6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/04 Afternoon Session - Nov 04, 2025

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/04 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 43m 1 speaker 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural announcements does the court make at the start of the session?

Justice Bromberg 3:06

All right, the form of appeal for the 6th of 12th district in sound session.

Unknown 3:14

Associate Justice the Honorable Dino W.

Justice Grover 3:19

Good afternoon and please be seated. Welcome to the sixth district court of appeal for oral argument this afternoon. Uh before we uh start with the three cases on calendar, uh let me just make a few announcements. Uh there are uh obviously three cases on calendar. There will be panel changes, a full panel change actually after the first case and then a um partial. panel change after the second case. Um You should also be aware of the fact that we do have um access to technology here at the bench we have our laptops. So if you see us looking off to the right or the left. Um we have our uh the briefs, we have our notes, we have the record, all of those things available to us up here on the bench and you might see us referencing them.

Justice Grover 4:07

Since I am speaking about technology, my final announcement is as follows. This doesn't apply to the first case, but does to numbers two and three. We provide remote uh appearance possibilities for um lawyers and parties if they're self represented. And we're happy to do it as a matter of access for justice. We're able to see the person appearing remotely here on the bench. And if you are participating in the case, you can see there at counsel table the person who is appearing remotely. If you are in the audience, you will be able to hear everything, but you will not be able to see the person who is appearing remotely. If you want both a video and audio experience, you're welcome to step into our waiting room where we have a live stream um that would provide both of those opportunities.

Justice Grover 4:56

And you should be aware that our um Uh oral argument is uh archived almost immediately on our website so you'd be able to see it there as well. All right, give me just a moment to Get situated here and we can start.

Justice Grover 5:54

Matter number one on calendars H O five two four two two two two two two two two two two nine. Bloom Energy Corporation petitioner versus public utilities commission of the state of California respondent. If I could have the appearance of the p uh petitioners counsel, I'm gonna have you when you state your appearances go to the podium so it's picked up on the mic, please.

Julian Poon 6:13

Certainly, Your Honor. Julian Poon of Gibson Dunn on behalf of Petitioner Bloom Energy Corporation.

Justice Grover 6:18

All right. Mr Poon, just to confirm your time estimate, eleven minutes for opening and four for rebuttal is what your time is. Yes, Your

Julian Poon 6:24

Honor.

Justice Grover 6:24

All right, thank you, sir. Uh and then turning to representation for the PUC of the state of California.

Toto Trimming 6:31

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Toto Trimming for Respondent Public Utilities Commission.

Justice Grover 6:34

All right, and confirming fifteen minutes for you, ma'am.

Toto Trimming 6:37

Correct.

Justice Grover 6:37

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Coombe. We're interested to hear your comments this afternoon. You go ahead.

Julian Poon 6:44

May it please the court. This court should follow through on its writ of review by vacating challenged decisions because they rest on legal error regarding the Commission's authority to create a successor to the net energy metering fuel cell or NEMFC tariff. And because the Commission here did not proceed in the manner required by law, the Commission misapprehended its scope of authority. It did not seriously engage in answering the question it set out to, and then closed up the proceedings below with half-baked alternative approaches not grounded in law or in evidence. This is the first time. Yes, you're right.

Courtney Rae Hudson 7:29

You know, we're very technical at the Court of Appeal. You mentioned decisions, but I your papers only appear to challenge one of the decisions. I just wanted to clarify that.

Julian Poon 7:37

Uh we are primarily challenging decision twenty three dash eleven dash oh six eight. That was the decision from November twenty twenty three. But I suppose we you know, we're we're also wrapping in the rehearing decision twenty four dash zero seven zero three six, which substantially I I think it tweaked a couple of words in one finding.

Courtney Rae Hudson 7:57

Right, I yeah I understand, but just in terms of our what we're formally reviewing and at our disposition we'll reference that one decision.