*1 No. 24377. Nov. 1985.] [S.F. Petitioner, SONOMA, v. OF
COUNTY AND CONSERVATION STATE ENERGY RESOURCES COMMISSION, Respondent; DEVELOPMENT al., et COMPANY
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Real Parties in Interest.
Counsel
Derek J. Simmons and Simmons & Wilhelm for Petitioner. Chamberlain, William M. H. Burger Steven M. Cohn and Stephen Respondent. Ohlbach, Morton, Gibson, Lubbock,
Robert John B. Hanna & Dan G. Smith, Burch, Renwick, Roberts, Edward S. Lee R. Lee L. Cynthia Parties in Holland & Allen and Richard E. Brandt for Real McDonough, Interest.
Opinion REYNOSO, J. the constitutionality The issue this case is presented by in Public review ex- Resources Code section 25531 for judicial Resources clusively this court of certain decisions of the State Energy Commission) Conservation and (Energy pertain- Commission Development Commission ing construction for which the Public Utilities projects (PUC) We necessity.1 must issue a and certificate of convenience public shall conclude that the are a exercise statutory provisions proper of the PUC. broad over matters within the Legislature’s powers purview indicated. 1All otherwise section references are to the Public Resources Code unless State Conservation and Warren-Alquist Energy Develop- Resources ment Act Act) (§ (Energy 25000 et enacted in seq.), established (§ 25200) Energy objec- Commission announced legislative implement tives of into encouraging coordinating energy pro- research problems, conservation, environmental, moting energy public statewide assuring safety, (see 25001-25007). land Com- goals use Among §§ mission’s duties is that of all sites certify its “exclusive exercising i.e., facilities,” and related from electricity generated facilities which thermal electric lines. energy, together associated transmission (§§ 25500, 25119, 25110, 25120, 25107.)2 Section provides ordinance, statute, Energy Commission’s certificate regu- supersedes *4 lation, state, local, or or or permit requirement of any regional agency (insofar 2, ante.) as law) (Fn. federal permitted by agency. of federal any
If the Commission’s certificate to a how- Energy utility, is issued public ever, construction of certified cannot without issuance proceed facility by the PUC (Pub. of a certificate of and Util. necessity. convenience public Code, Act, 1971, 1001.) In three before years adoption Energy § Public Utilities Code section to to add 1001 was amended PUC require to a following factors those it as basis for such granting considers a division, provides: 2Section 25500 “In com- accordance with the of this provisions state, power mission shall have certify the exclusive to all and related facilities in the sites facility. whether a new facility existing site and related addition an The change or a or certificate, issuance any of a lieu or permit, certificate commission shall be of state, similar required any agency, agency document to the regional local or or federal law, facilities, permitted extent and and shall federal for such use of the site related statute, local, supersede ordinance, state, any applicable regional regulation any of or or agency, agency or federal permitted by extent law. federal division, “After any facility of effective date no or modification construction any any existing such facility obtaining be commenced certification for shall without first site and facility by related prescribed commission as in this division.” Section provides: facility or any 25119 “‘Site’ means on which a is constructed location proposed to be constructed.” “ pow- provides: ‘Facility’ Section 25110 line or thermal any means electric transmission erplant, according or both powerplant, regulated electric transmission line and thermal provisions of this division.” 25120, 1978, any Section station- provides: powerplant’ as amended in means “‘Thermal ary or with a floating generating energy, thermal facility using any electrical source of generating more, capacity megawatts any appurtenant Ex- of 50 or facilities thereto. lines, wells, ploratory, development, production and other related resource transmission field geothermal project geothermal facilities used in with or a exploratory connection a development project appurtenant purposes of this division.” are not facilities for the any Section car- provides: powerline “‘Electric means electric transmission line’ rying point junction electric within powerplant from thermal located the state to a include system. line’ interconnected transmission ‘Electric transmission does not any replacement existing powerlines powerlines on with electric existing site electric equivalent existing powerlines placement to such electric of new or additional con- or the ductors, insulators, powerlines supporting struc- or accessories related to such electric pursuant tures certified existence on the effective date of this this division.” division values; certificate: recreational park historical and aesthetic community, 68, 3, 1631, areas; 1971, ch. ch. (Stats. and influence on the environment. § Act, 1, 3.) the Energy The 1974 in addition to enacting Legislature, §§ further that with amended Public Code 1001 to provide Utilities which an to a line for respect thermal or electric transmission powerplant not may grant Commission certificate is the PUC Energy required, certificate of after the Com- Energy convenience and until public necessity mission is conclu- certificate has been obtained and the latter certificate sive as to the the PUC matters it determines and consideration supplants 1974, (Stats. of the additional factors amendment. the 1971 prescribed 1195, ch. transferred 10.) In the substance of these was § from (Stats. section 1001 to Code. section 1002 of the Public Utilities 2, 3.)3 ch. §§ Act Com- Energy Energy review prescribes judicial procedures
mission decisions and no court from those provides procedures apart has jurisdiction over to enforce the com- Commission matters except mission’s (§ (c).) decisions. review pro- subd. The general judicial vision is for of writ of mandate challenge commission decisions by way *5 filed in the the (§ 25901.)5 court. The sole exception provisions commission, “(a) 3Public provides pertinent part: Utilities Code section The 1002 now a granting any as basis for pursuant give certificate consideration to the to Section shall values, following (1) (3) factors: Community park Recreational and areas. [¶] [¶] [¶] (b) respect Historical and aesthetic values. Influence on environment. ... With [¶] [¶] any to powerplant required thermal or electrical transmission line for which a certificate is pursuant 25000) to provisions the of of the Public (commencing Division 15 with Section Code, Resources public necessity granted pursuant no certificate of convenience and shall be first, to Section 1001 having without such other and the decision certificate been obtained granting thereby such other and certificate shall be conclusive as to all matters determined shall take place the of the four requirement by the for consideration the commission of specified (a) factors in subdivision of this section.” (c), 4Section judicial review of provides: “Subject right subdivision to the of commission, decisions of the or jurisdiction no court in this state shall have to hear determine been, was, any controversy case or concerning any manner which or could have determined commission, proceeding in a operation before the or of stop delay or to the construction any thermal powerplant except compliance provisions of a decision of to enforce with the the commission.” “(a) provides: 5Section its determina- days Within 30 after the commission issues any division, specified any tion on except provided matter in this in Section as aggrieved person may review petition file with the for a writ of mandate for court a challenging thereof. person Failure to file such an from preclude action shall not a validity any brought reasonableness and to enforce such judicial proceedings a decision in remedies, (b) decision for other civil of the The evidence before the court shall consist [¶] commission, which, record before the any judgment and other relevant facts court, should be determining validity any considered in decision of the commission. (c) herein, (f) Except (g) as provided provisions [¶] otherwise of subdivisions and Section 1094.5 of the this govern proceedings pursuant Code of Civil Procedure shall Section.” in section 25531 for review of judicial commission decisions applications for certification of sites and be certified by related facilities that also must the PUC. That limited class is made sub- Commission decisions Energy review in ject judicial the same manner as PUC decisions on the appli- cation for a certificate of site necessity convenience and for same public (§ 25531, and related (a) (b).)6 Since those PUC deci- facility. subds. Code, sions bemay 1756-1759), reviewed only (Pub. this court Util. §§ effect operative of section 25531 is to court exclusive jurisdic- give tion over Commission Energy necessary ingredi- comprise ent of the certificate issued The this case is PUC. issue posed whether section 2553l’s is allowed for our exclusive provision jurisdiction California Constitution.
Before us is a of Sonoma for review of decision petition by County by respondent Commission real in interest Pacific granting party Gas and Electric (PG&E) Co. certification a geothermal power plant Lake County a related 43-mile electric transmission line in Sonoma County. but petition claims numerous defects in decision prays the alternative that we for lack of on the deny jurisdiction petition ground that the 25531 are unconstitu- judicial review of section tional. decision,
Petitioner has not briefed the challenge merits its its counsel stated at were to rule that section oral that if this court argument 25531 and related courts of all other provisions divesting review commission certification of electric facilities are constitution- valid, further review and ally would withdraw its petitioner request *6 concede that the commission’s decision stand. may present
Section 25903 if 25531 for judicial that the of section provides provision review of Energy exclusively by Commission certification decisions 25531, (a) (b), “(a) 6Section of the commission provide: subdivisions The decisions facility any application any on shall utility of electric and related for certification of site subject be judicial to review of the Public Utilities in the same manner as the decisions Necessity for Commission on the for a application Certificate of Public Convenience (b) may facility, the same site be introduced and related No new or additional evidence [¶] upon by review and the as certified to cause shall be heard on the record of the commission it. The review has shall not be extended further whether the commission than to determine regularly pursued authority, its order or decision including a of whether the determination under any right review violates Constitution or the petitioner of the under the United States questions California of findings Constitution. The the commission on and conclusions of review, fact shall be article. Such subject except provided final and shall not be to in this as questions of of the com- findings fact shall include ultimate and conclusions facts and the 25510, of, A to Section report prepared by, approval pursuant mission. or an the commission 25514, 25516, 25520.5, 25516.5, (b) constitute a or shall not or subdivision of Section decision of the subject judicial commission to review.” invalid, court are held be the superior such decisions shall reviewed We court.7 are advised that has commenced mandate proceeding petitioner the commission de- court so as to obtain review of present cision there if to our under section petitioner’s challenge jurisdiction should succeed.
Petitioner contends that confine to alone the jurisdiction to this court to review the the certification Energy Commission’s decision granting PG&E, sections, in accordance with section 25531 and infringes related VI, 10, the jurisdiction of of courts article section granted by the California of Constitution.8 Petitioner that 1756 to 1759 argues sections Code, the Public Utilities this court exclusive to review giving PUC, decisions of the are valid virtue article XII Consti- tution, which gives broad confer authority powers upon the PUC decisions, and to because provide judicial review of its and that article XII does not other commis- specify Energy Commission any sion PUC, or agency it here in except does not allow legislation think, question. however, We that the close between func- relationship tions the PUC and the Commission narrow class of affected by section 25531 that section’s review brings judicial provisions within the broad over PUC article legislative authority matters conferred XII.
That article gives over mat PUC comprehensive powers ters. XII, Section 5 of article in that adopted provides “[t]he Legislature has unlimited of this plenary other power, provisions article, constitution but consistent with this authority to confer additional and jurisdiction manner and upon to establish the scope [PUC and] review of commission action in a . . .” 5 in effect court record . Section XII, restates provisions former originally sections 22 and of article (See XII, adopted 1911. article providing provisions “[t]he of this article restate immediately effect Constitution prior the effective date of make no this amendment and substantive provides: (a) 7Section provision “If of subdivision Section *7 respect to judicial facility, review of the of a and is held decision certification site related invalid, judicial superior subject review such to decisions shall be conducted in the court the (b) conditions of grant priority subdivision Section 25531. The court shall setting review, in such given for the review be appeals matters and from such shall preference hearings Supreme in appeal.” and Court courts Court, VI, 10, 8The initial paragraphs two provide: Supreme of article “The courts section courts, of appeal, superior corpus pro- judges original jurisdiction and their have in habeas ceedings. extraordinary original jurisdiction Those also relief proceedings courts have in for mandamus, certiorari, the original nature of prohibition. Superior and courts have [¶] jurisdiction in all except given by causes those other courts.” statute to trial of the Leg Former sections 22 and 23 both declared the change.”) power to be islature to confer utilities the PUC powers respecting public upon The fore and Constitution.” “unlimited of this “plenary” by any provision review not to restrict going provisions only judicial empower decisions, other than of PUC of courts by as eliminating one etc. Co. v. Eshleman to conduct such review (Pacific Telephone 640, 689, (1913) to 1119]), scope 166 Cal. but also expand P. [137 in article VI of this court’s review powers beyond jurisdiction provided (1936) Railroad Com. (Southern Constitution Edison Co. v. Calif. 737, 808]). Cal.2d P.2d [59 by channeling
In to constitutional powers exercise these electing (Pub. review to this court exclusively of PUC decisions judicial directly Code, final 1756-1759), Util. op- the Legislature sought expedite §§ erative of that same proper objec- effect of those decisions. In furtherance tive, Com- 25531 that certain Energy provided this court. by mission decisions also are directly exclusively reviewable Commission deci- of the latter is limited to Application Energy provision thermo- sions that are a the PUC of statutory prerequisite approval Code, (Pub. electric Util. to be constructed utilities projects public 1002, 25531, authorization (b); ante). subd. fn. Without section PUC § of such a be until project might substantially delayed judicial proceedings com- to review the were Commission’s certification of project court and this not court but in the Court of pleted Appeal Thus, the op- as well. the central 25531 is to expedite of section purpose is- and necessity erative effect of certain certificates of convenience public the section sued whether enactment of PUC. The before us is question matters over PUC was a exercise of the broad proper Legislature’s powers conferred article XII. of a constitutionality legisla
We think it was. “In considering of the Act. tive doubts in favor act we its all presume validity, resolving is clear federal Constitution Unless conflict with a of the state or provision (California Act. we must unquestionable, uphold [Citations].” 575, 594 Finance v. Elliott 17 Cal.3d Housing Agency [131 Board accord, v. State 1193]; Foundation Eye Dog 551 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 536, 544 Cal.Rptr. Guide the Blind 67 Cal.2d Dogs 717].) 432 P.2d and the matters over PUC Both the breadth of the Legislature’s powers from con- infer legislative powers to which this court has lengths gone *8 42 Cal.2d stitutional are v. Johnson illustrated Pickens for legislation The case was whether issue that Cal.Rptr. [267 801]. aby of retired to duties was authorized assignment judges active judicial to constitutional that “provide provision merely empowered Legislature for fix and “to payment of retirement salaries to employees” [State] (Const., . . . for retirement” for- change and conditions requirements IV, 22a, mer art. this court 1930). adopted legislation, Upholding § said:
“This
not new in
type
both constitutional
legislation,
statutory,
this state. The
under a
Public Utilities Commission has been established
constitutional
act with
conferred on
to
enabling
full
power
enact legislation even
to
of the Constitution
contrary
any other provisions
it
provided
be
cognate
to the
and control
germane
regulation
public
Eshleman,
XII,
(Const.,
22;
utilities.
art.
Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
§
Pacific
Cal.
652].)
P.
Ann.
Like-
Cas. 1915C
50 L.R.A.N.S.
[137
wise the Industrial Accident
been
an enabling
Commission has
set
under
up
act
whereby
‘unlim-
Legislature is
vested with
expressly
plenary power
ited by
create,
Constitution,
provision
and enforce
complete
system
21;
(Const.,
XX,
workmen’s
. . .’
art.
Western
compensation.
§
Metal Supply
Co. v. Pillsbury,
“Under the foregoing acts the has enacted laws enabling which, as courts, are interpreted subjects as to the controlling, prop- erly legislated over other of the Constitution and upon, general provisions general laws.
“So here the Constitution has in terms conferred general Leg- upon islature the establish a for the retirement of system judges. Legislature has done so and has as a condition that of retirement imposed retired allowances, so as judges long receive continue they retirement shall to be judicial officers state and their be subject shall permission to call for for judicial service chairman assignment by the purpose of the Judicial Council.
“It would seem be that the beyond assign- question provision ment and service of retired bears a in accordance with the statute judge (Id., reasonable to a retirement. ...” at relationship system judges’ 404-405.) pp. here are
Especially pertinent confining decisions which hold that statutes judicial review of are administrative courts within appellate
370 Loustalot but not the Constitution.
legislative powers by implied, specified, 905, 673], held that (1947) v. Court 30 Cal.2d P.2d Superior 912-913 [186 21, XX, such a statute was authorized former article section by giving “create, a Legislature system to and enforce “plenary power” complete with all the body workmen’s “an administrative compensation” including or matter arising functions to determine requisite governmental any dispute under such of such legislation to the end that the administration legislation, shall substantial in all cases accomplish expeditiously, inexpensively, justice Finn 178 without incumbrance of character.” Thaxter v. any 163], Cal. 275 P. in an earlier found for such statute authority [173 XX, to version of article section authorizing Legislature “provide for the settlement of under the any legislation contemplated disputes arising board, section, arbitration, this accident by by by an industrial courts, or constitution either or all of these any agencies, anything v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Su- contrary Dept, notwithstanding.” Court statute perior upheld Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. 780] review of of the Alcoholic Control confining Beverage Appeals XX, Board to the article courts appellate relying provisions review,” that that board orders “shall be to judicial subject constitu- tional are repealed, and laws inconsistent with the section provisions herein that the shall nothing section’s are “but provisions self-executing, and not inconsis- from laws prohibit enacting implementing within the tent” with the that the statute fell section. court concluded section, and indicated to enact laws express authority implementing event the self-exe- has implied authority implement not in- unduly constitutional that does cuting through legislation provisions (Id., 74.) terfere with constitutional at rights. p.
In constitutionality legis- of the light strong presumption acts, to enact the judicial lative we conclude that the Legislature’s power au- review comprehensive of section 25531 is implied the PUC. thority article XII over given Legislature by operations acts, To statutes enacted pursuant effect of the PUC’s expedite operative reviewable to article XII have for made PUC decisions over seven decades energy the national only by this court. The Act was Energy adopted during electrical energy” crisis of “to ... a reliable ensure supply (§ 25001) and “to the state’s responsibility establish and consolidate and related . . . electrical energy generating resources and for regulating tailored to (§ 25006). 25531 was carefully transmission facilities” Section that are prereq- action on certifications Commission apply only necessity by uisite to issuance of certificates of convenience public ultimate autho- the state’s PUC. The-Legislature thereby sought expedite Commis- the Energy rization of electric not through generating plants *10 sion but the also PUC itself.9 Since section 25531 is a means of imple- menting facilitating PUC’s of thermoelectric facil- licensing utilities, ities to be sought constructed and its enactment operated by public was authorized by article XII.
Petitioner having agreed to withdraw its for review of the Energy request valid, Commission’s decision if we rule that section 25531 that decision is affirmed.
Bird, J., Broussard, J., Grodin, J., J.,* C. Kaus, concurred.
MOSK, J. I dissent.
I with begin who, wit, the observation of a with sardonic once jurist declared: I disagree my conclusion the reasons stated colleagues’ in the majority opinion.
The majority all impliedly concede—as authority compels—that Leg- islature not may defeat or of the materially exercise constitutional impair “ court, jurisdiction of a ‘The including court. superior jurisdiction the system of state courts ... is defined by section of article VI of the constitution VI, predecessor 11], to art. [the 10 and and ... the consti- §§ tutional jurisdiction and court powers as thus defined can superior nowise be lessened, trenched upon, (Sac- or limited legislature.’” ramento etc. D. Dist. v. Superior Court Cal. P. 687]; see v. Solberg Court Superior 19 Cal.3d 192 [137 460, 561 Cal.Rptr. 1148].) P.2d then on to reach a con- majority go clusion in startling contradiction to this unassailable principle.
Dissatisfied with a decision of the Conservation and Resources Development Commission Commission), (Energy has petitioner reluctantly with the complied statutory that it seek review in this requirement may only court. It argues this the con- legislative restriction flies the face of stitutional grant court where it would superior prefer Since repair. has petitioner on its side an unbroken line of decisions its supporting of the constitutional at issue and since interpretation language those decisions are from the I indistinguishable facts at hand would deny Legislature’s 9The purpose (fn. expedite is further demonstrated section 25903 ante), invalid, providing that if the direct review of section 25531 were to be held superior court give should section 25531 priority matters and hear them on the commission, record of the appeals given should be preference by appellate courts. *Retired Supreme Associate Justice of the Court sitting assignment under the Chair- person of the Judicial Council. for a the writ where petition writ review and allow to seek petitioner allows;
the Constitution court.1 court, Three one of the Court directly point—two ju- statutes court’s constitutional Appeal—have upheld limiting decision, however, risdiction. Each on provisions is premised explicitly the Constitution to enact the statute in empowering question.
Without etc. Co. the touchstone in this area is question Telephone Pacific v. Eshleman con- (1913) 1119], 166 Cal. P. which concerned the 640 [137 (see 649) of a statute from the one at hand stitutionality p. indistinguishable to review the conferring pro- exclusive on the Court jurisdiction Supreme of “which the Railroad Commission. This court termed as a fact ceedings cannot be blinked and must be faced” that “the has legislature [at] deliberation restricted and in the superior curtailed the vested jurisdiction courts of this can be thing state the constitution. And this but one by upon said. there be not in the warrant and power constitution If itself ” (Id. at legislature do this its must be declared thing, illegal. effort 652, italics p. added.) without cases to Eshleman have followed its rationale subsequent Each an in quiver. has likewise turned on the of finding express provision the Constitution to curtail the jurisdiction granting right court to review decisions. superior agency nor, v. Superior
A Loustalot Tray unanimous decision written Justice by 673], Court 30 Cal.2d P.2d a statute permitting upheld [186 Com courts to review the of the Industrial Accident only appellate rulings XX, XIV, (now 4). mission under former article art. Justice section § nor “In with the commission’s Tray interference explained; restricting any courts, decisions or orders to the Legislature proceedings appellate has carried out the that provision declared the constitutional policy of in the appellate commission be unencumbered but by any proceedings ” (Id. 912-913, added.) courts. at The court in Loustalot empha italics pp. 1 superior an court sought Whether the writ of review here is characterized as exercise extraordinary is the same jurisdiction petition over “all for relief the result causes” or as a analytical granted jurisdiction purposes superior for because in both situations the court is VI, proceeding extraordinary petitioner article relief is allowed section 10. If this is a given are jurisdiction any separate article VI to one three courts that invoke (the court, original Appeal, Supreme the Court of and the concurrent Court); having original jurisdiction if it is otherwise viewed the court court. sized that act followed “almost word workers’ it reviewed compensation Eshleman, for word” the and stressed that the Public Act in upheld Utilities which the the Constitution under plenary challenged was other legislation explicitly provision were unlimited upheld the Constitution. (Ibid.) Similarly, Dept, Superior Bev. v. Court Alcoholic Control 780],
In summary, each by decision elimination statute of the upholding supe- rior court’s original to review is bottomed jurisdiction decisions agency language Constitution the and constitu- granting Legislature plenary tionally permissible to determine the of review power method scope decisions the commission in particular question.
Is there any provision in the the Constitution that meets absolute require- i.e., the test, ments of Eshleman one that the gives its terms Legislature broad unlimited other power any to control the provision constitutional review of Energy decisions? Commission XII,
The majority claim to
a
They
find such
in article
section 5.
provision
XII,
are
5,
plainly
Article
section
with the
wrong.
which deals
Public Util-
alone,
ities Commission and the Public Utilities
declares in
Commission
relevant
as
part
follows: “The
unlimited
Legislature
has plenary power,
article,
the other provisions of
with
.
this constitution but
. .
consistent
establish
manner and
review of commission action in a court
scope
.
(Italics added.)
of record .
. .”
terms the
Although
provision
express
decisions,
gives
Legislature
to control the
PUC
neither
power
review' of
nor
it
it
with
explicitly
implicitly
give
regard
does
such
Thus,
Commission,
of the Energy
a
separate
statutory agency.
distinct
XII,
5,
no matter how
article
repeatedly
majority assert that
section
as
stands
constitutional authorization for
the change
ju-
courts,
risdiction
it
does not
reference to the
simply
contain
Commission.
Code
Until
statute such as Public Resources
section
today jurisdictional
been
it lacked
has
struck down without hesitation if
required
Pillsbury (1915)
v.
constitutional authorization. Great Western Power Co.
P.
to a
35],
is the of the court constitutional identity grant whose court, there the tion the to eliminate: here the sought of this since Court.3 Great Power is case Western thus Supreme dispositive Act, like the has no Roseberry parentage. constitutional *13 use an is contrary old when a decision majority controlling ploy: Eshleman, notions, have even overlook it. done so preconceived They above, clear and been as I have rule of law has crystal its is though, quoted followed for 72 years. belief the reality, majority’s decision is
Today’s supported, of review section that it would be to confine over practical jurisdiction First, a rela- special 25531 decisions to this there is they court. assert that and those of the between the Energy decisions of Commission tionship PUC, our exclusive that as the are within conclude latter impliedly issue, although jurisdictional Power 2The court was in Great Western on the unanimous on justice grounds. one dissented other power proceedings writ are little provisions governing judicial 3The constitutional over VI, 4, granted Roseberry passed the in 1911. Then article section changed since Act was VI, and article section jurisdiction petitions for writs of certiorari Supreme the Court over 5, grants were power. jurisdiction These of consolidated granted superior courts that same VI, 10, original all courts share provides that three levels of in article section which now jurisdiction proceedings. over writ
375 the be to hold that jurisdiction appear former should as well. thus They the henceforth the will not on constitutional question jurisdiction depend VI, 10, determination mandate article but on the Legislature’s can what court most adjudicate proceeding. cause efficiently given Second, be their decision that it would majority ground justify to allow time-consuming court to review section 25531 deter- assessment, minations. While an this be accurate lies may remedy constitutional time amendment.4 the trains run on is neither a func- Making tion of constitutional to the nor is it a of our jurisprudence meaning guide state’s basic document. fact effi- that a law is given procedure “[T]he cient, convenient, and useful stand- government, functions facilitating ” alone, will (INS ing not save it is Constitution. v. it if to the contrary 2764, Chadha 317, 340; 462 U.S. 103 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d [77 2780-2781].)
It be cannot denied that in section 25531 has with delib- the Legislature eration curtail vested in purported restrict and courts of this state Constitution. But what the has thus to do is attempted but one be beyond power. its “And this can thing upon said. If there be not in the constitution itself warrant and power to do legislature (Pacific its effort must thing, illegal.” be declared Eshleman, etc. Telephone Co. supra, 166 Cal. 652.) v. at no There is p. such Power Pillsbury, Great Western Co. v. power (See Constitution. supra, Cal. at 182-183.) pp. course, 4Of the Legislature power agency inherent it has to create wishes unless (Methodist is denied it Hosp. Saylor v. Constitution. Sacramento Cal.3d 161].) an Cal.Rptr. 488 P.2d If does create such So, agency entity subject to the Constitution. the Constitutional Revision example, Commission commented on suggestion that all mention PUC be deleted from the of the so Constitution that the merely Legislature. PUC would become It was a creature *14 recognized that (inter alia) purely statutory subject decisions of a be PUC would Com., original (Cal. Study Background court. Const. Revision XII, 110-117, Cal. Corporations Const. Art. and K. pp. Public John Utilities McNulty McNulty].) McNulty put plainly: portions Professor “If those [hereafter it out, Article simply XII relate to the Public Utilities struck the fol- Commission were lowing powers statutory constitutional provisions would to diminish the assert themselves I, powers (i) of the Commission: (just jury Article sec. 14 and trial in eminent compensation VI, (ii) II, (iii) proceedings); domain (separation Article sec. 1 powers); Article secs. (constitutional jurisdiction courts); (iv) Supreme possibly Court Ar- XI, XI, cities); (‘municipal (v) ticle sec. 6 powers affairs’ Article freeholder charter XIV, (obsolete sec. and Article municipal rate-fixing pow- sec. 1 regarding ers).” (McNulty, supra, added.) p. at fn. italics Commission, creation, purely statutory subject to the same restraints imposed by the Constitution. reasons,
For I deny these would petition.5 Lucas, J., concurred. *15 the Court originally prepared Justice Poché in this was 5Much of the material dissent sitting assignment under court. Appeal while