Issue
The California Court of Appeal recently considered the issue of whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a city or a public utility had to pay to move overhead utilities underground. (City of Anaheim v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7477, Cal. App. 4 Dist., June 21, 2004))
Facts
City of Anaheim passed a resolution requiring Pacific Bell Telephone Company to move some of its overhead facilities (e.g., poles, wires, conductors, transformers, etc.) underground solely at Pacific Bell’s expense. Pacific Bell refused to pay for the conversion; therefore, City paid for it and then sued Pacific Bell in superior court to recover the money it had paid to move the facilities. The superior court dismissed City’s lawsuit, finding that only PUC had jurisdiction to hear City’s complaint. City appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
PUC has “paramount jurisdiction in cases where it has exercised authority, and its authority is pitted against that of a local government involving a matter of statewide concern.” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Carlsbad (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 785, 797.) The construction and maintenance of telephone lines within a city is a matter of statewide concern. Furthermore, PUC had on previous occasions assumed jurisdiction over the issue of where and when utility facilities are to be moved underground. City’s effort to get the superior court to decide the dispute has the effect of interfering with PUC’s regulation of utilities.
Thus, because PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of whether City or Pacific Bell should pay to move the overhead utilities, the Court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing City’s lawsuit.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.