rate increase. PURA § 40; Coalition of Cities, 798 S.W.2d at 563; Public Util. Comm’n v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 778 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989, no writ). The supreme court has succinctly stated one result attending the allocation of that burden: “A party who fails to meet its burden of proof loses. The party who has the burden but fails to persuade the trier of fact is not entitled to a second trial to present more evidence.” Coalition of Cities, 798 S.W.2d at 563-64. This quotation reveals that the Commission’s duty as fact-finder carries no correlative power to strike a balance, as to the setting of rates, unsupported by a utility’s persuasive record evidence. See Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 810 F.2d 1168, 1180 (D.C.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). C. Remand Under APA Section 2001.-175(c) Gulf
holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record holding that trial court must make findings of fact on all material factual issues that involve ultimate issues in divorce and must make findings that characterize and value each asset or liability on which disputed evidence was presented holding that balancing must be based on factual findings holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings