may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Id. (quoting 13A Wright, § 3532, at 104 (2001 Supp.)). When assessing ripeness, we are required “ ‘to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.’ ” Perry, 66 S.W.3d at 250 (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). In this case, the Commission, at the parties’ request, issued an advisory statement concerning its position on the legal question of the application of the 2011 FCC amendments going forward. The parties concede and the record supports a conclusion that this dispute was b Res. Corp., No. 03-13-00533-CV, 2014 WL 4058727, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). As for the element of hardship if judicial
holding that requiring the utility to relocate its pipes at its own expense did not constitute a legal injury holding that an order requiring the agency to search the records did not constitute courtordered change in the relationship of the parties holding that agency order requiring utility to meet certain evidentiary requirements in future proceedings did not establish imminent or sufficiently likely enforcement holding that a landlords alleged threats that tenants who did not sign a lease would have to pay their own utility bills and be subject to future rent increases did not constitute a wrongful use of force or fear recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings