that using the default rate results in a just and reasonable rate. Fee Order, 15 FCC Red. at 6491 ¶ 76. Requiring the Commission to determine an appropriate substitute for the rate of return for each MOU would be contrary to the FCC’s rules and stated policy. C. Following PURA and the FCC rules’ plain language to apply a default rate does not lead to an absurd result AT&T and TWO argue that the Legislature must have intended its grant of jurisdiction to the Commission to “enforce” PURA Section 54.204 to authorize the Commission to -prescribe a rate of return for use in the Telecom 'Formula to ayoid what they describe as the “absurd result” of applying a default rate intended for investor-owned utilities to an MOU. See TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Tex. 2011) (<HOLDING>). On thé contrary,'when the Legislature adopts
holding that a narrow interpretation of the word fraud in tolling statute would lead to absurd and unjust results recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results