Central California Power Agency No. 1 v. County of Sonoma

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 1614·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 713·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1723·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12630·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9238
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2004A100714California28,669 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Corrigan, J.

The County of Sonoma (Sonoma) appeals from the judgment following a grant of summary adjudication in favor of the Central California Power Agency No. 1 (CCPA) on its complaint for refund of taxes. Sonoma contends both the State Board of Equalization (SBE) and the trial court employed an improper valuation method in applying section 11 of article XIII of the California Constitution (Section 11). We affirm the judgment.

*1616 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At issue here are the taxation rules that apply when a local governmental agency owns property outside its jurisdictional boundaries (extraterritorial property). In this case the City of Santa Clara, the Modesto Irrigation District and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District joined to form CCPA as a joint powers agency. CCPA built the Coldwater Creek Geothermal Power Plant in Sonoma County and the plant began operations in 1988.

Four years later CCPA acquired leasehold interests in the Coldwater Creek Geothermal Steam Field, which provided fuel for the plant. 2 The leases were originally granted between 1967 and 1980 and were transferred several times among private companies before their acquisition by CCPA.…

Dissenting Opinion

Pollak, J.

Dissenting.—Unlike the majority, I agree with the County of Sonoma (Sonoma) that both the State Board of Equalization (SBE) and the trial court misconstrued section 11 of article XIII of the California Constitution (Section 11) in undervaluing the interest of the Central California Power Agency No. 1 (CCPA) in certain leases and subleases entitling CCPA to extract geothermal energy from property located in Sonoma County. Contrary *1625 to the characterization of my views in the majority opinion, my disagreement is not based on the contention that “the electorate could have adopted a system that is both different and ‘better.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 1623.) Rather, I submit that the construction that the majority feels constrained to place on the oblique provisions of Section 11 produces a result that was never intended by anyone and unnecessarily frustrates the will of the electorate.

As the majority opinion explains, CCPA is a California joint powers agency, a public entity whose members include the City of Santa Clara, the Modesto Irrigation District, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. CCPA constructed the Coldwater Creek Geothermal Power Plant in Sonoma, which began…

Opinion

The County of Sonoma (Sonoma) appeals from the judgment following a grant of summary adjudication in favor of the Central California Power Agency No. 1 (CCPA) on its complaint for refund of taxes. Sonoma contends both the State Board of Equalization (SBE) and the trial court employed an improper valuation method in applying section 11 of article XIII of the California Constitution (Section 11). We affirm the judgment.

At issue here are the taxation rules that apply when a local governmental agency owns property outside its jurisdictional boundaries (extraterritorial property). In this case the City of Santa Clara, the Modesto Irrigation District and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District joined to form CCPA as a joint powers agency. CCPA built the Coldwater Creek Geothermal Power Plant in Sonoma County and the plant began operations in 1988. [1]

Four years later CCPA acquired leasehold interests in the Coldwater Creek Geothermal Steam Field, which provided fuel for the plant. [2] The leases were originally granted between 1967 and 1980 and were transferred several times among private companies before their acquisition by CCPA. These interests, in geothermal…

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.