Court Opinion

ID: 9793209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:27.009275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:56.957122
License: Public Domain

*168MANUEL, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment affirming the commission’s order dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction. I do not agree, however, that article XII, section 5 of our Constitution grants the Legislature the power to confer on the commission jurisdiction to regulate municipally owned water companies. The express terms of that section establish that the Legislature’s power “to confer additional authority and jurisdiction” must be exercised in a manner “consistent with this article”—i.e., article XII. In my view a municipally owned water company, being neither a “private corporation or person” nor a “common carrier” within the meaning of section 3 of that article, may not be made subject to commission jurisdiction under the present provisions of our Constitution. (See City of Pasadena v. Railroad Commission (1920) 183 Cal. 526, 532-536 [192 P. 25, 10 A.L.R. 1425]; cf. Los Angeles Met. Transit Authority v. Pub. Util. Com. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 863 [31 Cal.Rptr. 463, 382 P.2d 583].)
Clark, J., concurred.