City of Torrance v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
Docket Number | B300296 |
Citation | 61 Cal.App.5th 1071,276 Cal.Rptr.3d 294 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CITY OF TORRANCE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono, Pasadena, John L. Jones II, Jin Soo Lee, Matthew C. Slentz; Patrick Q. Sullivan, Torrance, and Tatia Y. Strader for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Steptoe & Johnson, Laurie Edelstein, Palo Alto, P. Casey Matthews; Patricia Cirucci, Lisa DeLorme and Mark Rothenberg, Rosemead, for Defendant and Respondent.
Southern California Edison Company (Edison) is the exclusive provider of electricity to residents and businesses located in the City of Torrance (Torrance). Pursuant to section 225.1.4 of the Torrance Municipal Code1 (electricity tax ordinance), consumers of electricity must pay Torrance a tax on the charges for electricity and ancillary services they use (electricity users’ tax). Edison is required to collect this tax from consumers and remit it to Torrance.
Torrance filed this lawsuit against Edison after it discovered that Edison had calculated the electricity users’ tax as a percentage of the net amount Edison was billing its consumers, i.e., the charges for electricity and other services less an annual credit (the IA credit) relating to state-wide greenhouse gas emissions policy.2 Torrance, however, contends that the electricity tax ordinance does not permit Edison to apply the IA credit to reduce electricity consumers’ tax base, thereby reducing Torrance's tax revenue. Torrance's complaint seeks declaratory relief concerning the interpretation and application of the electricity tax ordinance and asserts that Edison failed to comply with the ordinance by not collecting the proper amount of electricity users’ tax from consumers. Torrance also seeks to recover the unpaid taxes, together with penalties and interest, from Edison.
The trial court sustained Edison's demurrer to Torrance's original complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. The court found Edison had calculated the electricity users’ tax properly and, in addition, Torrance's claim to recover unpaid taxes from Edison (as opposed to electricity consumers) failed as a matter of law. We agree with Torrance that the electricity tax ordinance cannot reasonably be construed in the manner proposed by Edison and adopted by the court. We agree with Edison, however, that Torrance cannot recover unpaid taxes from Edison and must instead amend its complaint to include electricity consumers as defendants. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Torrance, a charter city, imposes a number of utility-related taxes on its residents including taxes on telephone communication services, natural gas, water, cable television, and electricity. The electricity tax ordinance provides:
Edison is the investor-owned utility serving electricity consumers in Torrance under a grant of franchise. As such, it is required to collect the electricity users’ tax and remit all amounts collected to Torrance. (§ 225.1.4, subd. (e).)
In September 2006, the Legislature adopted the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ("Act"), now codified at Health and Safety Code section 38500 et seq. To implement the Legislature's stated goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board has developed a variety of programs including the Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade program—a regulated marketplace in which greenhouse gas allowances (permits to emit an allotted amount of greenhouse gases) are allocated, sold, and traded. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 38501 ; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 95801 et seq. )
The Commission has developed financial assistance programs for certain electric utility customers affected by the cap-and-trade program. One of these, the IA credit, is an annual credit designed to incentivize and reward businesses that implement energy-efficient programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission determines on an annual basis which businesses receive an IA credit as well as the amount of the credit. For administrative convenience, the IA credit is passed through investor-owned utilities, including Edison, and applied as a credit against consumers’ electricity bills. (See Cal. P.U.C., Decision No. 14-12-037 (Dec. 18, 2014): Decision Adopting Greenhouse Gas Allowance Revenue Allocation Formulas and Distribution Methodologies for Emissions-Intensive and Trade-Exposed Customers available at [as of Mar. 8, 2021], archived at K7DR> [pp. 66, 101].)
Torrance and Edison disagree about the method Edison should use to calculate the electricity users’ tax. Specifically, they disagree regarding the proper tax base.4
Torrance contends the tax base is equal to the total charge for a user's metered electricity and other services listed in section 225.1.4, subd. (a). Under Torrance's view, a user's IA credit, if any, would not affect the tax base because it is unrelated to the charge for the electricity used by the consumer.
Edison contends the tax base is equal to the net amount it bills electricity consumers. Edison has calculated the tax base by subtracting the IA credit from the total charge for a consumer's metered electricity and other services listed in section 225.1.4, subd. (a). Under Edison's methodology, the consumer's electricity users’ tax base (and, ultimately, the amount of the tax) will necessarily be reduced whenever a consumer receives an IA credit.
A simple example illustrates the point. Assume a consumer incurs a $100 charge for metered electricity and other services and receives a $20 IA credit.
Torrance would use the charged amount of $100 as the tax base and calculate the electricity tax as $6.50 (6½ percent of $100). Edison would calculate the total bill first ($100 charge less the $20 IA credit = $80 bill) and use the $80 billed amount as the tax base to calculate the electricity tax as $5.20 (6½ percent of $80).
In March 2019, Torrance filed its original, and only, complaint containing two causes of action styled as a request for declaratory relief and a request for an order compelling Edison to comply with the electricity tax ordinance. Torrance alleged Edison failed to remit the full amount of tax owed to Torrance under the electricity tax ordinance, noting Edison was required to collect and then remit a tax on "charges" for metered energy, customer charges, services charges, demand charges, and other charges identified in the electricity tax ordinance. Torrance claimed Edison was directly liable for the underpayment of the electricity tax.
In its prayer for relief, Torrance sought a declaration that the electricity tax base is equivalent to the charges made for metered energy and other services listed in the electricity tax ordinance, "with no reduction for credits that may be provided for by the Commission, or otherwise[.]" With respect to the second cause of action, Torrance asked the court to compel Edison to apply the electricity users’ tax to the tax base as noted above and, further, to compel Edison to account for and pay the amounts it failed to collect by using the incorrect tax base in prior years. As to both causes of action, Torrance sought penalties and interest on the outstanding electricity users’ taxes owed to Torrance as well as costs of suit.
Edison demurred to the complaint, asserting that both of Torrance's claims failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hernandez v. Jensen
... 61 Cal.App.5th 1056 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 281 Annet HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and ... Josefina and Fernando owned a home in the City of Commerce 61 Cal.App.5th 1062 where the shooting occurred. Jensen ... ...
-
Jimenez v. Mrs. Gooch's Nat. Food Mkts.
...v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 711; City of Torrance v. Southern California Edison Co. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1083-1084.) Finally," 'we do not review the validity of the trial court's reasoning but only the propriety of the ruling itself. [Citations......
-
Remsen v. Shaffer
... ... (Lee v ... Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1230.) In analyzing the ... pleading, we assume the truth ... (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th ... 962, 970-971; City of Torrance ... Southern California ... Edison Company (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1091.) ... B ... ...
-
Kravchuk v. Beck
... ... v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214 ... ( Committee on Children's Television ), ... obtain a COO were rejected by the City of San Jose (City), a ... COO was issued on January 31, 2018. Taylor ... party's initial complaint." ( City of Torrance v ... Southern California Edison Company ... (2021) 61 ... ...