Call me crazy. But when (1) your case is substantively identical to one which the California Supreme Court granted review; (2) the California Supreme Court granted review of your prior opinion, held it pending the adjudication of the other case, and then remanded it after it adjudicated the case it took; (3) the California Supreme Court squarely held in the other case that preemption existed, on facts (again) identical to those at issue in your case; and (4) after the California Supreme Court ruled, the appellant in your case admitted that the present case must be affirmed -- well, given all these facts, why are we publishing this opinion? Which, in large part, merely consists of block quotations from the California Supreme Court's case, and holds that, yep, as everyone agrees, the case is on all fours.
No harm to publish it, I guess. Though some trees might disagree. Still, for whatever it's worth, I don't think the opinion meets the standards for publication. Though that may just be more insight into how meaningless those standards are in practice than anything else.
You publish opinions you feel like publishing. Even if the principal point is simply to say: "See, I told you so."