California Supreme Court Watch

#24-63 Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., S283614. (A167721; 98 Cal.App.5th 20, mod. 98 Cal.App.5th 659e; Public Utilities Commission; 2212056.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of the Public Utilities Commission. This case presents the following issues: (1) What standard of review applies to judicial review of a Public Utilities Commission decision interpreting provisions of the Public Utilities Code? (2) Did the Public Utilities Commission proceed in the manner required by law, specifically Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, subdivision (b)(1) and (3), when it adopted the successor tariff in Decision Revising Net Energy Metering Tariff and Subtariffs (2022) Cal.P.U.C. Dec. No. D.22-12-056?

Petition for review granted: 4/10/2024

Case fully briefed: 11/22/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 6/04/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 8/07/2025

Request for modification of opinion filed: 8/22/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 293.)

“This case concerns the degree of deference that courts should afford to the Public Utilities Commission’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Code.

For nearly a century, statutory law directed courts to uphold the Commission’s decisions so long as the Commission had “regularly pursued its authority.” (Stats. 1911, 1st Ex. Sess. 1911, ch. 14, § 67, pp. 55, 56; Stats. 1951, ch. 764, p. 2090.) During this era, we instructed that “the [C]ommission’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Code should not be disturbed unless it fails to bear a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language.” (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410–411 (Greyhound).) But as the century drew to a close, the Legislature revised the law to expand judicial review of most Commission decisions. (See Stats. 1996, ch. 855, § 7, p. 4554; see id., § 8, pp. 4554–4555; Stats. 1998, ch. 886, §§ 11–14.5, pp. 5808–5811; Stats. 2000, ch. 953, §§ 3–6, pp. 7021–7023.)

The question before us is whether the highly deferential approach of Greyhound continues to apply in cases affected by this significant legislative change. We conclude it does not. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this matter, which relied on Greyhound, and remand for the court to conduct the appropriate inquiry under current law.”

Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins and Evans concurred.

In the news: Nikolewski, California Supreme Court to hear appeal seeking to overturn new rooftop solar rules, The San Diego Union-Tribune (April 15, 2024).

In the news: Carollo, California Supreme Court hands victory to rooftop solar panel owners, Cal Matters (Aug. 7, 2025).

In the news: Egelko, California Supreme Court kicks decision on rooftop solar rates to lower court, S.F. Chronicle (Aug. 7, 2025) (subscription required).

In the news: Castañeda, California Supreme Court rules rooftop solar credit rollback needs revisiting, rejecting deference to CPUC, CBS News (Aug. 8, 2025).