(collectively, “plaintiffs”) alleged stray electrical currents from the substation were
causing them to suffer various medical issues. The trial court sustained Edison’s
demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The trial court
concluded, “Plaintiffs claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the California
Public Utilities Commission,” and thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the
dispute with Edison. The trial court sustained the demurrer on March 5, 2014.
On February 9, 2015, the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal held
the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) does not have exclusive jurisdiction
over a case involving injuries resulting from stray electrical currents from a substation.
(Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 129, 151
(Wilson).) On appeal, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by sustaining Edison’s
demurrer because the PUC does not have exclusive jurisdiction over claims related to
injuries from stray electrical currents. Edison asserts, among other things, that Wilson
was wrongly decided. We reverse the judgment.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
The facts in this paragraph are taken from plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint
(FAC). In 1992, Edison’s Indian Wells substation was constructed. Seacrist’s home
was in the Desert Rose development, in Palm Desert, which was next to the Indian
Wells substation. In 1997, Seacrist purchased and moved into her home in Palm Desert.
McDonald moved into Seacrist’s home in 2006, and moved out in 2009. Stray electrical
currents from the substation caused dangerously high voltage “in the ground and in and
about and throughout” Seacrist’s home. The stray electrical currents caused plaintiffs to
suffer serious health issues.1
In the first cause of action for negligence, plaintiffs alleged Edison was negligent
because it permitted “excessive electric current from the Indian Wells Substation” to
enter plaintiffs’ land. Plaintiffs alleged Edison “negligently, carelessly, recklessly,
unlawfully, and with gross negligence, managed, owned, operated, leased, possessed,
1 Background information about electrical distribution systems: “In order for electricity to flow, there must be a complete circuit. In other words, when electricity is sent out . . . it must have a return path. Typically, electricity is sent over one conductor (wire), called the ‘hot,’ and returns on another conductor called the neutral.” (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 130.) “For safety reasons, electrical systems usually are grounded. That means that at various points in the system, including at the substation, a connection is made from the neutral to the ground, i.e., the earth. Because the earth is conductive, it can provide a return path for the flow of electricity.” (Id. at p. 131.) “In a grounded electrical system, there will always be some current flowing back to the substation through the earth. This is referred to as neutral-to-earth voltage, or NEV, and it cannot be entirely eliminated. NEV is one cause of ‘stray voltage.’” (Ibid.)
3
secured, designed, modified, installed, constructed, engineered, and controlled the
Indian Wells Substation.”
In the second and third causes of action (for nuisance and trespass) plaintiffs
alleged “residential properties and homes located adjacent to the Indian Wells
Substation, were, and are, subject to entry by stray, uncontrolled electrical currents that
are generated, emitted, and traveling from said substation, and there were, and continue
to be, excessive electric currents and voltage from said adjacent substation resulting in
dangerously high levels of current and magnetic frequency in, about, and throughout
adjacent residential properties and homes, including the Home of Plaintiffs.”
In the fourth cause of action (for products liability), plaintiffs alleged Edison was
subject to strict liability “for personal injuries caused by the straying of electricity at
dangerously high current levels due to the improper grounding of the Indian Wells
Substation.” In the fifth cause of action (for breach of the implied warranty of fitness),
plaintiffs asserted they were harmed “[a]s a direct, proximate, and legal result of the
defective Indian Wells Substation due to its improper grounding.”
In the sixth cause of action (for strict liability based upon an ultra hazardous
activity), plaintiffs alleged Edison’s “use, maintenance, and operation of an electrical
substation emitting large amounts of electrical currents and voltage when not properly
grounded and located immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood constitutes
ultra[]hazardous activity.” Plaintiffs further alleged that stray electrical currents were in
and throughout their residence.
4
In their seventh cause of action (for intentional infliction of emotional distress),
plaintiffs asserted their home was “subject to stray, uncontrolled electrical currents,
generated, emitted and traveling from the Indian Wells Substation.” Plaintiffs asserted
the substation was “improperly grounded.”
Plaintiffs sought damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, an injunction
prohibiting Edison from further harming plaintiffs, costs, interest, and any other proper
relief.
B. DEMURRER
Edison demurred to the FAC. Edison asserted the Superior Court lacked
Our Supreme Court has articulated a three-prong test for determining whether a
claim falls within the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction: (1) whether the PUC has the
authority to adopt a policy on (a) the alleged problematic/risky condition, e.g., stray
voltage, and (b) “what action, if any, the utilities should take to minimize that risk”;
(2) whether the PUC has exercised its authority to adopt a policy concerning the
problematic/risky condition; and (3) whether the lawsuit would hinder or interfere with
that policy. (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893,
923, 926, 935 (Covalt).)
First, in its demurrer, Edison asserted the PUC has the authority to issue
regulations related to substation safety and “all aspects of electrical distribution
facilities.” Second, Edison asserted that in General Order 174, the PUC adopted safety
5
regulations governing substations. Third, Edison argued plaintiffs’ lawsuit would
interfere with the PUC’s policy because plaintiffs were essentially challenging the
safety regulations issued by the PUC.
C. OPPOSITION
Plaintiffs opposed Edison’s demurrer. Plaintiffs asserted the PUC did not have
exclusive jurisdiction over their claims because their claims were focused on currents
running through the ground/earth—not problems with the electrical lines or substation.
Plaintiffs noted that PUC Rule 36.4 prohibits utilities from using the ground/earth as a
normal neutral to return electricity along the circuit; however, a neutral may be
grounded into the earth for purposes of stabilization and protection. Plaintiffs asserted
their claims were based upon “electric current[s] straying through the ground from the
neutral which becomes overloaded as it returns and comes close to the substation.”
Plaintiffs contended, “[T]his lawsuit relies on Rule 36.4. It does not interfere with Rule
36.4.” Plaintiffs contended Edison violated Rule 36.4, and therefore, Public Utilities
Code section 21062 brought the claims within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction.
Section 2106 provides, “Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or
permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do
any act, matter, or thing required to be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this
State, or any order or decision of the commission, shall be liable to the persons or
corporations affected thereby for all loss, damages, or injury caused thereby or resulting
2 All subsequent statutory references will be to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise indicated.
6
therefrom. If the court finds that the act or omission was willful, it may, in addition to
the actual damages, award exemplary damages. An action to recover for such loss,
damage, or injury may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any
corporation or person.”
D. REPLY
Edison replied to plaintiffs’ opposition. Edison accused plaintiffs of “attempting
to change the theory of their claims.” Edison argued, “Plaintiffs ignore that nowhere in
their [FAC] is there any reference to ‘underground power lines,’ to use of the ‘ground
and earth . . . as the return of the current to the substation, or that [Edison] is violating
any [General Order] or regulation of the PUC, let alone Rule 36.4.” Edison contended
the FAC alleged the problematic acts involved electrical currents “‘emitted from a
substation,’” (italics omitted) as opposed to currents returning to the substation. Edison
asserted plaintiffs could not rely on new facts to avoid dismissal of the FAC, and
currents emitted from the substation are regulated by the PUC.
Edison argued plaintiffs should be denied leave to amend because if the new
facts about stray voltage resulting from the current returning to the substation were
included in a fifth amended complaint, the claims would still fall within the PUC’s
exclusive jurisdiction. Edison asserted the PUC had not defined, within Rule 36.4, what
it means “to use the earth/ground as ‘a normal return or circuit conductor,’” and the
PUC has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret its own Rule 36.4 and decide if Edison’s
system violated that rule. Thus, Edison asserted section 2106 did not apply because in
order to determine if Edison was violating Rule 36.4, the court would need to decide
7
“the meaning of [using] the ground or earth as ‘a normal return or circuit conductor’ in
Rule 36.4,” and such rule interpretation by the court would undermine the PUC’s
regulatory authority.
E. HEARING
On February 19, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on Edison’s demurrer. At
the hearing, plaintiffs requested leave to amend. Plaintiffs said, “I recognize that the
[FAC] did not perhaps clarify to the extent that—as to why this should not fall under
General Order 174 which does give PUC jurisdiction. The reason being that the cause
of the ground current, the electric current, string current was the distribution wiring. It
was not the substation itself. And Rule 174 covers the substation. [¶] So that is why it
should not pertain to that rule, but I would like to amend the Complaint to be able to
clarify that in the Complaint.” Plaintiffs asserted the substation was not the cause of the
stray current; rather, it was the size of the wiring used as the neutral return. Plaintiffs
explained the wires “should have been larger so as to handle the amount of electricity
that was on the return to the substation.”
Edison argued “the PUC has exclusive comprehensive jurisdiction over the entire
distribution system, substation, overhead lines, [and] underground lines.” Edison
asserted the PUC was the entity responsible for regulating the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the electrical distribution systems. Edison asserted
plaintiffs needed to file a claim with the PUC, explain why there was an alleged
8
violation, then, if the PUC agreed there has been a violation, the plaintiffs may return to
court. (§ 1702.)3
Plaintiffs asserted Edison’s jurisdiction argument relied on General Order 174,
which related to substations. Plaintiffs argued their claim related to the distribution
system (not the substation), which is not included in General Order 174. Plaintiffs
contended their claim related to a violation of Rule 36.4, which concerned the earth not
being used a normal return for electric currents.
The court said, “All right. The Court sustains the demurrer as to Southern
California Edison Company without leave to amend.” In the written order, the trial
court explained that it sustained the demurrer “on the ground that Plaintiffs’ claims are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the [PUC].” The court did not state reasons as to
why it concluded the claims fell within the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
A. CONTENTION
On appeal, plaintiffs contend the Wilson case is on-point and should be followed
by this court. (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th 123.)
3 Section 1702 provides, in relevant part, “Complaint may be made by the commission of its own motion or by any corporation or person . . . by written petition or complaint, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the commission.”
9
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A demurrer is properly sustained when the complaint ‘does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action,’ or where the court ‘has no jurisdiction [over]
the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.’” (Debrunner v. Deutsche
subds. (a) & (e).) We apply the de novo standard when reviewing a trial court’s ruling
sustaining a demurrer.
C. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Edison contends plaintiffs are bound by the statements they made “in connection
with their Opposition to [Edison’s] Demurrer that their claims are not based on anything
emitted from the substation, but rather on stray current allegedly resulting from
[Edison’s] use of the ‘ground or earth’ as ‘a normal return,’ in violation of Rule 36.4.
Plaintiffs confirmed this basis of their claims (i) after four amendments of their
complaint in the trial court, (ii) in their Opposition to [Edison’s] Demurrer, (iii) at oral
argument on the Demurrer, and (iv) in their motion for reconsideration.”
“Judicial admissions may be made in a pleading, by stipulation during trial, or by
response to request for admission.” (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178
Cal.App.4th 735, 746.) Notably, Edison does not assert plaintiffs’ theory was made in a
pleading, by stipulation during trial, or in response to a request for admission. Edison
asserts the “admissions” were made after the pleadings and in various arguments.
Further, the facts and legal theories upon which plaintiffs are relying, in
complaining of injuries resulting from stray electrical currents, are found in the FAC.
10
As two examples: (1) plaintiffs allege in the “Factual Issues” section of the FAC, “Only
when the stray electricity cause of the further injuries was discovered did Plaintiffs learn
of the additional concurrent cause of their additional injuries which were not mold-
related”; and (2) plaintiffs allege in the negligence cause of action, “[T]heir serious
medical and health problems were, and are, a direct, proximate, and legal result of the
stray, uncontrolled excessive electric current.”
Because (1) the facts and theory of fault upon which plaintiffs are relying are
included in the FAC; and (2) the comments about Rule 36.4 were not made in a format
that would cause them to be judicial admissions, we conclude plaintiffs are not bound
by the theory that jurisdiction is based upon a violation of Rule 36.4.
D. WILSON
In Wilson, the plaintiff (Wilson) sued Edison for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, and nuisance. Wilson’s “claims alleged, in essence,
stray voltage generated by the Topaz substation entered into Wilson’s home, causing
shocks to Wilson, and that Edison knew of the stray voltage from the substation . . . and
failed to maintain the safety of the residents living next to the substation. Wilson
contended at trial that any level of stray voltage on the property was unacceptable, and
Edison was liable for failing to eliminate it.” (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at pp.
139-140, fn. omitted.) Wilson prevailed at trial and was awarded damages. Edison
raised the PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction for the first time in a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the motion. (Id. at p. 140.)
11
On appeal, Edison argued Wilson’s claims fell within the PUC’s exclusive
jurisdiction. The appellate court disagreed, finding the trial court had jurisdiction over
the claims. (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 140.) Edison asserted (1) the PUC
had broad authority to regulate electrical distribution systems; (2) the PUC had
exercised its authority by issuing regulations “for every possible aspect of electric
distribution systems”; and (3) the jury’s award interfered with the PUC’s regulations by
imposing liability on Edison for stray voltage that resulted from Edison complying with
the PUC’s regulations and effectively finding Edison was required to eliminate stray
voltage, which is not a requirement set forth by the PUC.4 (Id. at p. 147.)
In Wilson’s appellate brief, she focused on the second Covalt prong, asserting the
PUC did not specifically regulate stray voltage so the claim did not fall within the
PUC’s exclusive jurisdiction. (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 148.) The
appellate court concluded a specific regulation was not required in order to trigger
exclusive jurisdiction, but concluded the general nature of the PUC’s regulations
resulted in Edison being unable to show that Wilson’s claims would hinder or interfere
with a PUC policy, i.e., the third prong of the Covalt test. (Id. at p. 150.)
The appellate court gave three different reasons in support of its conclusion. The
appellate court’s first reason was “although there is no doubt that the General Orders
4 For ease of reference, as set forth ante, the Covalt questions are: (1) whether the PUC has the authority to adopt a policy on (a) the alleged problematic/risky condition, e.g., stray voltage, and (b) “what action, if any, the utilities should take to minimize that risk”; (2) whether the PUC has exercised its authority to adopt a policy concerning the problematic/risky condition; and (3) whether the lawsuit would hinder or interfere with that policy. (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 923, 926, 935.)
12
require grounding of substations, it may be that Edison could comply with the
regulations and still mitigate the stray voltage that results from grounding.” (Wilson,
supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 149.) In other words, any mitigation that may be necessary
due to the court case could possibly be accomplished without hindering the PUC’s
existing regulations related to grounding.
In presenting its second reason, the appellate court observed that General Order
174 requires electric utilities to “establish and update an inspection program for its
substations, maintain records of its inspections, and submit annual inspection program
summaries and reports summarizing completed inspections.” (Wilson, supra, 234
Cal.App.4th at p. 150.) Additionally, utilities must “meet annually to share their newly
developed practices and review their own practices in light of other utilities’ practices,
with the expectation that ‘a “best practice” will evolve that shows how to most
effectively operate and safely control the electric systems in California.’” (Ibid.) The
appellate court wrote, “it is unclear whether this ‘best practice’ will address stray
voltage issues. Therefore, we cannot say with any certainty that litigation of Wilson’s
claims would hinder or interfere with the PUC’s regulatory policy.” (Ibid.) In other
words, “best practices” is so broad it may or may not include stray voltage issues, and
therefore, it cannot be said the PUC’s policy will be hindered by the litigation.
As a third reason, the appellate court explained that prior contrary cases, in
which it was concluded the PUC had exclusive jurisdiction over parties’ claims, were
“of a vastly different character” because they tended to involve issues in which “the
PUC conducted (or was in the process of conducting) investigations into or adopted
13
regulations on the specific issue alleged in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.” (Wilson, supra, 234
Cal.App.4th at p. 150.)
In concluding, the appellate court wrote, “In light of the absence of any
indication that the PUC has investigated or regulated the issue of stray voltage, and
without any evidence that stray voltage cannot be mitigated without violating the PUC’s
regulation requiring grounding, we cannot say that Wilson’s lawsuit would interfere
with or hinder any supervisory or regulatory policy of the PUC. Therefore, we hold that
Wilson’s claims are not within the exclusive authority of the PUC under section 1759.”5
(Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 151.)
We see nothing internally inconsistent in Wilson, such that we would conclude
the case was wrongly decided. The appellate court, for three different and logical
reasons, concluded the third prong of the Covalt test was not met by Edison.
Accordingly, we do not reject Wilson outright. Instead, we must decide if it is
applicable in the instant case; however, we will first address Edison’s assertions that
Wilson was wrongly decided.
First, Edison contends Wilson was wrongly decided because the appellate court
did not explicitly address all three prongs of the Covalt test. In particular, Edison
5 Section 1759 provides: “(a) No court of this state, except the Supreme Court and the court of appeal, to the extent specified in this article, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, as provided by law and the rules of court. [¶] (b) The writ of mandamus shall lie from the Supreme Court and from the court of appeal to the commission in all proper cases as prescribed in Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
14
asserts the appellate court failed to address the first two prongs of the Covalt test, i.e.
authority and the exercise of authority. The Wilson court did not need to address the
first two prongs of the Covalt test in detail because it found in favor of Edison on those
prongs. The appellate court wrote, “[T]here is no doubt that the General Orders [of the
PUC] require grounding of substations.” (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 149.)
Thus, the court found (1) the PUC had the authority to issue regulations in the relevant
area, and (2) the PUC had exercised its authority to do so. The primary question in the
case, and the issue the appellate court focused upon was the third prong—whether the
litigation would interfere with that policy. (Id. at pp. 149-151.) Thus, we are not
persuaded that the case was wrongly decided—the first two prongs did not need to be
addressed in detail given the manner in which the Wilson court resolved the dispute.
Second, in regard to the Wilson court’s first line of reasoning—that there was no
evidence the possible voltage mitigation would interfere with the PUC’s policy—Edison
contends that reasoning is incorrect because the opinion “provides no authority or
explanation for why factual development on this issue should play a role in determining
whether the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction.” Whether mitigation would interfere with
the PUC’s policy is relevant to the third prong of the Covalt test. Wilson, in her lawsuit,
was requesting the stray voltage be eliminated. (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p.
140.) Thus, the court had to consider whether this request, to eliminate or mitigate the
voltage, i.e., somehow resolve the stray voltage problem, would interfere with the
PUC’s policy, per the third prong of the Covalt test. (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p.
935.) In other words, the discussion is relevant to the third prong of the Covalt test.
15
Third, in regard to the Wilson court’s second line of reasoning—the lack of
clarity as to whether “best practices” would address stray voltage issues—Edison faults
the opinion for “not discuss[ing] whether imposing liability on [Edison] for stray
voltage would hinder or interfere with any PUC regulatory policy.” Contrary to
Edison’s position, that is exactly what the Wilson court is discussing. The “best
practices” discussion is part of a larger discussion regarding General Order 174.
(Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 150.) The appellate court was examining whether
the requirement that utilities gather to discuss “best practices” as ordered by the PUC
would be effected by this stray voltage litigation. The appellate court concluded, “it is
unclear whether this ‘best practice’ will address stray voltage issues.” (Ibid.) Hence,
the appellate court concluded there was nothing indicating the litigation would affect the
PUC’s policy, because there was nothing indicating a contrary stray voltage policy
would be implemented. (Ibid.)
Fourth, as to the Wilson court’s third line of reasoning—that cases where the
PUC was found to have exclusive jurisdiction were “of a vastly different character”—
Edison asserts, “The decision does not attempt to reconcile this observation with
Covalt’s statement that the absence of a specific regulation is not dispositive and that
[s]ection 1759 prohibits interference even with ‘a general supervisory or regulatory
policy.’”
Contrary to Edison’s position, the opinion addresses this exact point. In Wilson,
the appellate court wrote, “We disagree with Wilson’s assertion that section 1759
applies in this case only if the PUC has issued a specific regulation on stray voltage. In
16
Covalt, the Court observed that under the Waters rule, section 1759 barred an action for
damages ‘not only when an award of damages would directly contravene a specific
order or decision of the commission . . . but also when an award of damages would
simply have the effect of undermining a general supervisory or regulatory policy of the
commission, i.e., when it would “hinder” or “frustrate” or “interfere with” or “obstruct”
that policy.’” (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 148.) Thus, the Wilson court
explicitly discussed that the absence of a specific regulation is not dispositive, i.e., the
appellate court’s discussion is about the PUC’s general policies.
In sum, Edison’s arguments about Wilson being wrongly decided are
unpersuasive.
E. JURISDICTION
1. WILSON
As explained ante, in Wilson, the plaintiff brought causes of action for
(1) negligence; (2) nuisance; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 129.) In Wilson, Wilson complained of “stray
voltage generated by the Topaz substation enter[ing] into [her] home, causing shocks to
[her], and that Edison knew of the stray voltage from the substation, but failed to
properly operate, maintain, or control the substation, and failed to maintain the safety of
the residents living next to the substation.” Wilson sought to have the stray voltage
eliminated on her property. (Id. at pp. 139-140.)
17
2. COMPLAINT
We now examine the jurisdiction issue in the instant case. As set forth ante,
plaintiffs brought causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) nuisance; (3) trespass;
(4) strict liability/products liability; (5) strict liability/implied warranty of fitness;
(6) strict liability/ultra hazardous activity; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Plaintiffs are complaining of stray voltage entering their property from the
Indian Wells substation. Plaintiffs allege they have suffered health issues due to the
stray voltage from the substation.
3. NEGLIGENCE
In their first cause of action, plaintiffs contend Edison negligently “managed,
engineered, and controlled the Indian Wells substation,” and that it negligently
“staff[ed], supervise[d], secure[d], operate[d], or control[led]” the substation. Plaintiffs
also complain Edison negligently provided “repairs, maintenance and customer
service,” and “fail[ed] to reasonably and/or diligently monitor, test, secure, maintain,
inspect, and control the Indian Wells Substation and its electricity emissions.”
To the extent all of these actions are focused upon stray voltage, the reasoning of
the Wilson opinion would support the superior court having jurisdiction over the matter.
Both cases concern injuries resulting from stray voltage emanating from or returning to
substations. Edison has not persuaded us that Wilson is incorrect. Accordingly, since
plaintiffs’ claims are similar to those in Wilson, in that they both concern stray voltage
from or returning to substations, we conclude the superior court has jurisdiction over the
18
matter because there is nothing indicating litigation over stray voltage would hinder or
interfere with a PUC policy.
4. NUISANCE, TRESPASS, AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
In the second cause of action, for nuisance, plaintiffs alleged stray electrical
currents from the substation were entering their property, and they have suffered health
issues as a result. In the third cause of action, plaintiffs alleged Edison trespassed on
their property with stray electrical currents. In the seventh cause of action, plaintiffs
asserted that stray electrical currents caused them to suffer distress, discomfort, anxiety,
fear, and anguish. These allegations are on-point with the allegations in the Wilson
case, which also included allegations of nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional
distress in relation to stray electrical currents from a substation. (Wilson, supra, 234
Cal.App.4th at pp. 139-140.) As explained ante, we have found nothing indicating the
Wilson decision is incorrect. Accordingly, the stray voltage litigation will not hinder or
interfere with a PUC policy, and, therefore, the superior court has jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ case.
5. STRICT LIABILITY—PRODUCTS LIABILITY, IMPLIED
WARRANTY OF FITNESS, AND ULTRA HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY
In the fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action, plaintiffs present claims that are
labeled as “strict liability.” Edison does not assert a different jurisdictional analysis
would apply to the strict liability causes of action. Accordingly, since the strict liability
causes of action are also related to the stray voltage allegations, we conclude, as the
19
appellate court did in Wilson, that litigation concerning stray voltage will not hinder or
interfere with a PUC policy. (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 151.)
6. CONCLUSION
We conclude the superior court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims as they
relate to stray electrical currents.
F. HARTWELL
Edison contends the case of Hartwell Corporation v. Superior Court (2002) 27
Cal.4th 256 (Hartwell), supports the conclusion that the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction
over plaintiffs’ claims. In Hartwell, there were three groups of plaintiffs, one of which
included over 100 coplaintiffs. The complaints included causes of action for
negligence, strict liability, trespass, public and private nuisance, fraudulent
concealment, and wrongful death. (Id. at pp. 260-261.) The cases concerned
allegations of unsafe drinking water.
In response to the lawsuits filed against the utilities, the PUC filed an order
instituting an investigation into the safety of the utilities’ drinking water supplies.
(Hartwell, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 262.) Due to the PUC’s investigation, the utilities
argued the superior court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims (§ 1759).
(Hartwell, at p. 263.) The intermediate court of appeal concluded the superior court
lacked jurisdiction over water quality issues involving the regulated utilities, but not
over the nonregulated water providers. (Id. at p. 264.) One group of plaintiffs appealed.
(Ibid.)
20
The Supreme Court concluded the PUC had regulatory authority over water
quality issues and that it had exercised its authority over those issues. (Hartwell, supra,
27 Cal.4th at pp. 272, 274.) As to the third prong of the Covalt test, the Supreme Court
found a claim for damages based upon water being unsafe, even if it met PUC
standards, would hinder or interfere with the PUC’s regulatory authority because it
“‘would plainly undermine the [PUC’s] policy,’” by finding the utility at fault for doing
all that was required by the PUC. (Hartwell, at p. 276.) However, the Supreme Court
concluded that damage claims based upon the water failing to meet federal and state
drinking water standards would not be preempted. The court reasoned that a jury award
based upon a public utility violating standards set by the Department of Health Services
(as opposed to the PUC’s standard) would not interfere with a PUC policy. (Id. at pp.
276-277.)
As explained in Wilson, the Hartwell type of case is “of a vastly different
character” because “the PUC conducted (or was in the process of conducting)
investigations into or adopted regulations on the specific issue alleged in the plaintiffs’
lawsuit.” (Wilson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 150.) In Hartwell, the PUC was
actively conducting an investigation into the safety of the utilities’ drinking water
supplies. (Hartwell, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 262.) The investigation was instituted in
response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuits. (Ibid.) The instant case is distinguishable because
there is nothing indicating the PUC is investigating the stray voltage issue or has
otherwise addressed the stray voltage issue in a manner that would cause the current
21
litigation to interfere with a PUC policy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Edison’s reliance on Hartwell.
G. EMF
1. FAC
In the FAC, plaintiffs mix allegations related to electric and magnetic fields
(EMF) with their stray voltage allegations. In the first cause of action, for negligence,
plaintiffs alleged: “Plaintiffs had no knowledge, and had no reason to know, of the
presence of the stray, uncontrolled electrical currents emitted from the Indian Wells
substation, resulting in dangerously high levels of electrical current in the ground which
create a further magnetic charge in the immediate surroundings in, about and throughout
Plaintiffs’ Home, until these issues were brought to their attention by a medical
diagnosis of Plaintiff Kathy Seacrist’s injuries as possibly stemming from stray current
discharge from a neighboring electrical facility.”
Plaintiffs also alleged, “Plaintiffs began understanding that the serious safety,
health and medical issues they experienced, and continue to experience, were a direct,
proximate, and legal result of living in a Home subject to the electrical currents and high
levels of magnetic frequency in the air arising therefrom, in and about the Seacrist
Home.” Also in the first cause of action, plaintiffs assert, “Defendants knew that there
were, and are, excessive electric currents and voltage from the adjacent substation
resulting in dangerously high levels of current and magnetic frequency in, about, and
throughout the Desert Rose Development.” Plaintiffs further alleged, “Defendants
carelessly, recklessly, negligently, and unlawfully failed and refused to eliminate the
22
hazardous conditions and to properly protect and maintain the safety of the Plaintiffs
from the foreseeable danger of the excessive electric currents and high levels of
magnetic frequency in, around, and throughout their Home.”
Other causes of action have a similar mixture of stray voltage and EMF
allegations. The second cause of action, for nuisance, reflects, “At all times mentioned
herein and relevant hereto, residential properties and homes located adjacent to the
Indian Wells Substation, were, and are, subject to entry by stray, uncontrolled electrical
currents that are generated, emitted, and traveling from said substation, and there were,
and continue to be, excessive electric currents and voltage from said adjacent substation
resulting in dangerously high levels of current and magnetic frequency in, about, and
throughout adjacent residential properties and homes, including the Home of Plaintiffs.”
EMF allegations are expressly mixed into the third cause of action (trespass), the
fifth cause of action (strict liability—implied warranty of fitness), the sixth cause of
action (strict liability—ultra hazardous activity), and the seventh cause of action
(intentional infliction of emotional distress).
2. COVALT
The Covalt case concerned allegations of personal injury caused by EMF
resulting from power lines. San Diego Gas & Electric demurred on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction because the Covalts’ lawsuit “would hinder or frustrate a general
regulatory policy of the commission [(the PUC)].” (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp.
911-912.) The Supreme Court found the PUC exercised its “authority to adopt a policy
on power line electric and magnetic fields.” (Id. at p. 926.) The Supreme Court
23
explained the Legislature had directed the PUC to research and report on health risks
“associated with power line electric and magnetic fields.” (Ibid.) In the report, the PUC
discussed “whether statewide regulation of power line electric and magnetic fields
would be timely and appropriate.” (Id. at p. 927.)
The high court noted the PUC also issued a decision addressing “power line
electric and magnetic fields.” (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 928.) In the decision,
Edison was granted “a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a
new 220 kV transmission line 38 miles long between its Kramer and Victor substations
in San Bernardino County. In discussing environmental considerations, the [PUC]
reiterated that ‘studies to date allow one to reach virtually any conclusion as to whether
the electromagnetic fields emanating from transmission lines pose hazards to health.’”
(Ibid.)
Four months after the decision, the PUC reopened and expanded its inquiry into
EMF for the purpose of developing “‘policies and procedures for addressing the
potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities.’” (Covalt,
supra, 13 Cal.4th at 929.) The PUC then appointed an advisory panel to address EMF
concerns. (Ibid.) The PUC issued an interim order addressing “‘electric and magnetic
fields (EMF) related to electric utility facilities and power lines.’” (Id. at p. 930.)
“[T]he commission concluded that ‘it is reasonable to establish an EMF policy for
electric utility facilities and power lines’ [citation], and it proceeded to do so.” (Id. at p.
931.)
24
In the policy, the PUC (1) ordered utilities to implement steps to reduce or
mitigate EMF at “new and upgraded facilities”; (2) expressed interest in creating a
record on some issues for the purpose of possibly developing an “‘EMF policy for
existing facilities’”; (3) ordered a workshop for developing “‘design guidelines’ to
follow in designing and siting new power line facilities, for the purpose of mitigating
electric and magnetic fields”; (4) declared the need for a uniform policy on measuring
EMF in customers’ buildings; (5) created a committee to advise the PUC on EMF;
(6) created a coordinated effort to educate people about EMF; and (7) created a research
program into EMF. (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 931-934.)
Based upon the foregoing actions, the Supreme Court concluded, “There is no
doubt that the [PUC] is still actively pursuing the broad policy inquiry into the potential
health effects of power line electric and magnetic fields.” (Covalt, supra, 13 Cal.4th at
934.) As a result, the court determined the Covalts’ lawsuit, to the extent it stated
sufficient causes of action, would hinder or interfere with that policy. (Id. at p. 935.)
3. ANALYSIS
Edison asserts that, due to the EMF claims, plaintiffs’ case is analogous to
Covalt. Plaintiffs distinguish their case from Covalt by asserting their allegations do not
relate to overhead power lines.
In Covalt, the court discusses the PUC creating policy for EMF in relation to
power lines and in relation to electric utility facilities. Electric utility facilities would
arguably be broader than power lines and could include substations. However, the
court’s jurisdictional conclusion in Covalt appears to relate only to power lines. For
25
example, the Supreme Court found the PUC exercised its “authority to adopt a policy on
power line electric and magnetic fields.” (Id. at p. 926.) Because (1) it is unclear if the
electric utility facilities discussed in Covalt include substations, and (2) the holding of
Covalt does not extend beyond power lines, we conclude the Covalt holding does not
extend to EMF generated by stray voltage from substations.
“A demurrer tests ‘only the legal sufficiency of the complaint.’” (Title Inc. Co.
v. Comerica Bank—California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) The facts pled by
plaintiffs appear to fall outside of Covalt because, on the face of the FAC, plaintiffs are
complaining about EMF caused by stray voltage from a substation, not EMF generated
by power lines.
It is possible that in a summary judgment motion, or at another point in the trial
process, evidence will reflect the PUC has jurisdiction over EMF claims related to
substations because the PUC has policy on the subject; however, at this point, looking at
the face of the FAC, the facts as pled do not fall within Covalt. (See Greener v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036 [a challenge to the court’s
subject matter jurisdiction is properly brought by demurrer to the complaint, motion to
strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for summary judgment, or in an
answer].)
26
H. CONCLUSION
The parties agree that the only issue on appeal is whether the PUC has exclusive
jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. We conclude the PUC does not have exclusive
jurisdiction; the trial court has jurisdiction over the claims raised by plaintiffs.6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. Appellants are awarded their costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
KING J.
6 Edison requests this court take judicial notice of (1) the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s invitation for the PUC to file an amicus brief in a case pending in that county; and (2) a June 2014 amicus brief the PUC filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, in response to the invitation. It appears both documents are part of a court record in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Accordingly, we grant the request for judicial notice, as required by law. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)
27
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) does not have exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving injuries resulting from stray electrical currents, and therefore the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer.
Issues
Whether the California Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over claims for injuries caused by stray electrical currents from an electrical substation.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition. Reversed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) does not have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving injuries resulting from stray electrical currents from a substation.”
“we hold that Wilson’s claims are not within the exclusive authority of the PUC under section 1759.”