Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00930/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00930-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESORO REFINING & MARKETING 

COMPANY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00930-JCS 

ORDER REQUESTING OPINION OF 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES 

COMMISSION

Re: Dkt. No. 78

This case arises from an outage at Plaintiff Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC’s 

refinery in Martinez, California. Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) has 

moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that a tariff rule approved by the California 

Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), PG&E Electric Rule No. 14, shields it from liability—

specifically the clause pertaining to “other transmission related outage[s]” in the third paragraph of 

the Rule, which the CPUC approved in relevant part in 1998 in response to Advice Letter 1737-E. 

A copy of Rule 14 is attached to this Order. 

The scope of that provision appears to be a matter of first impression for both the courts 

and the CPUC. The Court therefore requests that the CPUC file a response addressing the 

following question:

What is the scope of the “other transmission related outage” clause 

in the third paragraph of PG&E Electric Rule No. 14, and under 

what circumstances, if any, does it relieve PG&E of liability for 

PG&E’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence?

Because this case is set for an upcoming trial, the Court requests that the CPUC file its

response no later than Thursday, November 19, 2015. If the CPUC does not submit a response by 

that date, or if it files a statement indicating that it is not willing to address the question, the Court 

will proceed to resolve PG&E’s pending Motion without the benefit of the CPUC’s perspective.

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 115 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The parties are instructed to jointly serve a copy of this Order on the general counsel of the CPUC 

no later than Thursday, October 22, 2015.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:14-cv-00930-JCS Document 115 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2