I quite literally thought I was misreading this opinion -- or that it accidentally used the wrong word -- when I first read it.
Nope. That's actually what the lawsuit's about.
Here's how the opinion begins:
"The City of Gridley operates an electric utility that provides electricity to local residents. In this case, real parties in interest (plaintiffs) challenge the city council’s approval of reduced electric rates for residential users in September 2020. Plaintiffs believe these rates—which were in effect for about three years—exacted a tax from residential users . . . ."
Wait. Plaintiffs allege that the reduction of electricity rates constitutes the imposition of a tax? Surely the opinion means to say that the City increased electricity rates, and that that's a tax.
No. Plaintiffs are indeed challenging the City's decision to decrease electricity rates.
The trial court refused to grant summary judgment to the City. The Court of Appeal heard the City's writ and reverses.
Reducing electricity rates is not imposing a tax. Even if you don't think the reduction goes far enough.
Sounds right to me.
