Legal Opinion
Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 30, 2006No. B184613PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL, J.
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…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Rosen v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Southern California Edison Co. v. PeeveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Goncharov v. Uber Techs., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Pegastaff v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- City and County of S.F. v. Public Utilities Com.California Court of Appeal · 2025
- Davis v. Southern Cal. EdisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2018