A pair of renewable energy companies filed a suit in December at the Texas Supreme Court seeking to extend the Texas Tax Code Chapter 313 deadline.

In what Energy Alliance Policy Director, Bill Peacock, called “rare,” the Texas Supreme Court decided the issue is a legislative matter and should be referred to the legislative body for decisions on deadlines, according to the court’s 15-page decision.

“It is rare for courts today to defer legislative matters to legislative bodies,” Peacock said. “But the Texas Supreme Court did just that today, and it was the right thing to do. If the renewable energy companies don't like the decision the Legislature made in eliminating Chapter 313 tax abatements, they should take it up with the Legislature, not the courts.”

On Dec. 13, Monte Alto Windpower, LLC and Yellow Rose Solar Project LLC filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Texas for writ of mandamus pertaining to Texas Comptroller, Glen Hegar’s, “failure to comply with his mandatory statutory obligations.”

The companies wanted to “compel” Hegar “to complete his oversight evaluations, which are a statutory prerequisite for local school districts to approve tax incentives that will benefit the school districts, local communities, and relators,” according to the filing.

Chapter 313 is part of the Texas Economic Development Act, according to the Texas Comptroller’s website. It is an appraised value limitation where a taxpayer agrees to build or install property and create jobs in exchange for a 10-year limitation on taxable property value for school district maintenance and operations tax purposes. The minimum limitation value varies by school district.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus Dec. 30.

"In the end, the real problem for relators is the expiration of Chapter 313,” the court stated in its decision. “But for that deadline, it would not much matter if the Comptroller’s resources were insufficient to process the applications in 90 days or far longer. We are by no means unsympathetic to relators’ plight, but the constitutional separation of powers requires that they direct their claims to the one body that can address them. This Court is not that body. We possess only judicial and not legislative power. Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and their accompanying motion for temporary relief are accordingly denied."