Opponents of a proposed power plant in San Jose have lost an attempt to get their arguments heard in court. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that project opponents could not bring a case in Superior Court because the California Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review power plant certification decisions by the state Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the opponents' lawsuit without reviewing the record did not matter, the Third District held. The case stemmed from the Energy Commission's approval in September 2001 of Calpine Corporation's proposal to build a 600-megawatt power plant in San Jose's Coyote Valley (see CP&DR In Brief, October 2001; CP&DR July 2001, March 2001). In December 2001, project opponents simultaneously filed lawsuits at the state Supreme Court and in Sacramento County Superior Court. The lawsuits argued that the Energy Commission had violated opponents' due process rights by failing to provide a fair hearing, violated the public trust doctrine of the state constitution, and violated the U.S. constitution's supremacy clause because the proposal conflicted with federal air quality regulations. Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian dismissed the lawsuit, concluding only the state Supreme Court had jurisdiction under a law approved in 2001 (Public Resources Code ยง 25531). Five days later, the Supreme Court summarily denied the opponent's petition for a hearing. Opponents appealed Judge Ohanesian's decision. They conceded the statute required them to seek relief in the Supreme Court, but they argued that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to consider the case because the Supreme Court had ruled summarily. They contended their constitutional claims had to be heard somewhere. But the unanimous three-judge panel of the Third District ruled that the state Supreme Court's summary ruling was all the opponents were going to get. "The flaw in [opponents'] argument is plaintiff's assumption that the Supreme Court failed to conduct any substantive review of their constitutional claims when the court summarily denied their petition for a writ of mandate. This assumption is unwarranted," Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the court. "If a writ petition in the California Supreme Court is the exclusive means of obtaining review of a quasi-judicial decision, the Supreme Court's summary denial of such a petition is a final judicial determination on the merits," Robie continued. Robie cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Napa Valley Elec. Co. v. Railroad Commission, (1920) 251 U.S. 366. That case stood for the proposition that judicial review on the merits may occur without a review of the evidentiary record, Robie wrote. For the same reason, the court rejected the opponents' argument that the Superior Court's unwillingness to review the actions of an executive branch agency was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. "Plaintiffs constitutional claims were judicially reviewed on the merits by the California Supreme Court," Robie concluded. The Case: Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. California Energy Commission, No. C041090, 03 C.D.O.S. 1115, 2003 DJDAR 1407. Filed February 5, 2003. The Lawyers: For Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group: Stephan Volker, (510) 496-0600. For the commission: William Chamberlain, CEC, (415) 654-3951. For Calpine: Jeffrey D. Harris, Ellison, Schneider & Harris, (916) 447-2166.