City of Huntington Beach v. Public Utilities Commission
214 Cal. App. 4th 566
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- NextG Networks of California, Inc. is designated a telephone corporation under Pub. Utils. Code §7901 and authorized to use public rights‑of‑way in Huntington Beach.
- The City opposed NextG’s project, arguing NextG is not a telephone corporation and that local undergrounding and Wireless Ordinances prohibit portions of the project.
- PUC initially approved NextG’s project and determined NextG qualified as a telephone corporation, asserting statewide regulatory authority over the project.
- The City challenged the PUC decisions, contending the PUC preempted local ordinances and that the project conflicted with undergrounding requirements.
- A federal action and a parallel state action were pursued; the PUC proceedings culminated in a merits ruling (D.10‑10‑007) and a rehearing (D.11‑01‑027) which the court reviewed on writ.
- The State Court Action and ongoing state review addressed the balance between NextG’s right to use rights‑of‑way and local land‑use controls, with the court ultimately reversing the preemption ruling while affirming the substantive classifications and environmental findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is NextG a "telephone corporation" under §7901 for rights‑of‑way access? | City contends NextG is wireless, not telephone, thus ineligible. | PUC properly classified NextG as a telephone corporation under the broad statutory definition. | Yes; NextG is a telephone corporation for §7901 purposes. |
| Did the PUC properly preempt the City’s Undergrounding Ordinance to approve the Project? | City argues PUC preemption of local ordinances was improper and beyond scope. | PUC could preempt local regulations where statewide utility regulation interests conflict. | Preemption finding reversed; PUC cannot preempt local ordinances through project approval. |
| Did the PUC exceed its scope by addressing preemption rather than leaving it to the courts? | City maintained preemption and validity of ordinances should be court‑determined. | PUC's scope included environmental review and related Project approval; preemption analysis was improper here. | PUC abused discretion by asserting preemption in its approval; matter remanded for judicial determination. |
| Does federal law preempt state regulation of NextG or affect PUC classification? | City asserts federal preemption limits state regulation of wireless entities. | PUC’s interpretation aligns with state law and avoids preemption of non‑wireless entities. | Federal preemption arguments waived; court defers to state framework and PUC’s classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co., 32 Cal.2d 378 (1948) (section 7901 limited right to use highways; public convenience requirement)
- Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., 68 Cal.2d 406 (1968) (strong presumption of validity; deference to PUC interpretations)
- Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, 114 Cal.App.4th 642 (2003) (local prohibitions on franchise fees; preemption considerations under §7901)
- GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco, 440 F.Supp.2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (wireless carriers included in “telephone corporation” concept; preemption considerations)