Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co.

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 541·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1316·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11624·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8106
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2006B184613California4,314 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

In the late 1990’s, the Legislature compelled electricity suppliers to reduce their rates for residential and certain small commercial customers, and the Public Utilities Commission was empowered to implement the program. The case before us is pursued by Anchor Lighting, a customer that did not qualify for Southern California Edison’s 10 percent rate reduction for its small commercial customers. The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Anchor’s claims and resolved this lawsuit on that basis. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A.

In 1996, the Legislature enacted the Electric Utilities Restructuring Act (Assem. Bill No. 1890 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.)) to conform to changes in federal law intended to increase competition in the provision of electricity. (Stats. 1996, ch. 854, § 1, p. 4489, § 10, p. 4505; Pub. Util. Code, § 330 et seq.) The Act declared the Legislature’s intent to reduce electricity rates for residential and small commercial customers and, to that end, endorsed the CPUC’s finding that California would be best served by a move from the existing regulatory framework in which retail electricity was provided principally by territory to a “framework…

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.