Public Utilities Com. v. Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Com.

Decision Date04 January 1984
Citation150 Cal.App.3d 437,197 Cal.Rptr. 866
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant. AO14757.

Janice E. Kerr, Gen. Counsel, William N. Foley, Asst. Gen. Counsel, James T. Quinn, Principal Counsel, San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent California Public Utilities Comn.

John B. Gibson, David C. Gilbert, San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. and real party in interest and respondent.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., R.H. Connett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary E. Hackenbracht, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant and appellant California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comn.

KLINE, Presiding Justice.

INTRODUCTION

California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission ("Energy Commission") appeals issuance by the San Francisco County Superior Court of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Energy Commission to cease its exercise of jurisdiction over certain electric transmission lines proposed to be built by respondent Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG & E").

The Energy Commission contends that its jurisdiction over electric transmission lines from a powerplant extends to the point on the interconnected transmission system to which power is actually delivered. It terms this point the "actual functional point of delivery of power." Respondents PG & E and the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") disagree, contending that the Energy Commission's jurisdiction extends only to the first point of junction between the powerline emanating from the powerplant and the interconnected transmission system.

The Energy Commission is a five-member body created pursuant to the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 25000-25968) ("Warren-Alquist Act" or "Act"). 1 Enacted in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act charged the Energy Commission with responsibility for establishing a state energy policy and for insuring adequate electricity supplies with minimum adverse effect on the state economy and environment. (See §§ 25001, 25004, 25309, 25500, 25500.5, 25523, and 25524.) Among its many duties, the Energy Commission is vested with exclusive authority to certify sites and related facilities (§ 25500). "Facility" is defined in the Act as "any electric transmission line or thermal powerplant, or both electric transmission line and thermal powerplant, regulated according to the provisions of this division." (§ 25110.) Section 25107 defines "electric transmission line" as "any electric powerline carrying electric power from a thermal powerplant located within the state to a point of junction with any interconnected transmission system...." 2

The parties agree that section 25107 defines the extent of the Energy Commission's jurisdiction over transmission lines. Jurisdiction over transmission lines beyond a point of junction with any interconnected transmission system lies with respondent CPUC. (Pub.Util.Code, §§ 761 et seq.) However, the parties disagree as to the meaning of section 25107. The trial court agreed with respondents PG & E and CPUC that the statute refers to the first point of junction between the transmission line and the interconnected transmission system.

The Energy Commission, relying upon a formal opinion of the Attorney General (60 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 239 (1977)), contends that the lower court erred in interpreting section 25107 to preclude it from exercising jurisdiction over any proposed transmission lines beyond the first point of junction of the line from the powerplant with any interconnected transmission system and from utilizing "functional point of delivery" and "basic purpose" tests to determine its jurisdiction.

The Energy Commission also requests this court to confirm its own determination that the functional points of actual delivery of power by the proposed transmission lines (and thus the extent of the commission's jurisdiction) are the Newark substation, the Tesla substation and the Newark-San Mateo transmission line.

Contending that section 25107 is ambiguous, the Energy Commission urges this court to utilize extrinsic aids, arguing that cases arising under the Federal Power Act should guide our interpretation of that section. The Energy Commission further argues that in adopting the Warren-Alquist Act the Legislature intended to replace a fragmented system of regulation with a unified energy policy and that such intent is best implemented by utilization of a "functional" jurisdiction test which, as applied here, assertedly provides authority to the Energy Commission to regulate the lines in question.

PG & E and the CPUC contend in response that the plain meaning of the statute precludes adoption of a "functional" test and that Federal Power Act cases do not provide guidance, as the purpose of the Warren-Alquist Act differs from that of the Federal Power Act.

They maintain that a powerline cannot serve as both a primary "radial" line and a part of the interconnected transmission system and that the proposed "functional" test is inconsistent with the engineering realities of power transmission. Respondents point to the legislative history of section 25107 as demonstrating the Legislature's intent that the CPUC retain jurisdiction over the interconnected transmission system and assert that the Legislature has recognized the CPUC to be an effective regulator in this area.

Finally PG&E and the CPUC urge that adoption of the "functional" test would necessarily lead to regulatory uncertainty and fragmentation as neither regulated utilities, government agencies, nor the public could be certain in any given case where jurisdiction lay until the Energy Commission made its determination.

We conclude with respondents PG & E and the CPUC that the plain meaning of the statute, supported by the legislative history of the Act as well as by relevant policy considerations, compel affirmance of the judgment.

I.

On April 20, 1978, pursuant to section 25500 et seq., PG & E filed with the Energy Commission a "Notice of Intention To Seek Certification for Pittsburg Power Plant Units 8 and 9." ("NOI.")

PG & E proposed construction of a 1600-megawatt combined cycle powerplant known as Pittsburg Units 8 and 9 near PG & E's existing Pittsburg Units 1 through 7. To accommodate the power from the proposed plant, PG & E proposed to build approximately 3.7 miles of new radial transmission line from units 8 and 9 to the switchyard of existing Pittsburg Units 1 through 7 powerplant. 3

The NOI also disclosed that transmission capacity beyond the Pittsburg switchyard would be increased by modifications to the existing system and by the construction of various segments of new 230kV lines, including approximately 71 miles of transmission lines in new and existing rights of way to the Newark and Tesla substations and to a point on the Newark to San Mateo transmission line. The latter 71 miles of proposed line and modifications, sometimes referred to as the Stage 2 and 3 lines, are the subject of this dispute.

Following hearings before a committee of the Energy Commission and before the full commission, the Energy Commission in April 1979 asserted jurisdiction over the proposed lines and ordered PG & E to submit additional information about the proposed lines.

In the opinion accompanying the order, the Energy Commission interpreted its transmission line jurisdiction to extend to the "actual functional point of delivery of the power" from the thermal powerplant to the interconnected transmission system. Applying this test to the evidence regarding the proposed transmission lines, the Energy Commission found that the "functional" points of delivery of power from units 8 and 9 to the interconnected transmission system were the Newark and Tesla substations and the Newark-San Mateo transmission line.

PG & E and the CPUC each filed actions in the superior court challenging the commission's decision. On May 28, 1980, the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Energy Commission to set aside its April 1979 order, to cease the exercise of jurisdiction over transmission lines beyond the Pittsburg switchyard, the first point of junction, and to cease use of the "functional point of delivery" and "basic purpose" tests in determining its jurisdiction.

II.

The central issue in this case is the proper interpretation of section 25107, defining "electric transmission lines" over which the commission has jurisdiction. Such interpretation is, of course, a question of law. (Gibbons & Reed Co. v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 277, 285-286, 33 Cal.Rptr. 688.) "Where the facts essential to the determination of such a legal issue are not in conflict, the reviewing court is not bound by the trial court's resolution. [Citations.]" (Goddard v. South Bay Union High School Dist. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 98, 105, 144 Cal.Rptr. 701.)

The Energy Commission asserts that the statute is ambiguous as there may be more than one point at which a transmission line intersects the interconnected transmission system. Therefore, it urges the court to construe the section in the light of extrinsic evidence which assertedly demonstrates that the "functional" test best carries out the legislative intent.

In ascertaining the intent of the Legislature, the court must first look to the words of the statute. " '[C]ourts are bound to give effect to statutes according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 22 Agosto 1996
    ...preexisting lines (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 25107, 25501), all lines in the interconnected transmission system (PUC v. Energy Com., supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 437, 197 Cal.Rptr. 866), all primary or radial lines emanating from hydroelectric, wind, or solar photovoltaic power plants (id. at p. 452......
  • Voices of The Wetlands v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Agosto 2011
    ...Conservation etc. Com. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 361, 368, 220 Cal.Rptr. 114, 708 P.2d 693; Public Utilities Com. v. Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Com. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 437, 453, 197 Cal.Rptr. 866.) Superior court jurisdiction in this case, they urge, defeats these statutory aims. Howeve......
  • Bank of America v. Lallana
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 3 Junio 1997
    ...Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 699, 170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856; Public Utilities Com. v. Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Com. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 437, 443, 197 Cal.Rptr. 866.) "To determine the intent of legislation, we first consult the words themselves, giving t......
  • Jones v. Pierce, H002868
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 17 Marzo 1988
    ...of Motor Vehicles (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 277, 285, 33 Cal.Rptr. 688, 33 Cal.Rptr. 927; Public Utilities Com. v. Energy Resources Conservation and Dev. Com. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 437, 443, 197 Cal.Rptr. 866.) Our purpose in interpreting statutes is to discern the intent of the Legislature. (M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT