
Windstream No. 46698
out in
Communications & 16 TAC § 26.405(f) Attachment 1 of
the order

Docket Required
ILEC
Support Annual
XIT Rural Telephone Docket No.
§ 56.032(c) & 16 TAC (Dec. 14, 2018) $815,136.00
§ 26.407(d)
*This chart does not include pending PURA § 56.025 payments, if any, or orders/rules/laws
applicable to ETPs other than ILECs.

Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Dennis Donley on behalf of Dennis Donley, Jr.

Bar No. 24004620
ddonley@namanhowell.com
Envelope ID: 49877673
Status as of 1/21/2021 9:32 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Dennis Donley Donley@namanhowell.com 1/20/2021 4:14:33 PM SENT
Stephanie SPotter spotter@namanhowell.com 1/20/2021 4:14:33 PM SENT
David Daniel Gibson 24045939 dgibson@regllp.com 1/20/2021 4:14:33 PM SENT
Don R. Richards drichards@regllp.com 1/20/2021 4:14:33 PM SENT

TTA v. PUC Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TTA v. PUC Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/20/2021 4:14 PM

TEXAS TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

Page 1 of 113 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION,

Page 2 of 113 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION,

COME NOW, Texas Telephone Association (“TTA”), Texas Statewide Telephone

Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, Writ of Mandamus,

Chairman DeAnn T. Walker, Commissioner Arthur C. D’Andrea, and Commissioner Shelly

Fund (“TUSF” or “Fund”).

pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4.

2. The PUC has unlawfully ordered reductions in legislatively-mandated TUSF

funding to more than 50 telecommunications companies which provide basic local

x A temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction to maintain

previously determined must be distributed.

to increase the TUSF assessment rate to meet TUSF’s ongoing obligations:

7. A timely and adequate TUSF assessment rate is crucial. Rural telecommunications

infrastructure is critical to the state-wide telecommunications network.

support, and revenues.

exist in rule or statute:

are uneconomic to serve without support.

may share the network.

supreme courts of both Oklahoma and New Mexico.18

participating members are also listed in Exhibit A.

19. Defendant Public Utility Commission of Texas is an administrative agency of the

and administer each program of the Texas Universal Service Fund.

20. Chairman Walker, Commissioner D’Andrea, and Commissioner Botkin are

commissioners of the PUC, and are sued in their official capacities.

300 West 15th Street, Austin, TX 78701.

GOV’T CODE § 2001.038.

occurred in Travis County.22

A. LEGAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND

commerce, telemedicine, and connection to others.24

close to $200 million.

to cover required disbursements.30

Page 14 of 113 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION,

70% for the affected TUSF programs.

Page 15 of 113 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION,

guidance from the Legislature.”40

unprecedented inaction. By refusing to perform a legislatively-mandated duty, the Commission

the Plaintiffs without due process.

the amount to which each provider was entitled.42

telecommunications is especially vital.

B. THE DEC. 17, 2020, CONTRACT AMENDMENT IS VOID

i. The Contract Amendment Violates the Open Meetings Act

Meetings Act due to:

matters that are to come before the agency.45

one of “special interest” to the public.47

example, as noted in the original contract’s “Attachment A — Statement of Work” at subsection

“appointment, … of the Executive Director …”

posting mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

agreement without a public meeting.52

will suffer extensive financial harm as a result of this action.

ii. The Contract Amendment Constitutes Ad Hoc Rulemaking

procedural rulemaking processes is particularly blatant here.

iii. The Contract Amendment Exceeded Mr. Gleeson’s Authority

TUSF disbursements in full.

Director’s authority to “administer” the contract. It fundamentally changes Solix’s contractual

a discriminatory manner – a series of calculations to be performed at such time the PUC

actions on a major agency contract outside of a properly noticed open meeting.

C. PRIOR COMMISSION ORDERS REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION FUND ALL

January Action remain in violation of a vast body of Commission precedent.

telecommunications providers (“ETPs”), or by specific exchanges.58 A list of such orders as

rate-making proceedings, under valid rules and statutes outlined below.

have become final.60

PURA § 56.032(b) also states that changes to SRILEC USP monthly