Chit?010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY _Scott A. Freedman Emily L. Brough SBN: 240872 284943 ZACKS, FREEDMAN PATTERSON, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 TELEPHONE No.:4 5-288-9755 ATTORNEY FOR Imperial Irrigation District SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STREET Main Street MAILING Main Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: Riverside, 92501 BRANCH NAME: Riverside Historic Courthouse CASE NAME: Imperial Irrigation District v. Riverside County Board of Supervisors, et al. CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: Unlimited Limited (Amount (Amount i:i Counter i:i Jornder JUDGE. demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules 01 Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09) DemagelWronglul Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) DEEDS SUBBED A5be5103i04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) I: "ab'l'ly (24) Real Property Environmental/T0xic tort (30) Med'cal malpracnce (45) 1: Eminent Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other (23) (14) above listed provisionally complex case I t' 33 134065141) (Other) Tort rong evrc Ionl Business tortlunlalr business practice (07) Oiher real propeny (26) Enlorcement 0' JUdgmem Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer El Enforcement of judgment (20) El Defamation (13) Commel?Cial (31} Miscellaneous Civil Complaint [3 Fraud (16) Ci Residential (32) CI RICO (27) Cl Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Cl Other Complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) i:i Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition El Other to? (35) El Asset forre'lure (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Ci Petition re: arbitration award (11) El Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) El Other ludicial review (39) 2. This case i:i is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex. mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. CI Large number of separately represented parties d. I: Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court 0. El Substantial amountof documentary evidence f. 1: Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all thatapply): a. monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory orinjunctive relief C- l: punitive 4. Numberof causes of action (specify): One (I) 5. This case :1 is is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. You may use form Cliff-015.) Datez07/l3/18 Emily L. Brouah (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIEMRE or PARTY on At TORNEY FDR NOTICE 0 Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. as 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2 30, 3.220, 3.400?3 403. 3.740: Judicial Council of Calilornia Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-OIO [Flev. July 1. 2007] fa. ca. gov I. Bulwar- SCOTT A. FREEDMAN (SBN 240872) EMILY L. BROUGH (SBN 284943) ZACKS, FREEDMAN PATTERSON, PC 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 956?8100 Facsimile: (415) 288?9755 emily@zfplaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, (Gov?t Code 6103) Petitioner, Case No. v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAT (CCP 11 1085), PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE STAY RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF KEVIN JEFFRIES, JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE, CHUCK WASHINGTON, V. MANUEL AND MARION ASHLEY, IN THEIR OFFICIAL COUNTY OF AND DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE, Respondents. I. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing and commanding Respondents to repeal an ordinance which unlawfully erodes the regulatory authority of both the California Legislature and the California Public Utilities Commission as to subsidized mandatory solar tariffs for customer-generators. Respondent County of Riverside?s Ordinance No. 943 (?Ordinance?) expressly purports to supersede Petitioner?s net energy metering (at times, referred PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF program rules, regulations, and orders, despite the California Legislature having occupied the entire ?eld of net energy metering solar tariffs as a matter of general law through the passage of Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827, et. seq. 2. Further, Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing and commanding Respondents to rescind an unlawful indemnity agreement between them and the third-party sponsor of the Ordinance. Respondents cannot be indemni?ed for the expenses incurred in defending an ordinance they knew violated the California Constitution and Public Utilities Code at the time the ordinance was adopted. 3. Finally, in addition to the aforesaid writs of mandate, Petitioner also seeks issuance of an immediate stay of the enforcement of the Ordinance pending a determination of the merits. Petitioner alleges as follows: 11. PARTIES 4. Petitioner Imperial Irrigation District is a publicly owned electric utility. 11D and entered the power industry in 1936. Today, IID serves electricity to more than 145,000 customers in Imperial County, California and parts of Riverside and San Diego counties. is governed by a ?ve-member board of directors. Elected by the public, each director represents one of five political divisions within the Imperial Valley. brings this action solely in the public interest, by a public entity on behalf of the public. No relief is sought greater than or different from the relief sought for the public or a class of public utilities. 5. Respondent Riverside County (?County?) is a public body, corporate and political, created under the laws of the State of California. 6. Respondent Riverside County Board of Supervisors (?Board? or ?Board of Supervisors?) is a policy making and supervisory body of the County of Riverside. 7. Chuck Washington, V. Manuel Perez, Kevin Jeffries, John F. Tavaglione, and Marion Ashley are members of the Board of Supervisors and named in their of?cial capacities 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF only. 111. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 410.10 and Cal. Const. Art. VI, 10, which confers upon Superior Courts original jurisdiction over writs of mandate. 9. Initial venue in Riverside County is proper under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 394 and 395. Petitioner is a local agency situated in Imperial County, and Respondents are (1) a county situated in Riverside County; (2) a local agency situated in Riverside County, and; (3) of?cers of a local agency that is situated in Riverside County. Pursuant to Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. 394(a), Petitioner intends to immediately move for mandatory transfer of this action to a neutral county. IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Under California Public Utilities Code 2827, developed a standard contract or tariff providing for net energy metering and made the standard contract or tariff available to eligible customer-generators upon request until the time that the total rated generating capacity used by eligible customer-generators exceeded 5 percent of aggregate customer peak demand. The relevant portion of the code states that a utility . . is not obligated to provide net energy metering to additional eligible customer-generators . . beyond the 5 percent peak demand. While 11D could choose to exceed the limit, it cannot be compelled to do so. 11. IID reached its 5 percent limit upon adopting 50 MW of net energy metering contracts. IID served customers wishing to be a part of net energy metering program on a ?rst?come, ?rst-serve basis. Upon reaching the 50 MW limit, extended participation in the program beyond the 50 MW limit to those meeting certain application deadlines. This resulted in a measured expansion beyond the 50 MW limit which was then closed to additional participation. 12. All subsequent solar installations seeking to sell their excess energy back to have been placed into a separate solar tariff called ?net billing,? which offers rates for excess solar consistent with market prices. By adopting the net billing program, was able to offer a solar tariff to all would?be participants. 3 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 13. The California Legislature, in enacting Pub. Util. Code 2827(c)(l), fully occupied as a matter of general law the net energy metering programs public utilities are required to provide to their customers. 14. On June 26, 2018, the Board of Supervisors enacted the Ordinance purportedly to establish regulations and procedures for net energy metering for ?Irrigation Districts? operating within the County?s jurisdiction. A true and correct copy of the Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. The Ordinance is local legislation in con?ict with Pub. Util. Code 2827. The Ordinance is void because it contradicts and/or enters an area fully occupied by general law in violation of Cal. Const., Art. XI, 7. Section 3 of the Ordinance expressly purports to supersede net energy metering program under Pub. Util. Code 2827: ?This ordinance (No. 943) shall be deemed to occupy the field with regard to NEM programs offered by Irrigation Districts to Customer-Generators in the County and shall supersede any existing NEM program rules, regulations, and orders adopted by Irrigation Districts for Customer-Generators in the County.? 16. On June 26, 2018, on information and belief, the Board knew they were enacting the unlawful Ordinance at the behest of a Riverside County-based solar company owner, Vincent Battaglia (?Battaglia?). Battaglia is the owner of Renova Energy Corp., incorporated in the State of California. 17. Battaglia was the first member of the public to make a presentation at the June 26, 2018, Board of Supervisors meeting. Battaglia?s presentation was premised upon numerous factual misstatements: he claimed IID ?opted out of offering a solar program currently available to millions of Americans? and then declared ?Ordinance 943 will bring solar back to customers,? despite IID offering both a solar net energy metering program and a companion solar tariff program with no participation limit. 18. Battaglia did not disclose to the public at the Board of Supervisors meeting his personal ?nancial interest in the passage of the Ordinance. The Ordinance purports to increase the amount IID would be required to pay solar users for their excess energy, subsidizing the 4 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF market for solar panel installations. On information and belief, Battaglia?s Renova Energy Corp. participates in the business of solar panel sales and installations. 19. The Board?s June 26, 2018, initial decision to approve the Ordinance also appears to be the result of non-public meetings between a majority of the Board of Supervisors and the Ordinance?s main proponent, Battaglia. The comments and actions of both the Board of Supervisors and Battaglia at the meeting with respect to the Ordinance strongly indicate the Board of Supervisors and Battaglia employed direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices to develop a collective concurrence on the decision to adopt Ordinance No. 943 before the approval made on June 26, 2018. 20. Battaglia intimated during his comments: ?[A]bout a year ago, talk began about the ordinance that you?re set to vote on today and since has been championed by Supervisor Perez 3! and his team. On information and belief, Battaglia thereby admitted the Board of Supervisors began its non-public development of its collective concurrence regarding the Ordinance long before the June 26, 2018, public meeting at which the Board approved the Ordinance. 21. Battaglia then intimated immediately afterwards: ?You?re doing the work of very brave men when you right a wrong, as Ordinance 943 does. You are true heroes. And I humbly thank you on behalf of the 300,000 plus folks that 943 will directly and positively impact.? On information and belief, Battaglia?s comments were thanking the Board of Directors as ?true heroes? who would ?right a wrong? in the present tense, as if the Board members had already told Mr. Battaglia they would approve the Ordinance. 22. Indeed, within the ?rst ten seconds after Battaglia concluded his comments, a Board member could be seen and heard laughing, while Board Chair Chuck Washington asked: ?Thank you, sir. Okay. Someone going to make a motion and a second?? Within another ten seconds, a?er another round of laughter involving the Board Chair, the Board rendered a 4-0 approval vote. No substantive discussions and questions occurred on the item after Battaglia?s speech. 5 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 23. The Board did not even recognize two IID speakers who had requested the opportunity to speak in opposition until after the Board already had passed the motion. IID representatives at the meeting struggled to get the attention of Board staff and the Board itself to speak regarding the Ordinance. The Board?s clerk stated she did not receive the representatives? speaker slips, despite the representatives having handed their slips to a County representative at a table set up outside speci?cally to facilitate speaking requests. 24. On June 26, 2018, when the Ordinance was approved, the Board was informed that said approval was unlawful. lID?s two representatives a government affairs of?cer and counsel advised the Board of Supervisors of the Ordinance?s unlawfulness due to an inevitable con?ict with state law. IID further informed the Board of the existence of both the net energy metering and the net billing programs available in the portions of Riverside County which IID serves. IID also explained why it cannot be required to expand its net energy metering program further under state law. 25. The Board of Supervisors delegated their duty to prepare the Ordinance on behalf of the people of Riverside County to private parties Mr. Battaglia and his personal attorney, Ryan Baron. Immediately after explanation to the Board that the Ordinance would violate state law, the Board Chair, Chuck Washington, expressed concern: ?Yeah, I would love to hear from legal counsel on this. Because we?ve got two fairly signi?cantly different opinions on this.? 26. Riverside County Counsel Department Head Gregory Priamos responded: Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Ryan Baron, with Best Best Krieger, has been involved in the drafting of the ordinance and has, uh, issued an opinion that the, um, introduction/adoption of the ordinance does comply with state law and so he?s available here to answer any questions. Thank you. 27. In so stating, Riverside County Counsel admitted shortly before the approval of the Ordinance that Mr. Baron drafted the Ordinance for the County of Riverside. Further, the Department Head of the Riverside County Counsel presented Mr. Baron to answer the Board?s questions as to the legality of the Ordinance, in place of the County Counsel?s of?ce. 6 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF 28. After Mr. Priamos? introduction, Mr. Baron spoke at the June 26, 2018, Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Baron ?rst informed the Board he based the ordinance on Ca] Water Code 22123 which provides: Any district providing electric power to areas outside its boundaries shall be subject to reasonable rules, regulations, and orders of the governing body of the city or county area being served, but, in no event, more restrictive than the rules, regulations, and orders of the Public Utilities Commission upon utilities providing electric power to cities or counties. No district may impose rates, rules, regulations, or orders in any such area outside its boundaries which are different from rates, rules, regulations, or orders imposed within the district, except with the consent of the governing body of the affected area. 29. However, the regulatory authority Water Code 22123 grants to local agencies like the Board of Supervisors is subject to the restrictions of Cal. Const., Art. XI, 7. The Board of Supervisors cannot make any rules regarding net energy metering under Water Code 22123 because the California Legislature, in adopting Pub. Util. Code 2827, has occupied the ?eld of net energy metering as a matter of the State?s general law. 30. Mr. Baron also factually misrepresented what the Ordinance sought to do, claiming it would regulate existing open participation net billing program, and not 50 MW limited net billing program directly regulated by Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827(c)(1): I would also note that the program established by IID is, um while the NEM program is closed, the successor program that is being regulated under the ordinance is called a Net Billing Program, and it?s not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, and, therefore, we don?t believe that there?s anything inconsistent between this ordinance?s regulation of that net-billing program and, um, uh, the, uh, Public Utilities Commission regulation of investor-owned utilities net?energy metering programs. 31. Yet Section 3 of the Ordinance states, in all capital letters, the purpose of the Ordinance: EXISTING NEM PROGRAM RULES, REGULATIONS, AND Section 3 then proceeds to ?occupy the ?eld with regard to NEM programs offered by Irrigation Districts to Customer-Generators in the County . . . Indeed, not a single reference to a net billing program, or any permutation thereof, exists in the Ordinance. 7 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF addition, on information and belief, the Board of Supervisors, knowing the Ordinance was unlawful, attempted to insulate the County from legal liability for adopting the Ordinance by obtaining an indemnity agreement (?Agreement?) from Battaglia and/or his af?liates. That is, the Agreement is void, because the Board of Supervisors knew at the time the Agreement was made that Battaglia was indemnifying the Board for passing an ordinance that violated Article XI 7 of the California State Constitution. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate (CCP ?1085), Prohibition, or Other Extraordinary Relief) 33. Petitioner incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 34. Petitioner requests the Court issue a writ of mandate, setting aside and voiding Ordinance no. 943, for reasons speci?ed in paragraph nos. 1-33 of this Petition, including, but not limited to, the following: 35. Under article XI, 7 of the California Constitution, county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in con?ict with general [state] laws.? [11] ?If otherwise valid local legislation con?icts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.? (Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215, 1224, cites omitted) A con?ict exists if the ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. Art. XI 7 has been uniformly interpreted to bar municipalities and counties from adopting ordinances and regulations under their police power which would purport to regulate a ?eld of activity which has already been occupied by the general law of the State of California. (See e.g. Lancaster v. Mun. Ct. for Beverly Hills Judicial Dist. (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 805, 807-808; Music Plus Four, Inc. v. Barrier (1980) 114 Cal. App. 3d 113, 123?25 [analyzing cases reaching the same 36. It is settled that a local municipal ordinance is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a ?eld that is preempted by general law. If the subject matter or ?eld 8 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF the legislation has been fully occupied by the state, there is no room for supplementary or complementary local legislation, even if the subject were otherwise one properly characterized as a municipal affair. 37. The Ordinance purports to regulate the ?eld of net energy metering programs offered by utilities in the State of California. The California Legislature occupied the field as a matter of general law when it passed Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827. Subsection thereof states: Except as provided in paragraph (4) and in Section 2827.1, every electric utility shall develop a standard contract or tariff providing for net energy metering, and shall make this standard contract or tariff available to eligible customer- generators, upon request, on a ?rst-come-?rst-served basis until the time that the total rated generating capacity used by eligible customer-generators exceeds 5 percent of the electric utility?s aggregate customer peak demand. (emphasis added) Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827. Subsection provides a modified standard for non? privately owned utilities corporations, such as IID: An electric utility that is not a large electrical corporation is not obligated to provide net energy metering to additional eligible customer-generators in its service area when the combined total peak demand of all electricity used by eligible customer-generators served by all the electric utilities in that service area furnishing net energy metering to eligible customer-generators exceeds 5 percent of the aggregate customer peak demand of those electric utilities. 38. The remainder of the Code section dictates how utilities are to administer the mandated net energy metering programs to customer-generators, and how the California Public Utilities Commission is to regulate the utilities and programs to advance the Legislature?s intent. Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827.], as referenced in 2827, further regulates the privately-owned large electricity corporations? administration of their net energy metering programs. 39. Put together, the California Legislature intended Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2827 et seq. to be the vehicle by which the California Public Utilities Commission and the utilities in the State of California would provide net energy metering services. 40. The Ordinance nevertheless indicates an attempt by the Board of Supervisors to perform its own preemption of net energy metering solar tariff. Section 3 of the Ordinance 9 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF states the intent thereof is to: EXISTING NEM PROGRAM RULES, REGULATIONS, AND Section 3 then states it would ?occupy the ?eld with regard to NEM programs offered by Irrigation Districts to Customer-Generators in the County . . . Section 2 of the Ordinance would require ?Irrigation Districts? to ?offer a NEM program that is as expansive but in no event more restrictive than . . . NEM Successor Tariff Decision (D). 16-01- 044 . . . Sections 4 7 further govern how IID would implement the newly-mandated NEM program. Section 8 even specifies civil and criminal offenses for violations of the Ordinance. 41. The Ordinance, therefore, attempts to impose additional requirements upon utilities in a field which has already been occupied by California general law, and further conflicts with the provisions of such law. Cal. Pub. Util. Code explicitly does not require non-privately owned large electric corporations, such as publicly-owned utilities like IID, to provide additional net metering services past 5 percent of its peak demand. net energy metering program has already reached its 5 percent cap and is therefore no longer required to accept further customer-generators into its net metering program. 42. Petitioner has a beneficial interest in compelling performance of the County?s ministerial duties as to the Ordinance. Petitioner understands the Ordinance would require Petitioner to provide net energy metering solar tariff services beyond the maximum required of publicly-owned utilities such as Petitioner, forcing Petitioner to provide a different solar energy payment rate for excess energy for new Riverside County customers than the rate for new customers in Petitioner?s remaining service areas. The Ordinance would further prejudice one group of ratepayers over another on the sole basis of geographic location, at the behest of a private interest who stands to benefit ?nancially from the Ordinance. Thus, the County must be ordered to rescind and repeal it, and to bar its enforcement, so that Petitioner?s statutory and constitutional rights are not infringed upon. 43. Further, on information and belief, the Board attempted to insulate the County from legal liability for enacting the Ordinance by obtaining the Agreement from Battaglia and/or his affiliates to indemnify the County for expenses relating to the Ordinance. On information and belief, the Board of Supervisors knew at the time the Agreement was made that any action to 10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF adopt or otherwise implement the Ordinance would violate Art. X1, 7 of the California Constitution and thus said Agreement is unlawful under Cal. Civ. Code 2773. Further, on information and belief, the Board knew the process by which they adopted the Ordinance was defective due to the presence of serial meetings forbidden by the Brown Act and thus, adoption of the Ordinance was unlawful. 44. The question of whether the indemnity agreement is illegal and void under Cal. Civ. Code 2773 is one of public right because the County has a public duty to comply with the California State law and to refrain from forming illegal contracts. Moreover, by insulating the County from such liability via the illegal indemnity Agreement, the Board of Supervisors removed any financial risk arising from the adoption of the unlawful Ordinance that would in?ict substantial financial harm to Petitioner. 45. Petitioner exhausted the available administrative remedies required to be pursued by it as follows: Petitioner served written comments and oral objections on the County regarding the Ordinance prior to its enactment and during the period of administrative hearings, on or about June 25, 2018 and June 26, 2018. 46. Petitioner does not have a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and therefore writ relief is necessary in order to compel the County to perform its ministerial duty and/or correct its legislative action which is unlawful and/or in excess of its authority. The County has a clear, present and sacrosanct ministerial duty to comply with the California Constitution and state law. Respondents may not participate in the making or adoption of a law or regulation which would violate the California Constitution, or enter into illegal agreements in violation of state law. Despite the County?s legal duty to rescind the unlawful Ordinance and ability to do so, the County has failed and refused to rescind its unlawful legislative act. 47. Petitioner seeks an immediate stay to enjoin Respondent from enforcing the Ordinance, as its enforcement would further harm Petitioner by violating its aforesaid statutory and constitutional rights. 11 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays forjudgment by this Court as follows: For Petitioner?s First Cause of Action: 1. For a writ of mandate or other appropriate relief, including a mandatory injunction, declaration, and/or order, directing and commanding the County to rescind, repeal, and to not enforce the Ordinance for all of the aforesaid reasons speci?ed herein; 2. For a writ of mandate commanding the County to not allow anyone else, natural person or otherwise, to enforce the Ordinance; 3. For a writ of mandate or other appropriate relief, including a mandatory injunction, declaration, and/or order, directing and commanding the County to rescind the unlawful indemni?cation Agreement between Respondents and Battaglia for the reasons speci?ed herein; 4. For an alternative and/or preemptory writ against the County for the same; 5. For a stay of the Ordinance pending the determination of the merits; 6. For costs of suit herein; 7. For reasonable attorneys? fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 and/or Gov?t Code ?800; 8. For any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Dated: July 13, 2018 ZACKS, FREEDMAN PATTERSON, PC By: . Freedman :mily L. Brough Attorneys for Petitioner 12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF the undersigned, declare: 1, James C. Hanks, am the President of the Board of Directors for Imperial Irrigation District and am authorized to execute this veri?cation on behalf of IID. I have read the foregoing ?Petition for Writ of Mandate (CCP 1 1085), Prohibition, or Other Extraordinary Relief and Request for Immediate Stay," and know its contents. The matters stated in this Petition are true based on my own personal knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 12, 2018, in Imperial, California. 6% mes C. Hanks PETITION FOR WRIT OF AND t?fmu?lmw'l FUR UECLARATURY RELIEF EXHIBITA ORDINANCE NO. 943 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR NET-ENERGY METERING BY DISTRICTS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings: a. Commission. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. b. Customer?Generaters. Those persons or entities (residential and commercial) who install small solar, wind, biogas, and fuel cell generation facilities (1 megawatt or less) to serve all or a portion of onsite electricity needs. c. Irrigation District. Those districts formed and operating pursuant to the California Irrigation District Act providing electric service in the County whose Net-energy Metering Program, de?ned herein, is not regulated by the Commission but is instead established by the governing board of the Irrigation District. d. Net-energy Metering or NEM. The Irrigation District program that allows a Customer-Generator to receive a ?nancial credit for power generated by the Customer-Generator?s onsite system and fed back to the Irrigation District. The credit is used to offset the Customer-Generator?s electricity bill. NEM is an important element of the policy framework supporting direct Customer-Generator investment in grid-tied distributed renewable energy generation, including customer-sited solar PV systems. e. Includes individuals, ?rms, corporations, partnerships, an Irrigation District, and their agents, of?cers, directors, and employees. f. Southern California Edison or SCE. An investor-owned utility or regulated by the Commission, providing over 14 Million people with electricity over 50,000 square miles in Southern California. Section 2. NET-ENERGY METERING PROGRAM. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Ordinance, pursuant to Section 22123 of the California Water Code, with the express consent and direction of the governing board of the County of Riverside, Irrigation Districts providing electric service in the County shall offer a NEM program that is as expansive but in no event more restrictive than the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission applicable to SCE for NEM customers under NEM Successor Tariff Decision (D). 16-01-044 and any decision of the Commission that supersedes such decision or otherwise governs NEM. As of the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Irrigation District shall provide Customer?Generators a credit equal to the fully bundled retail rate for generation that offsets load (coincident or non-coincident), and covers net excess generation. In addition to billing credits for net energy exported to the electric grid, participating NEM Customer-Generators shall also be exempt from standby charges, departing load charge, and costs associated with interconnection application fees, studies and distribution upgrades. In the event that the Commission? adopted rules, regulations, and orders applicable to the SCE NEM program are amended by the Commission and, as a result, this ordinance becomes more restrictive than the Commission-approved SCE NEM program, this ordinance shall be deemed amended to be consistent with and to mirror the NEM program approved by the Commission for SCE without further action required of the County governing Board. Section 3. SUPERSEDE EXISTING NEM PROGRAM RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS. This ordinance shall be deemed to occupy the ?eld with regard to NEM programs offered by Irrigation Districts to Customer-Generators in the County and shall supersede any existing NEM program rules, regulations, and orders adopted by Irrigation Districts for Customer-Generators in the County. Section 4. CREDITS. As a part of its NEM program required pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance, the Irrigation District shall provide participating Customer-Generators with a bill credit for excess generation that is exported to the electric grid during times when it is not serving onsite load. On a month-to-month basis, bill credits for the excess generation are applied to a Customer-Generator?s bill at the same retail rate (including generation, distribution, and transmission components) that the Customer- Generator would have paid for energy consumption, according to their otherwise applicable rate structure. customer?s 12-month billing period, any balance of surplus electricity is trued-up at a separate fair market value, known as net surplus compensation (NSC). The NSC rate is based on a 12- month rolling average of the market rate for energy and is currently approximately $0.04 to $0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) pursuant to Commission Decision (D.) 11-06?016. Section 5. NEM AGGREGATION. As a part of its NEM program required pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance, the Irrigation District shall also permit NEM aggregation, in which an eligible Customer-Generator elects to aggregate the electrical load from multiple meters, and NEM credits are shared among all property that is attached, adjacent, or contiguous to the generation facility. Properties eligible for NEM aggregation shall be interpreted in the same manner as the Commission has for SCE customers. A Customer-Generator must be the sole owner, lessee, or renter of the properties in order to utilize NEM aggregation. For example, an agricultural customer could use a single solar system to provide NEM bill credits to offset the electrical load from their home as well as from an irrigation pump located on an adjacent parcel. Section 6. VIRTUAL NET METERING. As a part of its NEM program required pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance, the Irrigation District shall also offer, as a part of its NEM program, Virtual Net Metering (VNM), a tariff available to multi-tenant properties that enables an owner of such property to allocate a solar system's bene?ts to tenants across multiple units. The system owner, including but not limited to owners of affordable multifamily properties, shall be permitted to allocate bill credits of a percentage of the solar generation between common load areas and tenants along a multiple service delivery points. Section 7. INTERCONNECTION FEE. As a part of its NEM program required pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance, the Irrigation District, consistent with the Commission?s rules relating to the Commission?s successor NEM tariff program may assess an one-time interconnection fee, not to exceed seventy-?ve dollars for projects of less than 1 megawatt (MW), and non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity they consume from the grid to fund special programs offered by the Irrigation District, not to exceed 3 cents per kWh. Non-bypassable charges shall be imposed on the same net interval as determined by the Commission. Section 8. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter speci?ed. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, continued or permitted. Any person so convicted shall be: (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a ?ne not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a ?rst violation; (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a ?ne not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation. The third and any additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a ?ne not exceeding one thousand dollars or six (6) months in jail or both. Notwithstanding the above, a ?rst offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a person from the responsibility for correcting the violation. Section 9. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have adopted the ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: Chairman ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD: By: Deputy (SEAL)