223 Cal. App. 4th 945
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Oakley Project: PG&E sought Commission approval for a new gas-fired plant in Oakley and argued need due to renewable integration; CAISO analyses and a petition were offered but not tested at hearing.
- ALJ barred CAISO materials as proof of need due to hearsay and lack of cross-examination, and proposed denial.
- Commission later relied on those hearsay materials to find need for Oakley despite the ALJ ruling.
- TURN, WPTF, and IEP sought rehearing alleging violation of substantial rights and lack of substantial evidence.
- TURN I annulled the Commission’s use of the petition for modification as a new application; PG&E resumed a renewed application.
- The Oakley Decision relied on CAISO materials and a settlement deferral in a separate proceeding; rehearing denied; petitions for writ review were filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission’s finding of need is supported by substantial evidence. | TURN/IEP/WPTF argue uncorroborated hearsay cannot support a finding of need. | PG&E/Commission contend hearsay can be weighed and corroborated by other record evidence. | No; need lacks substantial evidence where based solely on uncorroborated hearsay. |
| May the Commission rely on hearsay evidence as sole support for disputed facts in an Oakley need finding? | Petitioners contend the Rothleder Declaration and Sutter Waiver Petition cannot stand as sole proof of need. | PG&E/Commission argue hearsay is admissible and can be persuasive with other record support. | Hearsay cannot be sole support for disputed facts; must be corroborated by competent evidence. |
| Did the Commission properly preserve substantial rights despite ALJ rulings on hearsay? | TURN/IEP/WPTF claim failure to preserve rights due to overruling ALJ’s evidentiary ruling. | PG&E/Commission maintain rights preserved through cross-examination opportunities in later stages. | Procedural preservation not decisive for annulment; substantial evidence fails independently. |
| WasTURN entitled to retroactive application of D.12-04-046 in this proceeding? | TURN argues the CPCN/UOG requirements should apply retroactively. | Commission denied retroactive application as a policy matter. | Court rejects retroactive policy challenge; annulment based on lack of substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 33 Cal.3d 532 (Cal. 1983) (hearsay admissible but not as sole support without corroboration)
- Walker v. City of San Gabriel, 20 Cal.2d 879 (Cal. 1942) (residuum rule; hearsay requires corroboration for sufficiency)
- Echostar Communications Corp. v. F.C.C., 292 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (uncorroborated hearsay cannot constitute substantial evidence in admin process)
- City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Commission, 7 Cal.3d 331 (Cal. 1972) (evidence must support increased costs; limits on hearsay reliance)
- SFPP, L.P. v. Public Utilities Commission, 217 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. App. 4th 2013) (substantial evidence review; weigh all record evidence)