Hetrick

Turlock Irrigation District v. Hetrick

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 371·71 Cal. App. 4th 948·84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175·99 Daily Journal DAR 3989·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3093
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 1999F027535California2,277 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buckley, J.

Facts

Appellant Turlock Irrigation District (TID) is an irrigation district formed and existing under Water Code section 20500 et seq. TID provides water and electricity to municipal, industrial, commercial and residential customers within Merced, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties.

Intervener Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is a public utility which provides natural gas to customers in TID’s service area. PG&E offers a gas aggregation program permitting “core transport agents” to “aggregate” their customers’ natural gas requirements and then purchase the gas and associated gas transportation services for those customers.

On August 27, 1996, TID’s board of directors unanimously passed Resolution No. 96-88, which authorized TID to provide natural gas service to its customers, approved a core gas transportation contract with PG&E and directed the secretary to execute a gas supply contract with Purina Mills, Inc. Purina is one of TTD’s existing electric customers.

Respondent Barbara A. Hetrick, secretary of the board of directors of TID, refused to execute the gas supply contract based on her opinion that it was uncertain whether TID was empowered to provide…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.