Decision 03-10-024 October 2, 2003
Before The Public Utilities Commission Of The State Of California
The City of St. Helena, Town of Yountville, County of Napa, Napa Valley Vintners Association,
Complainants, vs. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc., Defendant. |
Case 88-03-016 (Filed March 7, 1988) |
ORDER MODIFYING DECISION 03-01-042
AND DENYING REHEARING
In Decision ("D.") 03-01-042, the Commission granted an application for rehearing of D.01-06-034 filed by the Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. ("Wine Train"). In D.01-06-034, the Commission had granted the City of St. Helena's ("St. Helena's") request to modify 1996 decisions dealing with the Commission's jurisdiction over the Wine Train (D.96-06-060 and D.96-11-024). The Commission concluded in D.01-06-034 that, in providing passenger services, the Wine Train was not a public utility. In response to the Wine Train's application for rehearing, the Commission reversed D.01-06-034, thus leaving intact the public utility status of the Wine Train's passenger services, and the Commission's jurisdiction over those services.
On February 18, 2003, St. Helena filed the instant application for rehearing of D.03-01-042. St. Helena states that, although it would not normally apply for rehearing of a decision granting rehearing, it is doing so in this case because the decision denies St. Helena's petition for modification. St. Helena contends that the decision errs because (1) the conclusion that the Wine Train is a public utility is contrary to law and (2) the decision contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law as required by Public Utilities Code section 1705. On March 4, 2003, the Wine Train filed a response to the application for rehearing. The Wine Train asserts that the claims made by St. Helena are without merit.
We have reviewed each and every allegation of error raised in the application for rehearing and are of the opinion that St. Helena has not demonstrated good cause for rehearing. However, we will modify D.03-01-042 to include findings of facts and conclusions of law on the denial of St. Helena's petition for modification.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. 1988 to 1996
This proceeding began on March 7, 1988, when St. Helena, City of Napa, Town of Yountville, County of Napa, and Napa Valley Vintner's Association ("complainants") filed a complaint against the Wine Train alleging violations of the Public Utilities Code, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 ("FRSA"), and the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA"). Complainants argued that the Wine Train was a public utility and that the Commission should assert jurisdiction over the Wine Train. In D.88-04-015, the Commission ordered the Wine Train to show cause why it should not be required to submit to the jurisdiction of the
Commission with respect to its proposed passenger train services.
(City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D.88-04-015] (1988) 1988 Cal. PUC LEXIS 217.)1
On July 8, 1988, the Commission issued a decision holding that the Wine Train's passenger service was subject to the Commission's jurisdiction with respect to economic, safety and environmental matters. (City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D.88-07-019] (1988) 1988 Cal. PUC LEXIS 364, *9, *16.) The Commission ordered the Wine Train to refrain from instituting passenger service until it complied with all applicable requirements of CEQA, as well as all other applicable rules, regulations, and general orders of the Commission, and until it was authorized to commence service by the Commission. (D.88-07-019, 1988 Cal. PUC LEXIS 364, at p. *17.)
The Wine Train appealed the Commission's decision to the California Supreme Court.2 On March 19, 1990, the Supreme Court held that the Wine Train's passenger service was exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(10), an express statutory exemption that applies to projects for the institution of passenger service on rail rights-of-way already in use. (Napa Valley Wine Train v. Public Utilities Commission (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 383.) Accordingly, the court annulled D.88-07-019.
On May 10, 1990, in response to the Supreme Court ruling, Assembly Member Hansen proposed a bill that would abrogate the court's decision. A.B. 4370, also known as the "Hansen Bill," was signed into law on September 30, 1990. The Hansen Bill added section 21080.4 to the Public Resources Code, which abrogated the Supreme Court ruling by stating that CEQA applies to the Wine Train and that the Commission is the lead agency.
On July 21, 1993, after the preparation of two environmental impact reports ("EIRs"), the Commission certified a final EIR ("FEIR") for the Wine Train project. (See City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D.93-07-046] (1993) 50 Cal.P.U.C.2d 377.) Among other things, the preferred alternative in the FEIR contemplated that the train would stop at stations along the way.
Three years after the FEIR had been certified, on June 19, 1996, the Commission approved the project and ordered the Wine Train to comply with extensive mitigation measures. (City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Inc. [D.96-06-060] (1996) 66 Cal.P.U.C.2d 602; 1996 Cal. PUC LEXIS 776.) In that decision, the Commission specifically addressed the issue of state versus local jurisdiction. ALERT, a coalition formed by complainants, had recommended that language be included in the decision on the respective role of state and local authorities. The Commission stated: "We declare the interurban operation of the Wine Train between Napa and St. Helena, including the stops provided in the Proposed Project, to be one of statewide, rather than merely municipal concern." (D.96-06-060, 66 Cal.P.U.C.2d at p. 610.)
Relying on Harbor Carriers, Inc. v. City of Sausalito (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 773 and Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Utilities Commission (1971) 4 Cal.3d 945, the Commission further stated:
[W]e view our authority in this proceeding as concurrent with that of any local agency affected by operation of the Wine Train. That is, we may approve this project pursuant to CEQA, . . . with the expectation that a local agency may impose reasonable local ordinances, such as relate to building code restrictions; but such local agency (municipality or otherwise) may not deny the Wine Train the right to perform such operations or stops.
(D.96-06-060, 66 Cal.P.U.C.2d at p. 610.)
On rehearing, the Commission addressed ALERT's contention that the Commission had erred in asserting paramount jurisdiction over the Wine Train. In a detailed discussion of jurisdictional principles, the Commission once again concluded, "the stops connected with the Wine Train are a matter of statewide concern." (City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D.96-11-024] (1996) 69 Cal.P.U.C.2d 243, 245.) The Commission then clarified its prior decision by replacing the above-quoted paragraph with the following:
Considering the Harbor Carriers decision, we view our authority in this proceeding as paramount to that of any local agency affected by operation of the Wine Train. However local agencies may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the Wine Train's operations to the extent that that regulation is not inconsistent with the holdings of the Commission.
(Id. at p. 246.)
B. 1999 to Present
On January 14, 1999, St. Helena filed a complaint with the Commission (C.99-01-020) alleging that the Wine Train is not operating as a public utility pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 212, and that, even if the Wine Train were to operate in the manner authorized by the Commission in D.96-06-060 and D.96-11-024, it would not be a public utility. According to the complaint, the Wine Train was demanding that the city approve a proposed train station in St. Helena on the ground that the city was preempted by authority of the Commission. St. Helena objected to the proposed station, based on the negative impacts it would have on St. Helena. On August 6, 1999, the Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that St. Helena was seeking an advisory opinion. (See City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D.99-08-018] (1999) 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 515.) St. Helena then filed an application for rehearing of D.99-08-018.
On September 16, 1999, St. Helena filed a petition for modification of D.96-06-060 and D.96-11-024. St. Helena's petition asked the Commission to declare that the Wine Train's passenger service is not "transportation" under Public Utilities Code section 211 and, thus, the Wine Train is not a public utility under section 216. St. Helena also urged the Commission to delete language in the 1996 decisions relating to the Commission's "paramount jurisdiction," to state that the Commission's authority is limited to the role of lead agency for purposes of environmental review, and to conclude that local agencies have paramount jurisdiction. (See D.01-06-034, mimeo, at pp. 3-4.)
On June 19, 2001, the Commission issued D.01-06-034. The decision reversed the position the Commission had taken on jurisdictional issues relating to the Wine Train since 1987 -- a position that the Commission advocated before the ICC, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and the California Supreme Court. The decision found that St. Helena failed to make a case that the underlying facts had changed in any material way. Nevertheless, relying in large part on the Commission's decision in the Re California Western Railroad, Inc. [D.98-01-050] (1998) 78 Cal.P.U.C.2d 292; 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 189,3 the decision declared that the Wine Train's passenger service was not public utility transportation. In addition, the decision deleted the ordering paragraph in D.96-11-024 that clarified that the Commission had "paramount jurisdiction" over the Wine Train and modified the jurisdictional language in D.96-06-060. (See D.01-06-034 at pp. 17-18.)
On July 19, 2001, the Wine Train filed an application for rehearing of D.01-06-034 alleging legal error in the decision on a number of grounds, including the public utility status of the Wine Train. St. Helena responded that the Wine Train is not a public utility and that its claims of legal error are without merit.
In D.03-01-042, the Commission granted Wine Train's application for rehearing and reversed D.01-06-034. The Commission denied St. Helena's petition for modification, but determined that further hearings should be held to give St. Helena the opportunity to specify the particular relief it seeks, other than modifying the public utility status of the Wine Train.
On February 18, 2003, St. Helena filed the instant application for rehearing of D.03-01-042.
1 During this same period, the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") (now the Surface Transportation Board) was considering whether the Commission's regulation was preempted by federal law. Ultimately, the ICC held that the Wine Train's passenger operations are essentially intrastate. For a complete discussion of the background of this case, including the ICC proceeding, see D.03-01-042 at pp. 2-10. 2 After the California Supreme Court granted review, but before it issued its decision on the merits, the Wine Train, the Commission and the complainants entered into a Limited Settlement Agreement. (See City of St. Helena v. Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. [D. 89-08-054] (1989) 1989 Cal. PUC LEXIS 869.) Pursuant to that agreement, the Wine Train was permitted to institute limited passenger services and would prepare an environmental impact report on those services, regardless of the outcome of the court case. (See Limited Settlement Agreement, dated August 23, 1989, at p. 13.) 3 D.98-01-050 held that the California Western Railroad's excursion service, known as the "Skunk Train," was not a public utility.
