Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C100191
|
City of Gridley v. Superior Court (McMillan)
City's decrease of existing electric utility rates did not violate the California Constitution because it did not impose, extend, or increase any tax or rate. |
Constitutional Law, Utilities |
|
S. Boulware Eurie | Sep. 13, 2024 |
D081099
|
Coziahr v. Otay Water District
Recalculation of $18 million class action utility fee refund was necessary where trial court based its calculation on speculative amounts when actual data was available. |
Utilities |
|
J. Irion | Jul. 17, 2024 |
A168807
|
California Community Choice Association v. Public Utilities Commission (Pacific Gas and Electric Company)
Given electricity aggregators' history of providing insufficient electricity to meet its customers' demands, Public Utilities Commission did not abuse its discretion in setting a later date for aggregator's proposed expansion. |
Utilities |
|
J. Goldman | Jul. 17, 2024 |
S269099
|
Golden State Water Company v. Public Utilities Commission
Public Utilities Commission's scoping memo did not provide adequate notice that elimination of sales-revenue decoupling mechanism was an issue that would be considered during proceedings. |
Utilities |
|
L. Kruger | Jul. 9, 2024 |
C097382
|
Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. Kwan
Trial court's award of monetary damages was proper where substantial evidence supported that defendant aided and abetted diversion of utility for cannabis operation. |
Utilities |
|
R. Robie | May 2, 2024 |
23-15490
|
Assurance Wireless USA L.P. v. Reynolds
California Public Utilities Commission access line rule surcharges on telecommunications carriers were not inconsistent with or preempted by Federal Communications Commission rules. |
Utilities |
|
R. Nelson | Apr. 29, 2024 |
22-55498
|
Southern California Edison Co. v. Orange County Transportation Authority
Utility companies were not entitled to compensation for relocation under Takings Clause because Orange County Transportation Authority's streetcar project was an authorized governmental use of a public right-of-way. |
Utilities |
|
E. Miller | Mar. 14, 2024 |
B321481
|
City of Lancaster v. Netflix, Inc.
Sustaining demurrer without leave to amend was appropriate where local government lacked a statutory cause of action for non-payment of video service provision franchise fees against non-franchise holders. |
Utilities |
|
L. Lavin | Feb. 23, 2024 |
A165515
|
Villarroel v. Recology
Though California has a filed rate doctrine, it did not bar class action suit against monopolistic refuse company because the claims involved bribery and fraud rather than ratemaking. |
Utilities |
|
C. Fujisaki | Dec. 5, 2023 |
S273340
|
Gantner v. PG&E Corp.
Public Utilities Code Section 1759 barred class action lawsuit alleging electric company's negligent maintenance of power grids economically harmed its customers. |
Utilities |
|
G. Liu | Nov. 21, 2023 |
F083940
|
Kerman Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Public Utilities Commission's penalty to several phone companies for nondisclosure of stock redemption proceeds violated due process's fair notice requirement. |
Utilities |
|
M. Snauffer | Aug. 28, 2023 |
A163562
|
TruConnect Communications v. Maximus
Prohibition against trial court actions that would interfere with Public Utility Commission's ongoing regulatory duties did not apply to lawsuit couched in tort law against companies hired by the Commission. |
Utilities |
|
J. Humes | May 12, 2023 |
F083339
|
Calaveras Telephone Company v. Public Utilities Commission
When calculating subsidies, the Public Utilities Commission has authority, through Public Utilities Code Section 275.6, to impute excess revenues that came from broadband internet service. |
Utilities |
|
D. Franson | Jan. 23, 2023 |
19-72897
|
California Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission properly decided that utility membership in the California independent system operator is voluntary. |
Utilities |
|
D. Forrest | Mar. 18, 2022 |
D079045
|
Foley Investments v. Alisal Water Corp.
Where a water main was installed pursuant to a contract and was designed to fulfill only an individual need, it did not serve a public use for inverse condemnation purposes. |
Utilities |
|
J. Haller | Dec. 13, 2021 |
A158323
|
Modification: Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.
Local governments may inspect and copy landfill records without having to prove as a factual matter necessity for the records. |
Utilities |
|
T. Stewart | Sep. 10, 2021 |
A158323
|
Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. et al.
Local governments may inspect and copy landfill records without having to prove as a factual matter necessity for the records. |
Utilities |
|
T. Stewart | Aug. 20, 2021 |
B300296
|
City of Torrance v. Southern California Edison Co.
City's electricity tax ordinance did not permit electricity provider to apply annual credit to reduce electricity consumers' tax base, thereby reducing City's tax revenue. |
Utilities |
|
L. Lavin | Mar. 19, 2021 |
E069462
|
Modification: Riverside County Transportation Comm. v. Southern California Gas Co.
Once County Transportation Commission terminated Gas Company's licenses for pipelines that stood in the way of new rail line, Gas Company could be held liable for trespass. |
Utilities |
|
Sep. 21, 2020 | |
E069462
|
Riverside County Transportation Comm. v. Southern California Gas Co.
Once County Transportation Commission terminated Gas Company's licenses for pipelines that stood in the way of new rail line, Gas Company could be held liable for trespass. |
Utilities |
|
M. Ramirez | Aug. 26, 2020 |
C085725
|
Calaveras Telephone Company v. Public Utilities Commission
Public Utilities Commission's resolution and decision departed from well-established requirements governing issuance of funding from California High Cost Fund A; thus, Commission abused its discretion. |
Utilities |
|
L. Mauro | Sep. 16, 2019 |
17-17531
|
Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Carla Peterman
California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff program violated the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act by implementing a cap and impermissible pricing mechanisms, and was thus preempted. |
Utilities |
|
M. McKeown | Jul. 30, 2019 |
F076845
|
Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. CAPUC
CPUC's decision did not deny petitioners their constitutional rights because the cost of equity it determined for petitioners was not clearly unreasonable. |
Utilities |
|
M. Snauffer | Jul. 1, 2019 |
17-16847
|
COMCAST v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission
Comcast's lawsuit to recover security deposit was barred by 47 U.S.C. Section 555a(a) because it arose from cable regulation, specifically, the cable franchising agreement between Comcast and defendant. |
Utilities |
|
N. Smith | May 9, 2019 |
17-55297
|
Californians for Renewable Energy v. CPUC
A utility using a qualifying facility's energy to meet a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) may not calculate avoided cost based on energy sources that do not also meet the RPS. |
Utilities |
|
A. Marbley | Apr. 25, 2019 |
A149347
|
Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
A court action is precluded by Public Utilities Code Section 1759 if it hinders the regulatory authority of the Public Utilities Commission. |
Utilities |
|
S. Margulies | Jan. 31, 2018 |
15-35028
|
CallerID4U v. MCI Communications Services
Absent an agreement, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) may not bill an interexchange carrier for interstate access services under the Communications Act unless the CLEC has filed a FCC tariff. |
Utilities |
|
S. Ikuta | Jan. 23, 2018 |
F072904
|
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Hart High-Voltage etc.
The label 'owner' did not solely determine whether PG&E was a real party in interest with standing to bring a negligence cause of action. |
Utilities |
|
D. Franson | Dec. 14, 2017 |
01-71934
|
California PUC v. FERC
FERC acts arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to allocate shortfall in settlement clearing account among all market participants. |
Utilities |
|
Apr. 25, 2017 | |
A147570
|
California PUC v. Superior Court (Aguirre)
Superior court lacks jurisdiction over lawsuit seeking documents from CPUC under Public Records Act, resulting in sustained demurrer in CPUC's favor. |
Utilities |
|
Sep. 12, 2016 |