(Updated 3/3/26 at 3pm with additional cases)

This post is an update on previous posts (here and here) related to the remanded petition for the Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in the First Appellate District (Case No. A167721).

There have been several petitions filed against the CPUC since August 2025. For the Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California petition the California Supreme Court remanded to the First Appellate District, the docket now shows an opinion due by April 13, 2026 with full briefing received from all parties. Hopefully this opinion will shed light on both the CPUC statutory interpretation related to the net billing tariff and how courts will apply Public Utilities Code §§ 1757 and 1757.1 judicial review standards.

In light of the California Supreme Court’s August opinion, there are at least five new petitions against the CPUC where Public Utilities Code §§ 1757 and 1757.1 are being applied.

The first two petitions deal with CPUC action (D. 24-12-033; Modification and Denial of Rehearing D.25-07-041; Proceeding A. 24-03-018) on extending the operation and cost recovery for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant pursuant to SB 846 (2022) (D. 24-12-033; Modification and Denial of Rehearing D.25-07-041; Proceeding A. 24-03-018). This is a highly regulated area of decision making by the CPUC. These cases are:

• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Public Utilities Commission (Second Appellate District, Case No. B348439; Petition Found Here); and
• Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility v. Public Utilities Commission (Second Appellate District, Case No. B348428).

CalCCA filed a petition on December 12, 2025 to challenge the CPUC decisions (D. 25-06-049 ; Rehearing Denied by D. 25-10-061) that changed how the calculation for the exit fee unbundled community choice aggregator (CCA) and Direct Access Provider/Electric Service Provider (DAP/ESP) customers pay under the public charge indifference adjustment (PCIA) exit fee arguing this change was retroactive ratemaking:

• California Community Choice Association v. Public Utilities Commission (Third Appellate District, Case No. C105174; Petition found Here).

Shell Energy North America appealed a December 22, 2025, First Appellate District Court denial of writ review to the California Supreme Court on January 2, 2026 specific to CPUC D. 23-06-029 (Rehearing Denied). This appellate court denial followed an October 10, 2025 First Appellate District denial of writ review on the same issue filed by CalCCA (California Community Choice Association v. Public Utilities Commission, First Appellate District, Case No. A169524).

These petitions stem from the CPUC decision on the resource adequacy (RA) program, the RA deficiency rule, and load serving entity (LSE) expansion rule.  The appeal to the California Supreme asks for review of CPUC authority to regulate load serving entities like electric service providers (ESP) and community choice aggregators (CCAs). The Shell petition court record can be found here:

• Shell Energy North America (US) v. Public Utilities Commission (Supreme Court Case No. S294605; First Appellate District, Div. 2 Case No. A169967)

The fifth case is TC Telephone’s petition regarding a CPUC investigation (CPUC Proceeding I. 22-10-007) of TC Telephone where a $9,800,000 fine was issued in D.25-03-011 (rehearing denied in D. 25-08-025) to reimburse the California Universal Lifeline Program for an overcollection and consequent interest. Notably, TC Telephone request for rehearing to the CPUC made similar arguments with regard to retroactive ratemaking (see p. 1) that CalCCA recently argued in its petition to challenge changes to the public charge indifference adjustment (PCIA). This case is:

• TC Telephone v. Public Utilities Commission (Fourth Appellate District Division 3, Case No. G065980).

Additionally, there is at least one existing petition where parties were asked to address the recent California Supreme Court Opinion before an opinion was issued. A nonpublished opinion was issued by the Sixth Appellate District panel on November 7, 2025:

• Bloom Energy Corporation v. Public Utilities Commission (Sixth Appellate District, Case No. H052429; Unpublished Opinion).

This case dealt with how net energy metering was applied to Bloom’s natural gas fuel cells. The Appeals Court  found that the CPUC did not error and affirmed the CPUC’s decision.

Finally, if you know of information on any new petition filed, please let us know to help track and analyze this evolving area of law. Send information to kaatzj-11@sandiego.edu. Thank you!