California Manufacturers Association

24 Cal. 3d 251 (1979), 595 P.2d 98

The Court reversed the Commission’s decision, concluding that “neither finding nor evidence exists” supporting the Commission’s conclusion that an adopted rate design would conserve more natural gas than any other proposed rate design.  Justice Clark’s addition of the phrase “or evidence” seems at odds with the text of § 1757 (as it existed in 1979).  Today, however, § 1757(a)(4) would subject the Commission finding to a “substantial evidence” test.  Some expected the Court to clarify this decision in Edison v. Peevey,  31 Cal. 4th 781 (2003).  The Court did not do so, however, concluding that a settlement adopted by the Commission had not resulted in an increase in rates, precluding any need to clarify the “showing” required by Section 454.  Clean Energy (Para. 8) calls the vitality of this decision into question.

Download PDF