neither methodology is necessarily “more or less reliable,” and due to the fact that it was “evident that Oncor requires a significant increase in its annual self insurance reserve accrual” because of its large reserve deficit that would soon increase significantly. Steering Committee concedes in its reply brief that both methodologies and figures were supported by substantial evidence; it is only the Commission’s decision to average the figures resulting from the two methodologies that Steering Committee claims was erroneous. Steering Committee claims that the Commission thereby improperly “embarked on its own method that goes beyond anything in the record.” See Central Power & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 36 S.W.3d 547, 557-58 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). However, in averaging the results produced by
recognizing this method of submission recognizing offset method recognizing this method holding that the bureau of prisonss method for calculating good time credits was a reasonable interpretation of the statute in part because the plaintiffs contrary method would result in a windfall to prisoners that congress did not intend holding that where no witness testified in support of a method of calculating consolidated tax savings by determining todays value of past tax savings commissions use of method was improper