Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/394304129/SDG-E-filing-to-the-California-Supreme-Court-11-27-18
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:01:00+00:00

Document:
A petition from San Diego Gas & Electric to the California Supreme Court, asking for a review of a decision from the California Public Utilities Commission and a subsequent appeal that was denied by California’s 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego. SDG&E's petition also claims the appeals court judge should have recused herself from the case.
Albers v. Los Angeles Cnty.
Barham v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
Belair v. Riverside Cnty. Flood Control Dist.
Brown v. Legal Found. of Wash.
Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
Lesko v. Valley Presbyterian Hosp.
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. P.U.C.
Ponderosa Tel. Co. v. P.U.C.
In re S. Cal. Gas Co.
In re San Diego Gas & Elec. Co.
2017) Scientific American, at <https://www.scientificamerican.
Reversible Error Not to Self Recuse?
of the California Legislature (Mar. 19, 2018) at <https://newsroom.
under section 451 of the Public Utilities Code?
recuse herself from a petition for review related to the subject matter of her suit?
compensation from a public entity if its property is “damaged” for public use.
Co. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 744, 752–753 (“Barham”); Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. S. Cal.
to resolve this conflict and secure uniformity of decision.
aftermath of the recent Camp and Woolsey Fires.
to serve all ratepayers in their service territory will be gravely undermined.
precluding them from recovering the costs of that liability.
fire-utilities.html> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].).
to over 3.4 million customers in San Diego County and southern Orange County.
that it is legally obligated to serve where the risk of wildfires is significant.
lauded as a “potential example of excellence” (2App822–824).
whether inverse condemnation applies to privately owned utilities.
SDG&E applied for rehearing, which the CPUC denied on July 13, 2018.
harmonizing section 451 of the Public Utilities Code with those decisions.
held strictly liable as a non-governmental entity.
strict liability in a civil litigation setting.
condemnation may not be able recover those costs from the ratepaying public.
warrants this Court’s review and resolution.
supposedly had not satisfied the CPUC’s “prudent manager” standard.
members acknowledged and the Court of Appeal failed to resolve.
“just and reasonable” costs. (Pub. Util. Code, § 451; see also Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.
below and the decisions in Barham and Pacific Bell.
construed to avoid, not create, constitutional problems. (See, e.g., People v.
identifiable property interest,” the utilities’ transmission facilities. (Koontz v. St.
U.S. 216, 232 [interest on specific fund]; Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v.
condemnation liability would concentrate the entire burden on SDG&E.
constitutional infirmity, compounding the error in its construction of section 451.
significant portion of the State’s economy.
20180226/video> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
Premise”of IC Doctrine (Nov. 30, 2017) Deutsche Bank, at p. 3.
Regarding Wildfire-Related Liabilities (Dec. 21, 2017) Evercore ISI, at p. 2.
rating-outlook-to-negative-PR_38074> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
sticking-a-fork-in-a-socket-1514920990> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
[as of Nov. 24, 2018].
Electric-to-A2-from-A1--PR_388482> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
both Northern and Southern California”].
will threaten their financial sustainability.
Energy, Annual Report (Form 10-K), supra, at p. 36.
Session of the California Legislature (Mar. 19, 2018) at <https://newsroom.
courts.ca.gov/news/2018-state-of-the-judiciary-address> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
18 Harvey, Here’s What We Know About Wildfires and Climate Change (Oct.
13, 2017) Scientific American, at <https://www.scientificamerican.
downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Destruction.pdf> [as of Nov. 24, 2018].
wildfires “occurring on or after January 1, 2019” (id., § 451.1, subd (a)).
condemnation claims against privately owned utilities.
to recuse was prejudicially unfair and should be reviewed. (See Aetna Life Ins.
These grounds for recusal provide additional reason to grant review.
be counted under Rule 8.504, subd. (d)(3).
been read and considered by Justices Benke, O'Rourke, and Dato.
imprudent manager and (2) SDG&E's conduct caused the Witch Fire.
petitioner under the Constitution of the United States or the California Constitution.' "
" 'There is a strong presumption favoring the validity of a Commission decision.' "
the agency may have "special familiarity with satellite legal and regulatory issues,"
nor a violation of the law, including the Constitutions of the United States and California.
potential strict liability in a civil litigation setting.
Commission's findings under section 451 were not supported by sufficient evidence.
burden to show that it reasonably and prudently operated and maintained those facilities.
claims it asserts. Under these circumstances, we decline to issue the writ of review.
Company for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is denied as moot.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 451
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 451