1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
Paul H. Lazarow (SBN 311496)
(lazarowp@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone:
(650) 461-5600
Facsimile:
(650) 461-5700
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
Southern California Gas Company
John J. Davis, Jr. (SBN 65594)
(jjdavis@msh.law)
McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry LLP
595 Market St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone:
(415) 597-7200
Facsimile:
(415) 597-7201
Attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
Utility Workers Union of America Local Unions Nos. 132, 483 and 522
J. Nathan Jensen (SBN 209580)
(Nate.jensen@cleanenergyfuels.com)
SVP Renewable Fuels & Chief Legal Officer, Clean Energy
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 800
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone:
(949) 437-1000
Facsimile:
(949) 724-1459
Attorney for Petitioner and Plaintiff
Clean Energy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Southern California Gas Company,
Utility Workers Union of America
Local Unions Nos. 132, 483 and 522,
Clean Energy,

)
)
)
)
)
Petitioners and )
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
California State Energy Resources
)
Conservation and Development
)
Commission,
)
)
Respondent and )
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

INTRODUCTION
1.

The California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development

3

Commission (“CEC”), also known as the California Energy Commission, is a state agency

4

created and governed by the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and

5

Development Act. California law requires the CEC to implement a balanced approach to

6

California’s complex energy needs that includes the use of natural gas. The CEC is required by

7

such laws to maximize the benefits of natural gas and encourage the use of all energy sources so

8

as to ensure system reliability. Despite the California Legislature’s directives to include natural

9

gas in California’s energy plans, the CEC has decided to substantially eliminate its use in the

10

State. This case seeks to require the CEC to comply with the law. While the CEC may disagree

11

with the directives imposed upon it by the Legislature, it is not free to ignore them in favor of its

12

own policy objectives, no matter how strongly felt. This case is not about the wisdom of the

13

CEC’s policy choices. It is about requiring public officials to comply with the law.

14

2.

The Legislature has recognized that “natural gas can play a significant role in

15

supporting efforts to reduce [greenhouse gas emissions],” that the natural gas system is critical to

16

a reliable and affordable energy supply, and that the natural gas industry plays an important role

17

in the economy and in developing fuel alternatives, including for transportation. The Natural

18

Gas Act, passed in 2013, codified these policy decisions by emphasizing the important role and

19

benefits of natural gas and requiring the CEC to maximize those benefits for Californians. The

20

Natural Gas Act requires the CEC to produce a report every four years to “identify strategies to

21

maximize the benefits obtained from natural gas . . . helping the state realize the environmental

22

and cost benefits afforded by natural gas” in areas including transportation, consumer end-uses,

23

gas-fired generation, the development of alternative fuels such as renewable gas, and the creation

24

of jobs in gas-related industries. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b). The Natural Gas Act is

25

consistent with other state laws requiring and encouraging the use of natural gas.

26

3.

In 2015, the CEC created a Natural Gas Act docket, held multiple workshops,

27

collected a wide range of information and input, and produced a voluminous report (the “2015

28

Natural Gas Act Report”) addressing in detail the ten areas identified in the Natural Gas Act as
-1-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

areas for which the benefits of natural gas should be optimized.
4.

The CEC’s 2019 approach to complying with its obligations under the Natural

3

Gas Act, however, was dramatically different. The CEC did not create a separate docket, did not

4

hold workshops dedicated to the Natural Gas Act, did not seek information or input from

5

stakeholders (and ignored what information it was provided), and claimed it could satisfy the

6

legislative mandate to maximize the benefits of natural gas for the ten identified areas by

7

attaching a conclusory “Appendix A” to the Integrated Energy Policy Report (“IEPR”).

8

Appendix A bore no resemblance to the CEC’s 2015 Natural Gas Act Report. Appendix A also

9

ignored substantial evidence and information submitted in comments on many of the key issues

10
11

that the Natural Gas Act required the CEC to address.
5.

The impact of the CEC’s procedure and Appendix A was to minimize the use of

12

natural gas, not to maximize its benefits, contrary to the findings and directives of the

13

Legislature.

14

6.

The CEC’s recommendation has far-reaching consequences. Among other things,

15

numerous other California agencies and governmental bodies are required by law to rely on the

16

CEC’s assessment as the basis for regulatory action.

17

7.

The Legislature included natural gas as part of its energy policy for good reason.

18

Natural gas and renewable gas are clean, affordable, resilient, and reliable sources of energy on

19

which millions of California consumers and businesses depend. Natural gas has played a

20

significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality, and natural gas

21

and renewable gas remain critical to meeting California’s energy goals. Gas-fired electric

22

generation, including industrial cogeneration, has helped reduce emissions and helped keep the

23

price of electricity more affordable over the past decades, and it remains a necessary component

24

of any electric-generation system based on intermittent renewable sources of electricity like wind

25

or solar power. The natural gas system also is key to developing and deploying new

26

technologies such as renewable gas and hydrogen that will help decarbonize the energy grid,

27

create solutions for storing power from renewable sources, reduce currently uncontrolled

28

emissions from agricultural and forestry practices including waste management, and help
-2-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

decarbonize and substantially reduce health effects and pollution from diesel emissions in the

2

transportation sector, especially in areas such as heavy-duty trucking. The natural gas and

3

renewable gas industries have large, skilled workforces and innovative companies that contribute

4

to these efforts to meet environmental goals while adding to the strength of the California

5

economy. In 2019, natural gas powered generation alone provided over 20,000 jobs to

6

Californians, with the median income for gas plant operators at approximately $50 per hour, and

7

the natural gas fuels sector accounts for over 8,000 more California jobs.1 Petitioners believe

8

that natural gas and renewable gas can be a key part of reaching California’s climate change

9

goals including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and they support and are committed

10
11

to helping the State meet those goals.
8.

The CEC, however, has disregarded state laws in furtherance of its own policy

12

preferences. In its recent 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report (“2019 IEPR”), including

13

Appendix A, the CEC has decided to discourage and in effect eliminate natural gas in the State

14

as a source of heat, light, and power. That is not its decision to make. Such sweeping changes in

15

the State’s energy policy and infrastructure are reserved for the Legislature. And, indeed, the

16

Legislature has spoken, making natural gas a key component of the State’s energy supply and

17

directing the CEC to maximize its benefits for, among other things, transportation, development

18

of renewable gas and other fuel alternatives, consumer end-uses, zero-net energy buildings, and

19

strengthening jobs and the California economy. Because the CEC did not undertake the required

20

investigation and analysis to produce a Natural Gas Act report, and did not determine how it

21

could maximize the benefits of natural gas, it will be more difficult and costly to achieve

22

California’s climate and energy goals. The CEC’s intent to reduce and ultimately eliminate the

23

natural gas system fundamentally conflicts with state laws and exceeds the CEC’s statutorily

24

limited authority.

25

9.

26
27
28

The California Constitution commits policy-making with respect to providers of

heat, light, and power to the Legislature. The Legislature’s power is plenary, and entities to
1

BW Research Partnership, 2020 California Energy and Employment Report, at 13, 17,
22, available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/2272.
-3-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

whom its power is delegated must act within the scope of the legislation that delegates the

2

power. The CEC thus is required to follow the Legislature’s statutes in discharging its duties. It

3

is not permitted to pick and choose those laws with which it agrees and reject the others.

4

Petitioners through this case seek to require the CEC to issue a 2019 IEPR and 2019 Natural Gas

5

Act Report in conformity with state law.

6
7

PARTIES
10.

Petitioner and Plaintiff the Southern California Gas Company (“SoCalGas”) is,

8

and at all times mentioned herein was, the gas distribution utility for much of Southern

9

California. SoCalGas is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. SoCalGas is a regulated

10

subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a publicly traded energy services holding company based in San

11

Diego, California. SoCalGas delivers clean, safe and reliable energy to 21.8 million consumers

12

in more than 500 communities over a pipeline system of more than 101,000 miles in length. Its

13

pipeline system also delivers natural gas to industrial customers, including gas-fired electrical

14

generation and co-generation plants. SoCalGas’s service territory encompasses approximately

15

24,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia

16

to the Mexican border, and includes Orange County. SoCalGas has nine facilities in Orange

17

County with a total of 688 employees. It provides commercial, residential, and industrial natural

18

gas service to more than 950,000 customers in Orange County.

19

11.

Petitioners and Plaintiffs Utility Workers Union of America Local Unions Nos.

20

132, 483 and 522 (“Utility Workers”) collectively represent over 4,000 members who work

21

“wall to wall” at SoCalGas. From operating and maintaining transmission and distribution

22

pipelines, repairing leaks and thereby reducing emissions, servicing residential, commercial and

23

industrial customers’ piping and appliances, to clerical, data-inputting and processing, and call

24

center workers, the Utility Workers’ members cover a vast array of technical expertise related to

25

maintaining critical natural gas infrastructure and providing service to the public. The Utility

26

Workers’ members work and provide services throughout Central and Southern California, and

27

in particular live, work and provide services in Orange County.

28

12.

Petitioner and Plaintiff Clean Energy is a leading provider of renewable natural
-4-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

gas for the transportation market in North America, with a network of approximately 550 fueling

2

stations across the United States and Canada. Clean Energy builds and operates compressed

3

natural gas (“CNG”) and liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) fueling stations, owns natural gas

4

liquefaction facilities in California and Texas, and transports bulk compressed natural gas and

5

liquefied natural gas to non-transportation customers around the United States. Clean Energy is

6

a California corporation headquartered in Newport Beach, in Orange County. Clean Energy has

7

approximately 150 employees in Orange County, including its senior executive team, and owns,

8

operates or maintains 27 natural gas vehicle fueling locations in Orange County. Clean Energy

9

serves numerous Orange County-based customers including municipalities and other public

10
11

entities.
13.

Each of SoCalGas, Utility Workers, and Clean Energy (collectively,

12

“Petitioners”) is an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(a).

13

The Integrated Energy Policy Report and the Natural Gas Act Report that the CEC is obliged to

14

produce inform and serve as the factual basis for state regulations and other actions concerning

15

natural gas and the natural gas industry and accordingly have direct impacts on Petitioners. The

16

2019 IEPR, including its Appendix A, fails to comply with California law and thereby harms

17

Petitioners immediately and substantially by seeking to phase out natural gas, by not maximizing

18

the benefits of natural gas and renewable natural gas for transportation, consumers, and industry,

19

and by not providing crucial information and policy proposals in accordance with the CEC’s

20

statutory mandates. SoCalGas participated in the proceedings leading to the development of the

21

2019 IEPR and Appendix A, including by submitting comments addressing the deficiencies in

22

the CEC’s approach and making recommendations.

23

14.

For the same reasons, Petitioners are “beneficially interested” in the CEC’s

24

compliance with California law, including the Natural Gas Act, within the meaning of Cal. Civ.

25

Proc. Code § 1085. Petitioners have economic interests that will be severely injured by the

26

CEC’s failure to comply with California law, including the Natural Gas Act.

27
28

15.

Petitioners have no other adequate legal remedy besides a writ of mandate or

injunctive relief requiring the CEC to comply with California law, including the Natural Gas Act.
-5-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

Pecuniary compensation would not afford Petitioners adequate relief, and it would in any event

2

be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the amount of compensation that would

3

afford relief to Petitioners.

4

16.

The CEC also owes a duty to the public to comply with California law, including

5

the Natural Gas Act. Petitioners are members of the public and are interested in having the laws

6

faithfully executed and the CEC’s duty enforced.

7

17.

Respondent and Defendant California Energy Commission, formally the

8

California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, is, and at all

9

times discussed herein was, a public agency of the State of California organized pursuant to the

10

Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (the “Warren-

11

Alquist Act”), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25000 et seq. Its principal offices are located in

12

Sacramento, California.

13
14

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the general

15

jurisdiction granted by the California Constitution and Civ. Proc. Code §§ 410.10, 526, 1060,

16

and 1085, and Pub. Res. Code § 25901.

17
18
19

19.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent and Defendant CEC

because the CEC is domiciled in the State of California.
20.

Venue is proper in Orange County. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 393(b). The

20

CEC’s actions giving rise to the claims are felt throughout the State of California and are felt by

21

SoCalGas, Utility Workers, and Clean Energy throughout Orange County. SoCalGas has

22

significant gas infrastructure in Orange County and distributes gas to residences and businesses

23

throughout the County. The Utility Workers have members who work and perform gas-utility-

24

related services in Orange County. Clean Energy is headquartered in Orange County and has

25

significant operations and infrastructure in Orange County.

26

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

27

A.

The CEC’s Statutory Authority and Obligations

28

21.

The Warren-Alquist Act established the CEC as a division of the California
-6-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

Natural Resources Agency in 1974 to respond to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the

2

State’s growing demand for energy resources.

3

22.

The CEC has five commissioners appointed by the Governor and confirmed by

4

the Senate. Commissioners serve staggered five-year terms. The Governor also designates a

5

chair and vice chair as primary agency leads. The CEC operates by majority vote.

6

23.

The CEC’s responsibilities include compiling information about energy uses and

7

forecasting trends, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25216, id. § 25216.5(d), licensing power plants, id.

8

§ 25216.5(a), planning for energy shortages, id. § 25216.5(b), and evaluating policies for energy

9

conservation, id. § 25216.5(c).

10
11

24.

Created by statute, the CEC’s authority to act is defined by statutes passed by the

California Legislature and signed by the Governor into law.

12

25.

The CEC is required to act in compliance with California law.

13

26.

The CEC is required to encourage the balanced use of all energy sources,

14

including natural gas. In so doing, it is required to avoid reliance on a single source of energy,

15

which the Legislature determined could lead to undesirable consequences.

16

27.

The CEC “shall conduct an ongoing assessment of the opportunities and

17

constraints presented by all forms of energy. The commission shall encourage the balanced use

18

of all sources of energy to meet the state’s needs and shall seek to avoid possible undesirable

19

consequences of reliance on a single source of energy.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25400 (emphasis

20

added).

21

28.

In creating and authorizing the CEC, California’s Legislature made clear the

22

essential role government plays in ensuring the reliability of California’s energy supply and

23

confirmed the government’s constitutional role in regulating providers of heat, light, and power.

24

“The Legislature further finds and declares that government has an essential role to ensure that a

25

reliable supply of energy is provided consistent with protection of public health and safety,

26

promotion of the general welfare, maintenance of a sound economy, conservation of resources,

27

and preservation of environmental quality.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25300(b).

28

29.

The CEC is responsible for conducting assessments and forecasts to develop
-7-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

energy policies that accomplish the objectives established by the Legislature. For example, the

2

CEC must “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply,

3

production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The commission shall

4

use these assessments and forecasts to develop and evaluate energy policies and programs that

5

conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s

6

economy, and protect public health and safety.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25301(a).

7

30.

The CEC’s statutory authority must be exercised consistent with other state laws,

8

including the Public Utilities Code. For example, under the Public Utilities Code, “[t]he

9

Legislature finds and declares that, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a

10

principal goal of electric and natural gas utilities’ resource planning and investment shall be to

11

minimize the cost to society of the reliable energy services that are provided by natural gas and

12

electricity, and to improve the environment and to encourage the diversity of energy sources

13

through improvements in energy efficiency, development of renewable energy resources, such as

14

wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy, and widespread transportation electrification.”

15

Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 701.1(a)(1).

16

31.

The Public Utilities Code provides for the provision of natural gas service to

17

California consumers and businesses, stating in relevant part: “The Legislature finds and

18

declares . . . [i]n order to ensure that all core customers of a gas corporation continue to receive

19

safe basic gas service in a competitive market, each existing gas corporation should continue to

20

provide this essential service . . . .” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 328.

21

32.

As part of its mandate, the CEC is required to identify likely shortages of natural

22

gas and other energy sources, and recommend actions required to avert such shortages: “The

23

commission shall carry out studies to determine if potential serious shortages of electrical,

24

natural gas, or other sources of energy are likely to occur and shall make recommendations to the

25

Governor and the Legislature concerning administrative and legislative actions required to avert

26

possible energy supply emergencies or serious fuel shortages.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25704.

27
28

33.

The CEC’s authority is meant to work in concert with related policy objectives

established by the State. For example, the CEC is required to consider electrolytic hydrogen as
-8-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

an energy storage technology targeted for increased use, and to consider other potential uses for

2

this technology. See Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 400, et seq. Similarly, the Legislature directed the

3

CPUC to “consider options to promote the in-state production and distribution of biomethane[.]”

4

A.B. 3187.

5

B.

The Integrated Energy Policy Report

6

34.

Under the Warren-Alquist Act, the CEC must conduct biennial assessments and

7

forecasts of all aspects of California’s energy industry supply, production, transportation,

8

delivery and distribution, demand, and prices in order to “develop and evaluate energy policies

9

and programs that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability,

10

enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code

11

§ 25301(a).

12

35.

These assessments, forecasts, policies and programs must be included in an

13

Integrated Energy Policy Report, or IEPR, which is required to contain an overall assessment of

14

major energy trends and issues facing California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel

15

sectors. More specifically,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(a) Beginning November 1, 2003, and every two years thereafter, the [CEC] shall
adopt an [IEPR]. This integrated report shall contain an overview of major energy
trends and issues facing the state, including, but not limited to, supply, demand,
pricing, reliability, efficiency, and impacts on public health and safety, the
economy, resources, and the environment. The [IEPR] shall present policy
recommendations based on an in-depth and integrated analysis of the most current
and pressing energy issues facing the state. The analyses supporting this [IEPR]
shall explicitly address interfuel and intermarket effects to provide a more informed
evaluation of potential tradeoffs when developing energy policy across different
markets and systems.
(b) The [IEPR] shall include an assessment and forecast of system reliability and
the need for resource additions, efficiency, and conservation that considers all
aspects of energy industries and markets that are essential for the state economy,
general welfare, public health and safety, energy diversity, and protection of the
environment . . . .
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25302.
36.

When preparing the IEPR, the CEC must consult with a range of stakeholders,

27

including the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), the Public Advocate’s Office of

28

the CPUC, the State Air Resources Board, the Electricity Oversight Board, the California
-9-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

Independent System Operator (“CAISO”), the Department of Water Resources, the Department

2

of Transportation, and the Department of Motor Vehicles. See id. at § 25302(d).

3

37.

In developing the IEPR, the CEC is expected to “conduct workshops, hearings,

4

and other forums to gain the perspectives of the public and market participants.” Id. at § 25306.

5

The CEC creates public “dockets” available online to publish relevant information and to

6

provide a forum for stakeholders to comment on the IEPR development.

7

38.

Once the IEPR is finalized, the CEC must provide it to enumerated state agencies,

8

including the agencies listed above. The Warren-Alquist Act mandates that those other agencies

9

use the IEPR’s findings of fact and analyses as the basis for energy policy decisions: “For the

10

purpose of ensuring consistency in the underlying information that forms the foundation of

11

energy policies and decisions affecting the state, those entities shall carry out their energy-related

12

duties and responsibilities based upon the information and analyses contained in the report.” Id.

13

at § 25302(e). Therefore, the IEPR has a significant, direct impact on the energy policy and

14

regulations of the State and on the way state agencies implement their energy-related

15

responsibilities.

16

39.

Natural gas is a critical consideration in the IEPR. As part of the IEPR, the CEC

17

must, among other things, conduct extensive “natural gas forecasting and assessment activities,”

18

id. at § 25303(a); forecast and assess “alternative transportation fuels,” id. at § 25304(a);

19

“encourage the balanced use of all sources of energy to meet the state’s needs, and to seek to

20

avoid possible undesirable consequences of reliance on a single source of energy,” id. at

21

§ 25400; “survey . . . all forms of energy” to offer recommendations “for the orderly

22

development of all potential sources of energy to meet the state’s needs,” id. at § 25401; and

23

“develop and update an inventory of current and potential cost-effective opportunities in each

24

utility’s service territory to improve efficiencies and to help manage loads in all sectors of

25

natural gas and electricity use,” id. at § 25401.2.

26

C.

California’s Natural Gas Act

27

40.

The Legislature passed the Natural Gas Act in 2013 (A.B. 1257), adding section

28

25303.5 to the Public Resources Code. The Natural Gas Act requires the CEC to analyze the use
-10-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

of natural gas and to produce a report on strategies and proposals to maximize the benefits of

2

natural gas across multiple sectors of the economy. The Senate analysis accompanying the bill

3

explained that “[u]nlike other fossil fuels, natural gas plays a significant role in most sectors of

4

the modern economy, including power generation, industrial, commercial, and residential.” A.B.

5

1257, Senate Floor Analysis, at 3 (Sept. 11, 2013). The Senate Analysis accompanying A.B.

6

1257 relied on a study that found “that natural gas can play a significant role in supporting

7

efforts to reduce [greenhouse gases] nation-wide.” Id.

8
9

41.

The Natural Gas Act requires that the CEC “identify strategies to maximize the

benefits obtained from natural gas, including biomethane for purposes of this section, as an

10

energy source, helping the state realize the environmental and cost benefits afforded by natural

11

gas.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b) (emphases added).

12

42.

The CEC must, every four years, prepare a report (a “Natural Gas Act Report”),

13

which, “at a minimum, shall identify strategies and options” for each of the following ten

14

categories:

15

(1)

Making the best use of natural gas as a transportation fuel, as appropriate,
including for the movement of freight, vessels, mass transit, and other
commercial and passenger vehicle use and identifying methods to develop
natural gas refueling infrastructure.

(2)

Determining the role of natural gas-fired generation as part of a resource
portfolio, including, but not limited to, combined heat and power, and the
impact of that role on meeting greenhouse gas targets.

(3)

Taking the best advantage of natural gas as a low-emission resource,
including potential zero and near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, natural
gas, and biogas options, taking into account the impact on electric system
operations.

(4)

Optimizing the role of natural gas as a flexible and convenient end use
energy source, including the efficient use of natural gas for heating, water
heating, cooling, cooking, engine operation, and other end uses, and the
optimization of appliances for these uses.

(5)

Identifying effective methods by which the electric and natural gas
industries can facilitate implementation of any of the strategies identified in
this section.

(6)

Determining the extent to which a long-term policy is needed to ensure
adequate infrastructure and storage and developing strategies for pursuing
additional infrastructure development to maintain or enhance pipeline and
system reliability, including increased natural gas storage. In developing

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-11SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 those strategies, the commission shall consider needed policies to protect
against system capacity constraints, minimize system leakage and related
emissions, mitigate investment risk associated with the long-term
investment in infrastructure in an evolving energy market, and identify
factors that could limit the ability to receive maximum benefits from natural
gas as an energy resource.

1
2
3
4

(7)

Determining the role that natural gas can play in the development of zero
net energy buildings, as appropriate.

(8)

Optimizing the methods by which the pursuit of these strategies can
facilitate jobs development in the private sector, particularly in distressed
areas.

(9)

Optimizing the methods by which state and federal policy can facilitate any
of the proposed strategies.

(10)

Evaluating the incremental beneficial and adverse economic cost and
environmental impacts of proposed strategies, including life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions from the production, transportation, and use of
natural gas, based on authoritative, peer-reviewed, and science-based
analysis or in consultation with the State Air Resources Board.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b).
43.

The CEC is required to undertake this analysis “with the [IEPR] prepared

14

pursuant to Section 25302” — that is, this analysis occurs alongside, not as part of, the IEPR.

15

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b).

16
17
18

44.

The legislative history confirms that the Natural Gas Act Report “will be a report

separate from the IEPR.” A.B. 1257, Senate Floor Analysis, at 1 (Sept. 11, 2013).
45.

When preparing the first Natural Gas Act Report in 2015, the CEC created a

19

specific docket for the 2015 Natural Gas Act Report, separate from the then-effective IEPR

20

docket. See A.B. 1257 Natural Gas Act Report, Docket 15-IEPR-04. Over a period of months,

21

the CEC held several workshops specific to the 2015 Natural Gas Act Report and invited

22

comments. The CEC ultimately produced the 2015 Natural Gas Act Report, a 121-page

23

document, in November 2015.2 The results of the first Natural Gas Act Report were in turn

24

summarized in the 2015 IEPR.3

25
26
27
28

2

See California Energy Commission, AB 1257 Natural Gas Act Report: Strategies to
Maximize the Benefits Obtained from Natural Gas as an Energy Source (Nov. 2015), available
at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=226173&DocumentContentId=56925.
3

Available at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=212018.
-12-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

46.

In 2018, S.B. 1374 amended the Natural Gas Act to add a “sunset” provision

2

providing that “[the Natural Gas Act] shall become inoperative on November 1, 2025, and, as of

3

January 1, 2026, is repealed.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(d). Until then, the CEC continues

4

to be bound by the Natural Gas Act. S.B. 1374 did not repeal the CEC’s responsibilities and the

5

Natural Gas Act reporting requirements for the period prior to 2026, but rather left in place the

6

requirement for two more Natural Gas Act Reports (2019 and 2023) to be completed before the

7

Natural Gas Act becomes inoperative. The Senate Analysis noted that the sunset date “provides

8

the Legislature with time to consider whether the reporting requirement is needed after 2025.”

9

S.B. 1374, Senate Floor Analysis, at 3 (Aug. 30, 2018).

10

D.

The CEC Begins Phasing Out Natural Gas.

11

47.

The Warren-Alquist statutory framework requires the CEC, among other things,

12

to make assessments and develop policy to reduce energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas

13

emissions, and ensure California’s safe, resilient, and reliable energy supply. In so doing, the

14

CEC is required to encourage the balanced use of natural gas along with other energy sources,

15

and it must avoid reliance on a single source of energy. The CEC is also required as part of its

16

Natural Gas Act Report to identify strategies to maximize the benefits of natural gas. In short,

17

the California Legislature has made clear that natural gas is to play a significant role in the

18

State’s balanced energy policy, including as a facilitator of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

19

and maintaining affordability and reliability, and has directed the CEC to develop specific

20

policies in furtherance of those determinations.

21

48.

The CEC has rejected the policies reflected in these state statutes and as stated by

22

the California Legislature, pursuing instead its own extra-legal policy preferences. Specifically,

23

as evidenced in the CEC’s process to develop the IEPR and Appendix A and statements in the

24

IEPR itself, the CEC has defied state law by deciding that the State’s policy should be a

25

“transition away from fossil natural gas” including through “building electrification.” It even has

26

gone so far as to refuse to issue the separate Natural Gas Act Report as required by A.B. 1257,

27

instead issuing only its incomplete and legally deficient “Appendix A” to the 2019 IEPR.

28

49.

The 2019 IEPR, including Appendix A, reflects the CEC’s unauthorized decision
-13-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

to move towards a single-energy-source system that calls for a transition away from using natural

2

gas in the generation of electricity. Phasing out natural gas is fundamentally inconsistent with

3

the CEC’s statutory mandate, including the requirement of maximizing the benefits of natural

4

gas.

5

50.

To bolster its pursuit of these preferences, the CEC commissioned and relied upon

6

studies that are flawed and inaccurate. The CEC ignored evidence that these studies, among

7

other things, underestimate electric rate increases and overestimate gas rate increases; ignore the

8

value of the natural gas system and the potentially transformative value of renewable gas; and

9

undervalue synthetic gas and hydrogen.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

E.

California’s Statutory Framework Recognizes the Essential Role of Natural
Gas for the State’s Energy Goals.

51.

The Legislature’s emphasis on including natural and renewable gases as part of

the State’s balanced energy objectives is not just policy by which the CEC is legally obliged to
abide, it also makes practical sense. Natural gas and renewable gases (such as biomethane,
renewable natural gas, hydrogen, or synthetic natural gas) are clean, reliable, affordable, and
resilient sources of energy for millions of Californians. Natural gas and renewable gases are also
clean sources of transportation fuel that can dramatically reduce emissions, including from hardto-decarbonize sectors such as heavy-duty trucking and the industrial sector (two sectors from
which emissions have either been stagnant or increased since the carbon policy of A.B. 32 in
2006). And the natural gas and renewable gas industries provide employment to thousands of
workers in California.
52.

Natural gas has historically played a role in improving air quality and reducing

carbon intensity, particularly through using natural gas in electric generation.4 The use of natural
gas as a low-carbon fuel can reduce emissions of both greenhouse gases and the criteria air
pollutants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including in the

4

See Congressional Research Service, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Electricity
Sector: Factors, Trends, and Projections, at 8-9 (Jan. 7, 2019), available at
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45453.pdf.

28
-14SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

transportation sector, which is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.5
53.

California is attempting to address climate change through legislation focused on

3

meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, coal divestitures, and Renewables Portfolio Standard

4

requirements, which set escalating renewable energy procurement requirements. Petitioners

5

support these efforts to address climate change; this is not a debate about whether to use

6

renewable energy sources or whether California should reduce emissions. California’s climate

7

goals are not incompatible with the continued use of natural gas and renewable gas, including

8

methane and carbon capture, which can and should continue to play a key role. As just one

9

example, because most renewable energy sources are intermittent and there is not sufficient

10

storage capacity, it is only possible to increase the amount of renewable energy sources and still

11

maintain the reliability and affordability of the energy grid if natural-gas-fired generation is

12

available, including availability to support California’s extensive hydroelectric resources, both

13

reservoir storage and pumped storage. Similarly, the microgrid approach to grid resiliency may

14

require the reliability and affordability of natural gas fuel, which is particularly critical for

15

hospitals, other emergency services, and consumers, especially in the most vulnerable

16

populations.

17

54.

There are alternative ways to work toward decarbonization — ways that would

18

not conflict with legislative mandates. For example, the incorporation into the natural gas

19

system of even small amounts of renewable natural gas can dramatically decrease greenhouse

20

gas emissions at a much lower cost than other approaches. Renewable natural gas captures

21

methane gas emitted from other sources, such as agricultural waste from, for example, dairy

22

farms, that would otherwise be released unabated into the atmosphere, and uses this gas as a

23

portion of the natural gas supply. Renewable natural gas thus has the potential to be not just

24

carbon neutral, but carbon negative, because it removes emissions from the atmosphere that

25

would otherwise occur. For this reason, studies have shown that replacing less than 20% of

26

traditional natural gas delivered to consumers via the natural gas pipeline system with renewable

27
28

5

See California Air Resources Board, LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities,
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/fuelpathways/pathwaytable.htm (last visited July 30, 2020).
-15-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

natural gas can achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions equivalent to converting 100% of

2

California’s buildings to electric-only energy by 2030 — at a significantly lower cost and with

3

far less disruption to consumers.6 Focusing on carbon negative resources, which are more

4

effective than renewable electricity, thus should be a top priority in reducing greenhouse gas

5

emissions.

6

55.

Natural gas and renewable natural gas are also key components to reaching

7

climate goals and ensuring resilient fuel supplies for the transportation sector, particularly in the

8

near term. Heavy-duty trucks in particular contribute substantially to smog-forming emissions

9

and greenhouse gas emissions. Using low-emission trucks fueled by natural gas and renewable

10

natural gas is critical to meeting air-quality requirements as well as greenhouse gas emissions

11

reduction goals and has a lower carbon intensity. Natural gas and renewable natural gas also

12

have promise as a fuel in other transportation sectors, including marine vessels, locomotives, and

13

mass transit systems.

14

56.

Accounting for and utilizing all available energy sources and technologies will

15

help meet the State’s climate goals. The Public Utilities Commission Deputy Director for

16

Energy and Climate Policy, Edward Randolph, recently noted: “Given the role methane plays in

17

short-lived climate pollutants, it may be critical that the state agencies and industry find a way to

18

make renewable natural gas affordable in playing a role in transportation and/or building

19

sectors.”7

20

57.

Utilizing natural gas and renewable gas in planning for the future is also cost-

21

efficient because it uses the existing energy infrastructure, technological expertise, and an

22

existing skilled workforce that have been developed over decades and are already in place. The

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

See Navigant Consulting, Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California
Future (July 24, 2018), available at
https://www.SoCalGas.com/1443741887279/SoCalGas_Renewable_Gas_Final-Report.pdf; see
also National Fuel Cell Research Center, National Fuel Cell Research Center Comments on
Joint Agency Workshop April 8, 2019, at 6-8 (Apr. 22, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=227836&DocumentContentId=59211
(explaining why “renewable gas is a critical decarbonization pathway”).
7

ADMINMonitor, California – California Public Utilities Commission – Voting
Meeting, at 1:42:38 – 1:42:51 (Sept. 12, 2019), available at
http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc/voting_meeting/20190912/ (“CPUC Meeting Video”).
-16-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

natural gas system and work force are key components of the California economy that have been

2

and should continue to be leveraged to help meet climate goals.

3
4
5

58.

Natural gas infrastructure, the natural gas workforce, and natural gas storage are

also becoming increasingly important to energy reliability and to energy resilience.
59.

Reliability is the capability of providing electric supply upon demand and when

6

needed. Intermittent renewable energy sources, primarily solar and wind, are not always

7

available on-demand and may in particular not be available during times of peak demand, such

8

as in the evening hours.8 Natural-gas-fired generation is able to provide power during times of

9

peak demand and low availability, acting as a critical backstop to provide system reliability. As

10

the CAISO has confirmed in regulatory filings, natural gas may facilitate renewable resource

11

deployment in the electric grid and support the ramping and system balancing required, as more

12

unpredictable and variable wind and solar is deployed — a need and service provided by natural

13

gas that may increase in the future.9

14

60.

Resilience is a system’s capacity to tolerate disturbance and continue to deliver

15

energy to customers. The ability to continue operations unaffected by climate events or wildfires

16

and quickly to resume service is critical to maintaining California’s public health, safety, and

17

economy. This critical aspect has become even more important recently, given California’s

18

grave and increasing wildfire risk.

19

61.

During extreme weather or wildfire conditions, electric utilities are increasing the

20

number of Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events to mitigate wildfire risk and keep

21

communities safe. Governor Newsom launched a $75 million Local Government PSPS

22

Resiliency Program to support state and local government efforts to mitigate the impact of power

23
24
25
26
27
28

8

See Southern California Gas Company, SocalGas Comments on AB 1257 – The Natural
Gas Act, App’x B, at 9-10 (Nov. 15, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=230747&DocumentContentId=62358
(“SoCalGas Natural Gas Act Comment”).
9

See California Independent System Operator Corporation, Comments of the California
Independent System Operator Corporation, Rulemaking 20-01-007, at 2-3 (Feb. 26, 2020),
available at http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Feb26-2020-Comments-ScopeProceedingSafeandReliableGasSystems-R20-01-007.pdf.
-17-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

shutoffs by supporting continuity of operations and efforts to protect public health, safety, and

2

commerce in affected communities. In response to the Governor’s call to reform public safety

3

shutoff rules and regulations, the California Public Utilities Commission announced that it

4

intends to take actions focused on public health and safety to reduce the risk of ignitions from

5

utility infrastructure, the risks that result from power loss, and the disruption to communities and

6

commerce.

7

62.

Natural gas and renewable gas are more reliable and have greater resilience by

8

virtue of being largely underground systems, are ubiquitous in urban and suburban settings in

9

California, and are operated and maintained by a skilled workforce including emergency

10

responders. As the Public Utilities Commission has recognized, a diverse portfolio approach

11

will permit the State to integrate renewables, increase the electric system’s flexibility, and

12

manage risk by maintaining system reliability and resilience. Commissioner Shiroma recently

13

explained: “We do not yet in 2019, have [a] 24-hour source of electricity that is reliable, even,

14

sustainable, and so forth. . . . Currently, we have a gas system that is very essential for

15

sustainability for our hospitals, for our low-income customers, for our med [medical] rate

16

customers, and so forth.”10

17
18
19
20
21
22

F.

The CEC Violated State Law by Setting a New State Energy Policy that
Conflicts with Its Statutory Mandates and Other State Laws.

63.

The CEC issued its scoping order for the 2019 IEPR on March 20, 2019. The

CEC set out the subjects and scope of its planned investigation and foreshadowed the CEC’s
eventual non-compliance with state law, including the Natural Gas Act:
Natural Gas Assessment - The Energy Commission will explore the role of
natural gas in a decarbonized future. The analysis will include:

23
24
25
26



Evaluation of the trends in natural gas prices, supply, and demand in
California and the nation.



Update of the analysis of the strategies and options for using natural gas as
called for in AB 1257 (Bocanegra, Chapter 749, Statutes of 2013) and the
recommendation in the 2017 IEPR to coordinate closely with the

27
28

10

CPUC Meeting Video at 2:21:02 – 2:21:37.
-18-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 California Public Utilities Commission to ensure California’s continued
shift away from fossil fuels, including methane.11

1
2

64.

The CEC convened a handful of 2019 IEPR and “decarbonization” workshops.

3

The workshops, however, did not include representative or diverse interests. SoCalGas

4

expressed concerns with this one-sided process in a comment letter submitted to the CEC earlier

5

in 2019.12 The CEC made no changes to its process in response.

6

65.

The CEC did not, as it had done in 2015, create a separate docket for the

7

statutorily required 2019 Natural Gas Act Report and did not hold any workshops specific to its

8

preparation of the 2019 Natural Gas Act Report.

9

66.

On October 30, 2019, the CEC held a workshop on the 2019 IEPR. During that

10

workshop, the CEC staff suggested that compliance with the Natural Gas Act could be satisfied

11

with a bullet-point list of existing programs and without identification of strategies to maximize

12

the benefits of natural gas and renewable gas. Identifying strategies to make the best use of

13

natural gas and renewable gas is in fact central to compliance with state law, including the

14

Natural Gas Act.

15

67.

During the workshop, the CEC staff highlighted legislation that they interpreted

16

as affecting and limiting the Natural Gas Act requirements. In particular, the CEC focused on

17

policies relating to meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets and Renewables Portfolio Standard

18

requirements, including S.B. 100. S.B. 100 requires the CEC and other state agencies to “plan

19

for 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable

20

energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045.” S.B. 100 § 1(b).

21
22

68.

One staffer said: “A [Natural Gas Act] report is due this year. But since the bill

has been rescinded and the last report will be in 2023, we will actually be covering this

23
24
25
26
27

11

California Energy Commission, 2019 IEPR Scoping Order, at 3-4 (Mar. 20, 2019),
available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=227365&DocumentContentId=58475
(quotation mark omitted).
12

See Southern California Gas Company, SoCalGas Comments on Building
Decarbonization Workshop (Apr. 22, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=227834&DocumentContentId=59209.

28
-19SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

requirement as part of the Natural Gas Outlook [in the IEPR.]”13 The Natural Gas Act, which

2

remains in force through January 1, 2026, requires a separate Natural Gas Act Report apart from

3

the analysis of the natural gas outlook in the IEPR.

4

69.

Meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets and Renewables Portfolio Standard

5

requirements (including S.B. 100) does not require the CEC to minimize the use of natural gas or

6

transition away from the natural gas system. The CEC can comply with state law and meet

7

greenhouse gas emissions targets and Renewables Portfolio Standard requirements. Indeed, it

8

must do so. S.B. 100 does not mandate building electrification or a transition away from the

9

natural gas system. S.B. 100 applies exclusively to retail electricity generation, and even there,

10

renewable gas has a significant role to play. S.B. 100 does not purport to eliminate or repeal

11

California’s Natural Gas Act, other state laws requiring agencies to consider a variety of fuel

12

sources, or any other statutory mandate or policy concern.

13

70.

On November 8, 2019, the CEC published its draft 2019 IEPR (“2019 Draft

14

IEPR”).14 The draft 2019 IEPR explained the CEC’s plans to phase out and transition away from

15

natural gas as follows:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

California is beginning a transition away from fossil natural gas as a primary fuel
source for electric generation. To meet air quality, climate, and other
environmental goals, natural gas generation is being replaced by resources
including renewables, transmission upgrades, energy storage, energy efficiency,
and demand response.
2019 Draft IEPR at 11. And it stated:
Additionally, building electrification is a key strategy for the state’s residential
and commercial building stock to meet new requirements calling for [greenhouse
gas] reductions from buildings to 40 percent below 1990 levels by January 1,
2030.

23

Id. at 198.

24

71.

25
26
27
28

The draft 2019 IEPR attached an 18-page Appendix A, which purported to satisfy

13

California Energy Commission, IEPR Commissioner Workshop on Preliminary
Natural Gas Price Forecast and Outlook, at 11 (Apr. 22, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=228226&DocumentContentId=59387.
14

Available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=230539&DocumentContentId=62120.
-20-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

the requirement that the CEC issue a Natural Gas Act Report. Appendix A nominally addressed

2

some of the issues required by statute, but only in the context of phasing out and minimizing the

3

use of natural gas. Contrary to the Natural Gas Act, the draft appendix did not “identify

4

strategies and options” to maximize the benefits of natural gas and renewable gas. Instead, it

5

listed a small number of existing programs.

6

72.

Despite comment letters objecting to this superficial treatment of the Natural Gas

7

Act and other state law requirements, on January 31, 2020, the CEC issued a draft final IEPR

8

that again recommended phasing out and minimizing the use of natural gas and renewable gas,

9

and again included Appendix A, which in form and substance failed to comply with the Natural

10
11

Gas Act Report requirement.15
73.

There were multiple comment letters throughout the 2019 IEPR process that

12

supported the importance and critical role of the natural gas system and renewable gas generally

13

and that called into question the CEC’s approach.16 There were also comments that specifically

14

addressed the deficiencies in the evidence and analysis of the 2019 IEPR and of the CEC’s

15

proposed compliance with its Natural Gas Act obligations through Appendix A. On November

16

15, 2019, SoCalGas submitted comments to the CEC in response to the October 30, 2019 IEPR

17

Workshop, which explained why the CEC’s approach to complying with the Natural Gas Act by

18

including a bulleted list of existing programs in an appendix to the 2019 IEPR and minimizing

19

the use of natural gas failed to satisfy the statutory requirements.17 SoCalGas also submitted a

20

comment letter on the November 8, 2019 draft IEPR, which provided extensive analysis and

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

15

Available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231820&DocumentContentId=63671.
16

See, e.g., National Fuel Cell Research Center, National Fuel Cell Research Center
Comments on Joint Agency Workshop April 8, 2019; Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, RNG
Coalition Comments on April 8, 2019 Joint CPUCCEC Workshop on Building Decarbonization
(Apr. 22, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=227835&DocumentContentId=59210;
California Pool and Spa Association, California Pool and Spa Association Comments –
Swimming Pool & Spa Industry Needs Natural Gas (Aug. 8, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=229284&DocumentContentId=60690.
17

See SoCalGas Natural Gas Act Comment.

28
-21SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

supporting studies and evidence focused on the ten areas required by the Natural Gas Act.18 In

2

response to the January 31, 2020 draft final IEPR, SoCalGas requested that the CEC re-review

3

SoCalGas’s prior comments and evidence as those had largely not been addressed and further

4

explained that the draft final IEPR still did not satisfy the requirements of the Natural Gas Act or

5

other state law.19

6

74.

On February 20, 2020, the CEC adopted the final 2019 IEPR.20 The final 2019

7

IEPR was the January 31, 2020 draft with an Errata that made minor adjustments. The

8

comments and the overwhelming evidence supporting the continued use and role of natural gas

9

and the deficiencies in the CEC’s approach to the Natural Gas Act went essentially unaddressed.

10
11
12
13
14

75.

The CEC’s final 2019 IEPR fails to comply with the Natural Gas Act and other

state laws mandating a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and renewable gas.
76.

The 2019 IEPR recommends “high electrification” of end uses, and plans for

phasing out and transitioning away from natural gas.
77.

The 2019 IEPR explains that the CEC’s “aim is to leverage California’s clean

15

electricity system to decarbonize, or remove carbon from, other portions of the state’s energy

16

system,” and that “building electrification” is a key part of this strategy. See 2019 IEPR at 1, 58.

17

78.

According to the CEC, “it is the policy of the state for eligible renewable energy

18

and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California

19

customers . . . by December 31, 2045. This policy — along with building electrification,

20

electrical vehicle adoption, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), and increased use of

21

renewable natural gas — sets the stage for a decrease in fossil natural gas use in California. As

22

such, the expectation is that natural gas production and consumption will continue to decline in

23
24
25
26
27
28

18

See Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company Comments
– SoCalGas Comments Draft IEPR (Nov. 27, 2019), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=230895&DocumentContentId=62538.
19

See Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company Comments
– on Final 2019 IEPR (Feb. 11, 2020), available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=232010&DocumentContentId=63874.
20

Available at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=232922&DocumentContentId=65363.
-22-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3
4

the state over the next few decades.” 2019 IEPR at 246.
79.

The CEC explains that it “funded a study that evaluates deep decarbonization

scenarios[.]” 2019 IEPR at 247. It further explains:


“A major focal point of the study is the strategy of ‘high electrification’ . . . .

5

This scenario predicts a dramatic reduction in natural gas demand at the

6

distribution level. . . .” Id. at 248.

7



“The CEC-funded study, Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables

8

Future, identifies a high biofuel scenario for transportation as ‘high risk’ due

9

to concerns about the long-term availability and sustainability of growing

10
11

crops for biofuels.” Id. at 264.


“In addition, Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables Future states that

12

there is an insufficient amount of [renewable natural gas] in California to meet

13

long-term demand for low-carbon fuels in buildings and industries without

14

widespread electrification.” Id. at 266.

15

80.

The CEC also explains that “[i]t is critical that the state’s planning efforts reflect

16

and account for . . . declining reliance on natural gas.” 2019 IEPR at 6. And it repeats this

17

theme of phasing out natural gas as a fuel source: “California is beginning a transition away

18

from fossil natural gas as a primary fuel source for electric generation.” Id. at 12. “As the

19

electricity market grows regionally and resources such as energy storage and demand

20

management grow to help integrate renewables, natural gas generation will decrease further.” Id.

21

at 2. “By 2025 . . . the system is shifting to decreased reliance on fossil natural gas.” Id. at 9.

22

G.

The CEC Failed To Comply with State Law, Including the Natural Gas Act

23

81.

The 2019 IEPR, including Appendix A, fails to comply with state law and

24

violates the CEC’s mandate. The CEC is required, in accordance with the laws set forth above,

25

to maximize the benefits of natural gas and develop a balanced energy policy. Phasing out and

26

substantially eliminating natural gas irreconcilably conflicts with those laws.

27
28

82.

The CEC purported to comply with its obligation to issue a Natural Gas Act

Report in 2019 by including Appendix A (entitled “Assembly Bill 1257-Natural Gas Benefits”)
-23-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

in the 2019 IEPR. The Natural Gas Act requires the CEC to “identify strategies and options” to

2

“maximize the benefits obtained from natural gas” for at least each of 10 specified categories.

3

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b).

4

83.

Appendix A fails to comply in form or substance with the Natural Gas Act. It is

5

not a separate report, it was not developed through separate proceedings, and it does not analyze

6

the ten statutorily required categories to maximize the benefits of natural gas or to identify any

7

forward-looking strategies or options for maximizing the benefits of natural gas. Instead,

8

Appendix A seeks to minimize the role of natural gas and is part of a broader extra-statutory

9

CEC policy of phasing out and transitioning away from natural gas. In preparing Appendix A,

10

the CEC ignored record evidence and reached conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence.

11

84.

The CEC’s conclusions with respect to each of the ten categories in Appendix A

12

are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. To the contrary, the CEC ignored

13

substantial evidence supporting various strategies and options for each category.

14

85.

Specifically, there were extensive comments on each of the ten categories in the

15

record, explaining why the CEC’s approach did not meet the statutory mandate and providing

16

evidence and analysis that supported a different course of action.21 The CEC ignored and failed

17

to address this evidence or analysis.

18

86.

For example, instead of identifying “strategies and options” to “[m]ak[e] the best

19

use of natural gas as a transportation fuel, as appropriate, including for the movement of freight,

20

vessels, mass transit, and other commercial and passenger vehicle use and identifying methods to

21

develop natural gas refueling infrastructure,” as required by the first category of the Natural Gas

22

Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b)(1), Appendix A simply summarizes ongoing, limited

23

funding of natural gas vehicle development by the CEC and other agencies. See 2019 IEPR at

24

A-2–A-4. The Appendix even admits that the “CEC did not allocate any Fiscal Year 2019-2020

25

Clean Transportation Program funding for natural gas vehicle incentives or infrastructure

26

projects.” Id. at A-4.

27
28

21

See, e.g., SoCalGas Natural Gas Act Comment.
-24-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

87.

The third statutorily specified category requires the CEC to “identify strategies

2

and options” to “[t]ak[e] the best advantage of natural gas as a low-emission resource, including

3

potential zero and near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas, and biogas options, taking

4

into account the impact on the electric system operations.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b)(3).

5

Appendix A does not identify any strategies or options to take the best advantage of natural gas

6

and renewable natural gas as a low-emission resource. It only discusses the history of renewable

7

natural gas and related programs. See 2019 IEPR at A-8–A-11.

8

88.

The fourth statutorily specified category requires the CEC to “identify strategies

9

and options” to “optimiz[e] the role of natural gas as a flexible and convenient end use energy

10

source, including the efficient use of natural gas for heating, water heating, cooling, cooking,

11

engine operation, and other end uses, and the optimization of appliances for these uses.” Cal.

12

Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b)(4). The CEC did nothing remotely like this. Instead, Appendix A

13

discusses how to eliminate natural gas for many end uses. See 2019 IEPR at A-11–A-14.

14

89.

The seventh statutorily specified category requires the CEC to “identify strategies

15

and options” to “determin[e] the role that natural gas can play in the development of zero net

16

energy buildings.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b)(7). Appendix A does not identify any such

17

strategies or options. To the contrary, the CEC rejects the statutory goal of this category, and

18

states that the CEC recommends that “the state should replace its zero-net-energy policy goals

19

with appropriate goals for low-carbon buildings.” 2019 IEPR at A-18. This is not the CEC’s

20

decision to make; the Legislature has already determined that the CEC should be developing zero

21

net energy buildings and the CEC’s refusal to comply with that statutory mandate violates the

22

Natural Gas Act and exceeds the CEC’s authority under it.

23

90.

As but one more example, the eighth statutorily specified category requires the

24

CEC to “identify strategies and options” to “[o]ptimiz[e] the methods by which the pursuit of

25

these strategies can facilitate jobs development in the private sector, particularly in distressed

26

areas.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25303.5(b)(8). Appendix A fails to “identify strategies and

27

options” or make any recommendations, particularly concerning distressed areas, and includes

28

only a single high-level statement limited to jobs in the carbon-neutral portion of the gas
-25-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

industry. See 2019 IEPR at A-19. Comments pointed to record evidence that supports the

2

position that promoting the use of natural gas and renewable gas has the potential to create jobs

3

both directly in the natural gas and renewable gas sector, and indirectly in industries that rely on

4

an affordable and reliable source of energy.22 The CEC made no mention of any of this

5

evidence.

6

91.

Likewise, for the other statutorily mandated categories, the CEC generally failed

7

to identify strategies or options that would maximize the benefits of natural gas and renewable

8

gas, failed to consider evidence and analysis submitted in comments, and simply pointed to

9

bullet-point lists of existing programs.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

92.

Appendix A does not meet the CEC’s obligations under the Natural Gas Act. It

does not even come close.
H.

The CEC’s Policy of Phasing Out Natural Gas Is an Improper
“Underground Regulation”

93.

The CEC, as manifested in the 2019 IEPR and Appendix A (and in the manner in

which the CEC set out to prepare and adopt both), has adopted a policy of phasing out and
ultimately eliminating the natural gas system (the “Anti-Natural Gas Policy”), and it is this AntiNatural Gas Policy — rather than applicable state law — that the CEC followed in preparing and
adopting the 2019 IEPR and Appendix A.23
94.

In order to adopt regulations, state agencies must follow the process established

by the Administrative Procedure Act.24 Regulations that are adopted without complying with
these requirements are “underground regulations” and are void and may not be enforced. Cal.
Gov’t Code § 11340.5.

22

See SoCalGas Natural Gas Act Comment, App’x B, at 43-45.

23

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy also determines its actions in other contexts, such
as approving local ordinances that require or encourage building electrification in new
construction. See, e.g., California Energy Commission, CEC Approves First Local Energy
Efficiency Standards That Go Beyond 2019 Statewide Requirements (Dec. 11, 2019), available
at https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2019-12/cec-approves-first-local-energy-efficiencystandards-go-beyond-2019-statewide.
24

See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11340 – 11361.
-26-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

95.

A regulation is any rule that (1) “applies generally” and (2) “implement[s],

2

interpret[s], or make[s] specific the law[.]” Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14

3

Cal. 4th 557, 571 (1996) (internal citation omitted); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 11342.600.

4

96.

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy applies generally and purports to implement,

5

interpret, and make specific the law. Accordingly, the Anti-Natural Gas Policy cannot be

6

implemented without following the APA.

7

97.

The CEC adopted the Anti-Natural Gas Policy without complying with the APA.

8

98.

The Anti-Natural Gas Policy is an unlawful underground regulation that is void

9

and of no effect.

10

I.

The CEC’s Failure To Comply with State Law, including the Natural Gas
Act, Directly Harms Petitioners.

99.

The IEPR and the Natural Gas Act Report serve a critical role in state energy

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

policy by providing the factual basis for state regulations and other actions concerning natural
gas. The CEC’s 2019 IEPR and Appendix A represent a failure to comply with the Natural Gas
Act and with other state laws requiring a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and
renewable gas as a clean, reliable, and affordable energy source. This failure harms Petitioners
directly and substantially because state policy makers have been deprived of crucial information
— or worse, they have received incorrect information — about how to maximize the benefits of
natural gas and the critical role of natural gas and renewable gas in protecting the State’s reliable
and affordable energy supply while reaching the State’s climate goals. Petitioners have
economic interests that will be injured by the CEC’s failure to comply with the Natural Gas Act
and with state law in issuing the 2019 IEPR and Appendix A.
100.

SoCalGas participated in the proceedings leading to the development of the 2019

IEPR and Appendix A, including by submitting comments addressing the deficiencies in the
CEC’s approach, providing evidence, and making recommendations. Other comments also
provided evidence and analysis highlighting the deficiencies in the CEC’s approach.
101.

Petitioners are members of the public interested in having the laws executed and

the CEC’s duty enforced. The CEC is under a duty to the public to comply with state law in
-27-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

issuing the IEPR and Natural Gas Act Report.
102.

Petitioners have no other adequate legal remedy besides a writ of mandate or

3

injunctive relief requiring the CEC to comply with state law in issuing the IEPR and Natural Gas

4

Act Report. Pecuniary compensation would not afford Petitioners adequate relief, or at the least

5

it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford

6

relief to Petitioners.

7

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE RE: VIOLATION OF STATE LAW
BY ISSUING INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER IEPR
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 and Pub. Res. Code § 25901)
(All Petitioners against the CEC)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

103.

Petitioners re-allege the previous paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.

104.

The CEC’s 2019 IEPR violates state law. The CEC’s stated policy of phasing out

and eventually eliminating natural gas violates state law and supersedes the CEC’s authority. In
this regard, the 2019 IEPR violates state laws governing permissible policy actions by the CEC.
The CEC is under a duty to adopt policies that develop natural gas as a resource, to promote a
balanced energy supply and reduce reliance on a single source of energy, and to conduct an indepth integrated analysis of all available sources of energy in compiling the IEPR.
105.

The CEC has failed to perform those duties. As a result, the 2019 IEPR is

unlawful. It fails to set forth a plan for the balanced use of all energy sources, including natural
gas, so as to avoid reliance on a single source of energy.
106.

Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, other than the

relief sought in this Petition. Petitioners are each an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(a) and are beneficially interested in the issuance of a writ of
mandate to obtain judicial review of the CEC’s non-compliance with state law. SoCalGas
participated in the proceedings leading to the development of the 2019 IEPR, including by
submitting comments addressing the deficiencies in the CEC’s approach, recommendations, and
drafts of the 2019 IEPR.
107.

If a court finds “(1) that the [CEC] proceeded without, or in excess of its

28
-28SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

jurisdiction, (2) that, based exclusively upon a review of the record before the commission, the

2

decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, or (3) that the

3

commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law,” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(b), it

4

shall order that the decision be set aside and “may order the reconsideration of the case in light of

5

the court’s opinion and judgment,” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(f); see also Cal. Pub. Res.

6

Code § 25901(c).

7
8
9
10
11

108.

Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to issuance of a writ of mandate or

peremptory writ as specified more fully below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE RE: VIOLATION OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 and Pub. Res. Code § 25901)
(All Petitioners against the CEC)

12

109.

Petitioners re-allege the previous paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.

13

110.

The CEC’s issuance of Appendix A to the 2019 IEPR as an attempt to satisfy its

14

obligations under the Natural Gas Act violates state law. Appendix A violates state laws

15

governing permissible policy actions by the CEC. The CEC is under a duty to adopt policies that

16

develop natural gas as a resource, to promote a balanced energy supply and reduce reliance on a

17

single source of energy, and to publish the Natural Gas Act Report as a separate document that

18

identifies strategies and options to maximize the benefits of natural gas for each of the ten

19

statutory criteria.

20

111.

The CEC has failed to perform those duties. As a result, Appendix A is unlawful.

21

It fails to set forth a plan for the balanced use of all energy sources, including natural gas, so as

22

to avoid reliance on a single source of energy. The CEC failed to issue a separate Natural Gas

23

Act report; failed to identify strategies and options to maximize the benefits obtained from

24

natural gas, including for any of the ten statutorily mandated categories; failed to support the

25

Natural Gas Act report as represented in Appendix A with substantial evidence, including its

26

strategies and options for the ten statutorily mandated categories; and ignored the overwhelming

27

evidence on maximizing the benefits of natural gas.

28

112.

Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, other than the
-29-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

relief sought in this Petition. Petitioners are each an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of

2

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(a) and are beneficially interested in the issuance of a writ of

3

mandate to obtain judicial review of the CEC’s non-compliance with the Natural Gas Act.

4

SoCalGas participated in the proceedings leading to the development of the CEC’s claimed

5

compliance with the Natural Gas Act, including by submitting comments addressing the

6

deficiencies in the CEC’s approach, recommendations, and drafts of the 2019 IEPR and

7

Appendix A.

8
9

113.

If a court finds “(1) that the [CEC] proceeded without, or in excess of its

jurisdiction, (2) that, based exclusively upon a review of the record before the commission, the

10

decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, or (3) that the

11

commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law,” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(b), it

12

shall order that the decision be set aside and “may order the reconsideration of the case in light of

13

the court’s opinion and judgment,” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(f); see also Cal. Pub. Res.

14

Code § 25901(c).

15
16

114.

Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to issuance of a writ of mandate or

peremptory writ as specified more fully below.

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1060 and Gov’t Code § 11350(a))
(All Petitioners against the CEC)

18
19
20

115.

Petitioners re-allege the previous paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.

21

116.

An actual and present controversy now exists between Petitioners, on the one

22

hand, and the CEC, on the other. CEC contends that it acted consistently with and satisfied its

23

obligations under California law, including the Natural Gas Act, by issuing the 2019 IEPR and

24

Appendix A. Petitioners contend that the CEC failed to satisfy its obligations.

25

117.

Petitioners seek and are entitled to a judicial declaration that the CEC ignored and

26

violated legal obligations and state law in preparing the 2019 IEPR, including Appendix A.

27

Petitioners further seek and are entitled to a judicial declaration that the 2019 IEPR and

28

Appendix A violated applicable procedural law and conflicts with state law and policy.
-30-

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

118.

Such declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate now because the 2019 IEPR

2

and Appendix A will continue to impose unlawful burdens and consequences that are adverse to

3

Petitioners and the public.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

119.

Accordingly, Petitioners pray for declaratory relief as specified more fully below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE RE: VIOLATIONS OF THE APA – UNDERGROUND
REGULATIONS, GOV’T CODE § 11340 – 11361
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 and Pub. Res. Code § 25901)
(All Petitioners against the CEC)
120.

Petitioners re-allege the previous paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.

121.

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy to phase out and substantially eliminate

natural gas as manifested in the 2019 IEPR, including Appendix A, is a standard of general
applicability that purports to implement, interpret, and make specific the law.
122.

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy is an underground regulation in violation of

APA standards requiring formal rulemaking.
123.

Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, other than the

relief sought in this Petition. Petitioners are each an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(a) and are beneficially interested in the issuance of a writ of
mandate to obtain judicial review of the CEC’s non-compliance with the APA.
124.

If a court finds “(1) that the [CEC] proceeded without, or in excess of its

jurisdiction, (2) that, based exclusively upon a review of the record before the commission, the
decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, or (3) that the
commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law,” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25901(b), it
shall order that the decision be set aside and “may order the reconsideration of the case in light of
the court’s opinion and judgment,” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(f); see also Cal. Pub. Res.
Code § 25901(c).
125.

Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to issuance of a writ of mandate or

peremptory writ as specified more fully below.

28
-31SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Violations of the APA - Underground Regulations,
Gov’t Code § 11340 – 11361, Code Civ. Proc. § 1060, and Gov’t Code § 11350(a))
(All Petitioners against the CEC)

4

126.

Petitioners re-allege the previous paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.

5

127.

Cal. Gov’t Code § 11350(a) provides that “[a]ny interested person may obtain a

6

judicial declaration as to the validity of any regulation or order of repeal by bringing an action

7

for declaratory relief in the superior court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.”

8
9
10
11
12
13

128.

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy to phase out and substantially eliminate

natural gas as manifested in the 2019 IEPR, including Appendix A, is a standard of general
applicability that purports to implement, interpret, and make specific the law.
129.

The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy is an underground regulation in violation of

APA standards requiring formal rulemaking.
130.

Such declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate now because

14

the 2019 IEPR and Appendix A will continue to impose unlawful burdens and consequences that

15

are adverse to Petitioners and the public.

16

131.

Accordingly, the CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy is void and unenforceable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17
18

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that judgment be entered against Respondent as follows:

19

1. As to the First Cause of Action, a writ of mandate or peremptory writ commanding

20

the CEC to:

21

a) Vacate the 2019 IEPR;

22

b) Issue a revised IEPR that complies with the law.

23

2. As to the Second Cause of Action, a writ of mandate or peremptory writ commanding

24

the CEC to:

25

a) Vacate Appendix A to the 2019 IEPR;

26

b) Issue a Natural Gas Act Report that complies with state law.

27

3. As to the Third Cause of Action, a declaration that:

28
-32SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

a) The CEC did not comply with state law or act consistently with state law in
issuance of the 2019 IEPR and Appendix A;

3

b) The CEC is required to issue an IEPR that complies with state law;

4

c) The CEC is required to issue a separate Natural Gas Act Report that maximizes

5
6

the benefits obtained from natural gas for each of the 10 statutory criteria; and
d) The CEC’s failure to support Appendix A with substantial evidence, and its

7

disregard of the overwhelming evidence on maximizing the benefits of natural

8

gas, violates the Natural Gas Act.

9

4. As to the Fourth Cause of Action, a writ of mandate or peremptory writ commanding

10

the CEC to:

11

a) Vacate its Anti-Natural Gas Policy.

12
13
14
15

5. As to the Fifth Cause of Action, a declaration that:
a) The CEC did not comply with state law in adopting its Anti-Natural Gas Policy;
and
b) The CEC’s Anti-Natural Gas Policy is void and unenforceable.

16

6. As to the Fifth Cause of Action, a permanent injunction restraining Respondent from

17

adopting or enforcing any policy to phase out and substantially eliminate natural gas

18

until such time as it complies with the APA and other applicable state statutes.

19

7. A permanent injunction restraining Respondents from implementing the 2019 IEPR

20

and Appendix A and from issuing any further reports until such time as the CEC has

21

complied with the requirements of state law and the Natural Gas Act.

22

8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein.

23

9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

24
25
26
27
28
-33SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

Dated:

July 31, 2020

2

/(~-----Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057)
(cullenb@sullcrom.com)
Paul H. Lazarow (SBN 311496)
(lazarowp@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, California 94303
Telephone:
(650) 461-5600
Facsimile:
(650) 461-5700

3
4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
Southern California Gas Company

8
9
Dated:

July31,2020

10

:r ~~

J. P,11\? ,.

Jr . /b9 (._

1
John J. Davis, Jr. (SBN 65594)
Ujdavis@msh.law)
McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry LLP
595 Market St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone:
(415) 597-7200
Facsimile:
(415) 597-7201

11

12
13
14

Attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
Utility Workers Union of America Local
Unions Nos. 132, 483 and 522

15
16
17
Dated:

July 31, 2020

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

J. Nathan Jensen (SBN 209580)
(Nate.jensen@cleanenergyfuels.com)
SVP Renewable Fuels & Chief Legal
Officer, Clean Energy
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 800 I
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone:
(949) 437-1000
Facsimile:
(949) 724-1459
Attorney for Petitioner and Plaintiff
Clean Energy

25
26
27
28
-34SllU.IVAN & CROM WEI.I. IJ .P

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

VERIFICATION
I, Andy Carrasco, am the Vice President, Strategy and Engagement, and Chief

3

Environmental Officer of the Southern California Gas Company. I have read this Verified

4

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Petition for Writ of Mandate in the matter of

5

Southern California Gas Company et al. v. California State Energy Resources Conservation and

6

Development Commission. I am informed, and do believe, that the matters herein are true. On

7

that ground I allege that the matters stated herein are true.

8
9
10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 31st day of July 2020, in Glendale, California.
_________________________

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-35SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE