Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION et al., Respondents;
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.
In these two proceedings we review Public Utilities Commission Decision No. 87585 as modified on petition for rehearing by Decision No. 87996.1 The decisions granted Pacific Gas and Electric Company increased revenue of $58,444,000 to offset an increase in its cost of purchasing gas. The increase in revenue is not challenged; petitioners challenge the method by which the commission allocates the increase among utility users.
In the companion opinion of California Manufacturers Association v. Public Utilities Commission, ante, page 664 of 155 Cal.Rptr. —— of —- P.2d, decided today, we conclude the commission decisions must be annulled because the rate designs adopted assertedly to further conservation goals are supported by neither the findings nor the evidence. In the instant decisions, the commission again adopts a rate design assertedly to further the same goals. However, the findings and evidence are substantially the same as in the former two cases and fail for the same reasons.
The commission's decisions are annulled. On remand the commission shall determine an appropriate method to spread the rate increase to which the utility is entitled. Having ascertained an appropriate rate spread, the commission shall order refunds and surcharges, if appropriate, all in compliance with Public Utilities Code section 1705.
FOOTNOTES
1. In the original proceedings, Commissioner Dedrick did not participate, and Commissioner Symons filed a dissenting opinion. Commissioner Dedrick voted to modify and deny rehearings, and Commissioner Sturgeon, who had been part of the majority in the original decisions, joined Commissioner Symons, in dissenting from the order denying rehearing.
CLARK, Justice.
BIRD, C. J., and MOSK, RICHARDSON, MANUEL, NEWMAN and CALDECOTT,* JJ., concur.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: S.F. 23719, 23722.
Decided: May 16, 1979
Court: Supreme Court of California, In Bank.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)