Laserfiche WebLink
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION N0. 73-32 <br />APRIL 24, 1973 <br />SUBJECT: Preemption of the field of the regulation <br />and construction of underground cables <br />by the State. <br />REQUESTED BY: John Stevens, Assistant Director <br />Public Works <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />Stephen M. Chase, Deputy City Attorney <br />QUESTION: Has the State through the Public Utilities <br />Commission preempted the field of regulation <br />of underground electrical cable? <br />ANSWER: Yes. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />In your request for an opinion you relate that <br />r' a city employee was injured when his jack hammer broke <br />through an existing underground electrical cable. You also <br />mentioned that since that time the Department of Public <br />Works has been attempting to establish certain regulations <br />concerning the location and method of protecting such <br />cables. You relate that the Southern California Edison <br />Company has contended that the State has preempted the <br />field in this regard. It is our opinion that the utility <br />company's position is well taken. <br />Article 1, Section 22 in general and specifically <br />section 23 delegates to the Public Utilities Commission <br />broad powers regarding the control of most aspects of <br />public utilities. As section 23 states in relevant part: <br />"...the...Commission shall have and exercise <br />such power and jurisdiction to supervise and <br />regulate public utilities, in the State of <br />California, and to fix the rates to be charged <br />for commodoties furnished, or services .rendered <br />by public utilities as shall be conferred upon <br />it by the Legislature, and the right of the <br />Legislature to confer powers upon the ... <br />Commission respecting public utilities is <br />hereby declared to be plenary and to be un- <br />~' limited by any provision of this Constitution. <br />60 <br />