Public utilities: eminent domain.

(1) Existing law, the Eminent Domain Law, authorizes a public entity to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for a public use if the use for which the property is sought to be taken is a more necessary public use than the use to which the property is appropriated, as specified. Existing law specifies that if property has been appropriated to public use by any person other than a public entity, the use of the property by a public entity for the same or any other public use is a more necessary use than the current use. Existing law also specifies that if property that has been appropriated to a public use is electrical, gas, or water public utility property, as defined, that the public entity intends to put to the same use, the presumption of a more necessary use is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, except as specified. Existing law requires a court to award a defendant their litigation expenses if the eminent domain proceeding is dismissed or if there is a final judgment that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by eminent domain, as provided. This bill would specify that if property that has been appropriated to a public use is electrical, gas, or water public utility property that a public entity within the Pacific Gas and Electric Company service area intends to put to the same use, the presumption of a more necessary use is conclusive and not rebuttable. The bill would specify that the above-described litigation expenses provisions do not apply to those proceedings. (2) Existing law authorizes a public entity to exercise the power of eminent domain only if it has adopted a resolution of necessity, as specified. Under existing law, a resolution of necessity adopted by the governing body of a public entity conclusively establishes that, among other matters, the public interest and necessity require the project. Existing law specifies that, if a taking is by a local public entity and the property is electrical, gas, or water public utility property, the resolution of necessity creates a rebuttable presumption that those matters are true. This bill would provide that, if a taking is by a local public entity within the Pacific Gas and Electric Company service area and the property is electrical, gas, or water public utility property, and the local public entity intends to put the property to the same use, the resolution of necessity instead creates a conclusive and not rebuttable presumption that those matters are true. (3) Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations. Existing law prohibits public utilities, other than certain common carriers, from selling, leasing, assigning, mortgaging, or otherwise disposing of, or encumbering, its assets that are necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, unless the public utility has secured an order or approval from the commission to do so, as provided. Existing law requires, for any voluntary or involuntary change in ownership of assets from an electrical corporation or gas corporation to ownership by a public entity, the commission to determine, as part of its review under these provisions, whether the transaction is fair and reasonable to affected public utility employees. This bill would require the commission, in its review of a voluntary or involuntary change in ownership of assets from an electrical or gas corporation to a public entity within the Pacific Gas and Electric Company service area, to limit its review to determining whether the transaction is fair and reasonable to affected public utility employees. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for public entities within the Pacific Gas and Electric Company service area. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because certain provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and a violation of a commission action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.