City of Santa Cruz v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Opinion
Opinion
Elia, J.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has been underpaying 70 California cities for electric franchises, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 6231, subdivision (c). The superior court found that in 70 cities of the 72-member class, PG&E had a “constitutional franchise” for lighting, which entitled it to pay a lower franchise fee to the plaintiff cities for nonlighting franchises. The court therefore granted PG&E summary judgment against these 70 class members. We find triable issues of fact as to 14 of the plaintiff cities and accordingly reverse the judgment in part.
Background
The central point of dispute in this class action is whether PG&E holds a constitutional franchise to supply light in the plaintiff cities, A franchise in this context is the right to use city streets to distribute electricity, gas, or water to the city and its inhabitants. Normally the utility is charged a franchise fee as consideration for that privilege. (County of Tulare v. City of Dinuba (1922) 188 Cal. 664, 670 [ 206 P. 983 ].) No payment is required, however, for the exercise of a constitutional franchise.