Southern California Gas Co. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District

Good Law
133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7·200 Cal. App. 4th 251·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1343·42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20329
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 2011No. B226105California10,667 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Armstrong, J.

I respectfully dissent.

The majority has thoroughly described the complex background; the facts concerning liquefied natural gas, “regasification,” and the pipeline; the role of the Public Utilities Commission and other regulators; the administrative proceedings and the proceedings in the trial court. I do not attempt to repeat that valiant effort. However, I draw a different conclusion from the facts and law.

*278 When it adopted rule No. 433 (Rule 433), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (the District) relied on Health and Safety Code 1 section 41511, which provides that “For the purpose of carrying out the duties imposed upon . . . any district ... the district . . . may adopt rules and regulations to require the owner or the operator of any air pollution emission source to take such action as . . . the district may determine to be reasonable for the determination of the amount of such emission from such source.”

The appeal thus presents a single question, whether Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the owner or operator of an “air pollution emission source” under the statute.

SoCalGas argues that it is not, but that the owners and operators of gas…

Lead Opinion

Turner, J.

*258 Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Southern California Gas Company, appeals from the denial of its mandate and prohibition petition and declaratory relief complaint. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, South Coast Air Quality Management District (the district) and the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (the board). Plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the district’s rule No. 433 (Rule 433) which imposes monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements on it. We conclude the trial court correctly denied plaintiff’s petition and complaint.

II. MANDATE AND PROHIBITION PETITION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF COMPLAINT

Before proceeding to a discussion of the petition and complaint, we note many of the theories therein are not raised on appeal. For completeness purposes, though, we set forth the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety. Filed August 4, 2009, the petition and complaint alleges plaintiff operates the nation’s largest natural gas distribution facility; distributes gas and provides service to over 20 million customers; and is a network that encompasses over 20,000 square miles across 12 counties and nine local air pollution and…

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.