LIGHTING v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Filed 8/30/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| ANCHOR LIGHTING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B184613 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC248372) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul G. Kerkorian; Berding & Weil, Daniel L. Rottinghaus and Steven R. Weinmann for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Brian A. Cardoza, Bruce A. Reed and Richard D. Arko for Defendants and Respondents.
__________________________________
In the late 1990's, the Legislature compelled electricity suppliers to reduce their rates for residential and certain small commercial customers, and the Public Utilities Commission was empowered to implement the program. The case before us is pursued by Anchor Lighting, a customer that did not qualify for Southern California Edison's 10 percent rate reduction for its small commercial customers. The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Anchor's claims and resolved this lawsuit on that basis. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A.
In 1996, the Legislature enacted the Electric Utilities Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill No. 1890) to conform to changes in federal law intended to increase competition in the provision of electricity. (Stats. 1996, ch. 854, § 1, p. 4488, § 10, p. 4505; Pub. Util. Code, § 330 et seq.)[1] The Act declared the Legislature's intent to reduce electricity rates for residential and small commercial customers and, to that end, endorsed the CPUC's finding that California would be best served by a move from the existing regulatory framework in which retail electricity was provided principally by territory to a â€
