to the decision taken. We find no basis in either PURA § 40 or the caselaw construing it for such burden shifting. Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 841 S.W.2d 459, 476 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, writ denied). It is too late to argue that in a ratemaking proceeding in Texas the burden of persuasion does not fall squarely on the utility claiming the prudence of its expenditures. The supreme court’s ruling in Coalition of Cities cannot be ignored by labeling it dicta. See also Texas-New Mexico Power Co. v. Texas Industr. Energy Consumers, 806 S.W.2d 230, 233 (Tex.1991); City of Somerville v. Public Util. Comm’n, 865 S.W.2d 557, 563 n. 17 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993, no writ); Cities of Abilene v. Public Util. Comm’n, 854 S.W.2d 932, 940-41 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993, writ requested) (<HOLDING>). III. In its final order, the Commission
holding that the utility did not carry its burden of proof by merely opening its books to inspection holding that requiring the utility to relocate its pipes at its own expense did not constitute a legal injury holding that committee failed to carry its ultimate burden holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the nonmovant may not carry its burden by simply showing that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts