County of Sonoma v. State Energy Resources Conservation etc. Com.

• Citation: 220 Cal.Rptr. 114,40 Cal.3d 361
• Decision Date: 18 November 1985
• Docket Number: S.F. 24377
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: , 708 P.2d 693 COUNTY OF SONOMA, Petitioner, v. STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 114

220 Cal.Rptr. 114

40 Cal.3d 361, 708 P.2d 693

COUNTY OF SONOMA, Petitioner, v. STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent;

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

S.F. 24377.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Nov. 18, 1985.

Derek J. Simmons and Simmons & Wilhelm, Santa Rosa, for petitioner.

William M. Chamberlain, Steven M. Cohn and Stephen H. Burger, Sacramento, for respondent.

Robert Ohlbach, John B. Gibson, Dan G. Lubbock, San Francisco, Hanna & Morton, Edward S. Renwick, R. Lee Roberts, Cynthia L. Burch, Lee Smith, Los Angeles, McDonough, Holland & Allen and Richard E. Brandt, Sacramento, for real parties in interest.

REYNOSO, Justice.

The issue presented by this case is the constitutionality of provisions in Public Resources Code section 25531 for judicial review exclusively by this court of certain decisions of the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) pertaining to construction projects for which the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity. ¹ We shall conclude that the statutory provisions are a proper exercise of the Legislature's broad powers over matters within the purview of the PUC.

The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (Energy Act) ( § 25000 et seq.), enacted in 1974, established the Energy Commission ( § 25200) to implement announced legislative objectives of encouraging and coordinating research into energy problems, promoting energy conservation, and assuring statewide environmental, public safety, and land use goals (see §§ 25001-25007). Among the Energy Commission's duties is that of exercising its "exclusive power to certify all sites and related facilities," i.e., facilities by which electricity is generated from thermal energy, together with associated electric transmission lines. ( §§ 25500, 25119, 25110, 25120, 25107.) ² Section 25500 provides that the Energy Commission's certificate supersedes any statute, ordinance, regulation, or permit requirement of any state, local, or regional agency or (insofar as permitted by federal law) of any federal agency. (Fn. 2, ante.)

If the Energy Commission's certificate is issued to a public utility, however, construction of the certified facility cannot proceed without issuance by the PUC of a certificate of public convenience and necessity. (Pub.Util.Code, § 1001.) In 1971, three years before adoption of the Energy Act, Public Utilities Code section 1001 was amended to require the PUC to add the following factors to those it considers as a basis for granting such a certificate: community, historical and aesthetic values; recreational and park areas; and influence on the environment. (Stats.1971, ch. 68, § 3, ch. 1631, §§ 1, 3.) The 1974 Legislature, in addition to enacting the Energy Act, further amended Public Utilities Code section 1001 to provide that with respect to a thermal powerplant or electric transmission line for which an Energy Commission certificate is required, (1) the PUC may not grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity until after the Energy Commission certificate has been obtained and (2) the latter certificate is conclusive as to the matters it determines and supplants consideration by the PUC of the additional factors prescribed in the 1971 amendment. (Stats.1974, ch. 1195, § 10.) In 1981 the substance of these provisions was transferred from section 1001 to section 1002 of the Public Utilities Code. (Stats.1981, ch. 573, §§ 2, 3.) ³

The Energy Act prescribes procedures for judicial review of Energy Commission decisions and provides that apart from those procedures no court has jurisdiction over Energy Commission matters except to enforce the commission's decisions. ( § 25531, subd. (c).) ⁴ The general judicial review provision is for challenge of commission decisions by way of writ of mandate filed in the superior court. ( § 25901.) ⁵ The sole exception is the provisions in section 25531 for judicial review of commission decisions on applications for certification of sites and related facilities that also must be certified by the PUC. That limited class of Energy Commission decisions is made subject to judicial review in the same manner as PUC decisions on the application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the same site and related facility. ( § 25531, subds. (a) and (b).) ⁶ Since those PUC decisions may be reviewed only by this court (Pub.Util.Code, §§ 1756-1759), the operative effect of section 25531 is to give this court exclusive jurisdiction over Energy Commission decisions that comprise a necessary ingredient of the certificate issued by the PUC. The issue posed by this case is whether section 25531's provision for our exclusive jurisdiction is allowed by the California Constitution.

Before us is a petition by the County of Sonoma for review of a decision by respondent Energy Commission granting real party in interest Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG & E) certification of a geothermal power plant in Lake County and a related 43-mile electric transmission line in Sonoma County. The petition claims numerous defects in the decision but prays in the alternative that we deny the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the judicial review provisions of section 25531 are unconstitutional.

Petitioner has not briefed the merits of its challenge to the decision, and its counsel stated at oral argument that if this court were to rule that section 25531 and related provisions divesting all other courts of jurisdiction to review commission certification of electric power facilities are constitutionally valid, petitioner would withdraw its request for any further review and concede that the commission's present decision may stand.

Section 25903 provides that if the provisions of section 25531 for judicial review of Energy Commission certification decisions exclusively by this court are held invalid, such decisions shall be reviewed by the superior court. ⁷ We are advised that petitioner has commenced a mandate proceeding in the superior court so as to obtain review of the present commission decision there if petitioner's challenge to our jurisdiction under section 25531 should succeed.

Petitioner contends that to confine to this court alone the jurisdiction to review the Energy Commission's decision granting the certification to PG & E, in accordance with section 25531 and related sections, infringes on the jurisdiction of the superior courts granted by article VI, section 10, of the California Constitution. ⁸ Petitioner argues that sections 1756 to 1759 of the Public Utilities Code, giving this court exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the PUC, are valid only by virtue of article XII of the Constitution, which gives the Legislature broad powers to confer authority upon the PUC and to provide for judicial review of its decisions, and that because Article XII does not specify the Energy Commission or any other commission or agency except the PUC, it does not allow the legislation here in question. We think, however, that the close relationship between the functions of the PUC and the narrow class of Energy Commission decisions affected by section 25531 brings that section's judicial review provisions within the broad legislative authority over PUC matters conferred by article XII.

That article gives the Legislature comprehensive powers over PUC matters. Section 5 of article XII, adopted in 1974, provides that "[t]he Legislature has plenary power, unlimited by the other provisions of this constitution but consistent with this article, to confer additional authority and jurisdiction upon the [PUC and] to establish the manner and scope of review of commission action in a court of record...." Section 5 in effect restates provisions in former sections 22 and 23 of article XII, originally adopted in 1911. (See article XII, section 9, providing that "[t]he provisions of this article restate provisions of the Constitution in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this amendment and make no substantive change.") Former sections 22 and 23 both declared the power of the Legislature to confer powers respecting public utilities upon the PUC to be "plenary" and "unlimited by any provision of this Constitution." The foregoing provisions empower the Legislature not only to restrict judicial review of PUC decisions, as by eliminating the jurisdiction of courts other than this one to conduct such review (Pacific Telephone etc. Co. v. Eshleman (1913) 166 Cal. 640, 689, 701, 137 P. 1119), but also to expand the scope of this court's review powers beyond the jurisdiction provided in article VI of the Constitution (Southern Calif. Edison Co. v. Railroad Com. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 737, 748, 59 P.2d 808).

In electing to exercise these constitutional powers by channeling judicial review of PUC decisions directly and exclusively to this court (Pub.Util.Code, §§ 1756-1759), the Legislature sought to expedite the final operative effect of those decisions. In furtherance of that same proper objective, the Legislature provided in section 25531 that certain Energy Commission decisions also are reviewable directly and exclusively by this court. Application of the latter provision is limited to Energy Commission decisions that are a statutory prerequisite to approval by the PUC of thermoelectric power projects to be constructed by public utilities (Pub.Util.Code, § 1002, subd. (b); fn. 3, ante). Without section 25531, PUC authorization of such a project might be substantially delayed until judicial proceedings to review the Energy Commission's certification of the project were completed not only in superior court but in the Court of Appeal and this court as well. Thus, the central purpose of section 25531 is to expedite the operative effect of certain certificates of...