USA – CALIFORNIA LAW AND PRACTICE Contributed by: Nora Sheriff, Gwenneth O’Hara, Robert Dato, Efrat Cogan, Samir Hafez and Antonio Carrejo, Buchalter
6. Standing 6.1 Requirements for Administrative Law Challenges Claimants bringing administrative law chal - lenges to CPUC decisions are required to have been directly affected by the decision. There are two types of administrative law challenges at the CPUC: a petition for modification, and an application for rehearing. Petitions for modifica - tion seek to amend or modify the decision being challenged on policy grounds or due to changed factual circumstances. Applications for rehear - ing seek rehearing and revision of the decision due to error in fact or law, or both. Neither type of challenge stays the effect of the CPUC decision; for a stay of the decision, a separate motion must be made. The CPUC allows a claimant who was not a party to the underlying proceeding that led to the decision to file a petition for modification of the decision. That petitioner must state how they are affected by the decision, and why they did not participate in the proceeding earlier. A petition for modification requests a change to a prior Commission decision for policy reasons or changed factual circumstance; this administra - tive challenge does not allow for an argument that the Commission decision erred in either fact or law. Administrative challenges arguing an error in fact or law, or an application for rehearing, can only be made by parties to the underlying proceeding or a claimant who has been directly affected by the decision — such as a stockholder or bond - holder, or a party monetarily interested in the public utility affected.
3.4 Agreements Between Private Entities and Public Bodies These issues fall outside the scope of the con - tributor’s practice. 3.5 Challenging Decisions Without Legal Effect The CPUC does not issue advisory decisions, and has no mechanisms established to issue a decision having no legal effect. Moreover, courts will not issue advisory opinions, so if a challenge does not present a justiciable case or contro - versy affecting the rights of the parties before it, a court will not issue a decision. 4. Nature of the Decision-Maker 4.1 Judicial Review of Commercial and Non-Governmental Decisions These issues fall outside the scope of the con - tributor’s practice. 5. Ouster 5.1 Legislative or Contractual Limits on Judicial Review The Commission’s jurisdiction, as a constitution - ally created agency, is governed by Article XII of the California Constitution and laws passed by the California Legislature, primarily found in the Public Utilities Code. The California Consti - tution grants the Legislature plenary power to confer additional authority and jurisdiction to the Commission, and to establish the manner and scope of review of Commission action in a court of record. All laws enacted by the Legislature related to the Commission must be consistent with the authority granted in Article XII of the California Constitution.
255 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook