BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2490
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Roderick D. Wright, Chair
AB 2490 (Canciamilla) - As Introduced: February 21, 2002
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
SUBJECT : Public Utilities Commission: decisions and reporting.
SUMMARY : Requires California Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
to issue decisions within a specific time period and report to
the Legislature whenever it misses a statutory decision
deadline. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires PUC to issue a decision in any pending matter not
more than 210 days after the matter is submitted for decision,
or not more than 120 days after a proposed decision is issued.
2)Allows PUC to issue an order extending the above time periods
for its vote on a final decision as follows:
a) For 60 additional days if PUC states the cause for the
delay in the continuance order.
b) If an alternate decision is issued, for 90 additional
days.
3)Requires PUC to submit a report to the Legislature and the
Governor within 10 days after PUC or its staff misses a
statutory deadline to meet or act on a matter pending before
PUC.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires PUC to determine whether a proceeding requires a
hearing, and, if so, whether it will be a quasi-legislative<1>
---------------------------
<1> Quasi-legislative hearings establish policy, including
rulemakings and investigations, and may result in adoption of
rules affecting an entire industry.
AB 2490
Page B
or ratesetting hearing,<2> or an adjudication.<3>
2)Requires the assigned PUC commissioner or an administrative
law judge (ALJ) to prepare and file a proposed decision in PUC
proceedings.
3)Provides that a proposed decision shall be served on all
parties to the action or proceeding, not later than 90 days
after the matter has been submitted for a proposed decision.
4)Requires PUC to issue a decision within 60 days after the
proposed decision is served, in ratesetting and
quasi-legislative matters, except that, under extraordinary
circumstances, PUC may extend that date for a reasonable time.
5)Allows a 30-day public review and comment before PUC can vote
on some proposed decisions, and allows that 30-day period to
be reduced or waived by PUC, either in an unforeseen emergency
situation, or by stipulation of the parties.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
It is the intent of the author to speed resolution of PUC
ratesettings, rulemakings and adjudication's. This bill allows
210 days from the date the record is complete, and the evidence
is in, for ALJ to issue a proposed decision, and for PUC to vote
on a final decision. Existing law appears to allow only 150
days -- 90 days from submission of the case to serve a proposed
decision,<4> and 60 days thereafter for PUC vote on a final
---------------------------
<2> In ratesetting hearings, rates are established for a
specific company.
<3> Adjudication's are enforcement cases and complaints.
<4> Public Utilities Code 311 (d)
AB 2490
Page C
decision.<5>
Similarly, this bill requires in the alternative that PUC issue
a final decision within 120 days after a proposed decision is
issued and served, yet provisions of existing law elsewhere in
the code require PUC final decision 60 days after issuance of a
proposed decision.
In adding the 210-day and 120-day extensions of time within
which a decision must be issued, this bill attempts to define
the outer limits of what is a "reasonable" time that PUC may
delay its final decision on a proposed decision, which existing
law allows under "extraordinary circumstances."
Another apparent objective of the author in introducing this
measure was to fix a time by which a case, rate setting or
rulemaking is submitted for decision once the rulemaking or
other hearing is begun and the docket is opened.
Existing law does not cover this, except in an adjudication,
which must be decided within a year after a case is opened. If
the author were inclined, this bill could set time certain by
which a case or matter was submitted for issuance of a proposed
decision, thereby triggering the 150-day decision track for
final PUC action. Any time frame set forth in statute would of
necessity require a mechanism for pushing back the deadline in
complex rulemakings and the like, perhaps by vote of PUC or
stipulation of the parties.
Similarly, the time period to which PUC is entitled, under
extraordinary circumstances, to extend the date for final
decision could be defined as done in this bill, but should be
done in that part of the code relating to hearings and decision
issuance.
Staff recommendations
In light of the above, the Committee and the author may wish to:
1)Retain SECTION 2 of this bill, which requires PUC reporting to
the Legislature whenever PUC misses deadlines to meet or act
on matters before it.
---------------------------
<5> Public Utilities Code 1701.3(e) [ratesetting hearings] and
1701.4 (d) [quasi-legislative hearings]. In adjudications,
the ALJ has only 60 days after submission of the case to issue a
proposed decision, and the proposed decision becomes final if no
further action is taken within 30 days. [Pub. Util. Code
1701.2]
AB 2490
Page D
2)Add provisions to this bill that dictate a maximum time
period, after a proceeding is initiated, by which the matter
must be submitted for proposed decision, and PUC vote on a
final disposition of the matter. PUC could continue a matter
by vote at a noticed hearing, or by stipulation of the
parties. Perhaps one year may be an appropriate time, but the
Committee or the author may have additional or different
proposals altogether.
3)Define the outer limit of what is a "reasonable" time for
continuing a final PUC vote on a proposed decision that has
been issued by ALJ.
4)Modify SECTION 1 of this bill to remove ambiguities relating
to existing law set forth elsewhere in the Public Utilities
Code.
SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
SBC Pacific Bell
Verizon
IEP
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Paul Donahue / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083