BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 2490 - Canciamilla Hearing Date:
June 25, 2002 A
As Amended: June 24, 2002 FISCAL B
2
4
9
0
DESCRIPTION
Current law establishes procedures for the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) to resolve cases. Cases fall into
one of three different categories: adjudicatory, ratesetting,
or quasi-legislative. Adjudicatory cases must be resolved
within 12 months unless the CPUC issues an order extending the
deadline. Ratesetting and quasi-legislative cases must have
final decision approved not later than 60 days after the
proposed decision is issued, unless extraordinary circumstances
exist.
Current uncodified law requires the CPUC to annually submit a
report to the Legislature on its timeliness in resolving cases.
This bill changes the circumstances under which the CPUC may
extend the deadlines for resolving cases. The 12 month deadline
for adjudicatory cases can be extended by 60 days upon a vote of
the CPUC. The maximum 60-day interval between a proposed
decision and a final decision for both ratesetting and
quasi-legislative cases can be extended by 60 days upon a vote
of the commission or agreement by all parties in the case.
This bill requires the CPUC to file a report to the Legislature
whenever it misses a statutory deadline to resolve a case.
BACKGROUND
The CPUC's decision-making process has at its heart a courtroom.
It's a formal process overseen by administrative law judges
(ALJ) relying on a record of written and oral testimony acquired
through public hearings. The ALJs create the record and assist
in writing the decision for the commissioner assigned to the
case. The initial, or proposed, decision of that commissioner
is then reviewed by the other four commissioners. Those
commissioners can then choose to vote for or against that
proposed decision. It's not uncommon for a commissioner to
draft an alternate to the assigned commissioner's proposed
decision, which then may be considered by the commissioners.
Final CPUC decisions can be appealed to the commission and,
ultimately, to the courts.
Current CPUC practice allows any commissioner the right to have
a proposed decision not be voted upon during a commission
meeting, a process known as a "hold." This gives every
commissioner time to understand the final decision and craft an
alternative, if he or she so chooses. There is no formal limit
as to the number of "holds" a commissioner may have or that a
proposed decision may be subject to, though the commission can
override a "hold request" by a majority vote of the CPUC.
The CPUC's decision making processes were last examined
comprehensively in 1996 in conjunction with the electric
restructuring effort. At that time, there were concerns about
the lack of involvement by commissioners in developing the
record and making the decisions, potential conflicts of
interest, and a lack of timely decisions. SB 960 (Leonard),
Chapter 856, Statutes of 1996, attempted to address those
concerns by establishing the three categories of cases described
above, creating ex-parte communication rules, establishing the
Office of the Ratepayer Advocate whose director serves at the
pleasure of the Governor, and encouraging much greater
participation by, and access to, commissioners.
The author believes that despite the enactment of SB 960
(Leonard), the CPUC routinely misses or ignores the deadlines
for resolving cases. The author cites CPUC statistics showing
that in 2000, the CPUC missed its deadline 27% of the time,
while in 2001, it missed its deadline 34% of the time.
COMMENTS
1)Why Are There Delays? This bill deals with the timeframe
between a proposed CPUC decision and a final CPUC decision.
This is the time when all the commissioner offices start to
examine the case and consider offering alternative solutions.
Part of the reason for the CPUC's delays in 1999 and 2000 is
the commission was undergoing a political transformation from
one appointed by Governor Wilson to one appointed by Governor
Davis. That these two sets of commissioners might disagree on
issues isn't surprising, nor is the notion that such
disagreements would lead to alternative decisions being
created, thereby delaying the resolution of cases.
2)Requiring A Vote To "Hold" A Decision Over . As noted above,
any commissioner can put a "hold" on a proposed decision and
ask that it be put over to another day. Any commissioner,
including the author of the proposed decision, can ask for a
vote to deny or override the "hold" request. This bill turns
the current practice around by requiring a majority vote of
the commission to postpone a vote on a proposed decision,
instead of requiring a vote to override a request to postpone
a vote on a particular decision. The author and committee may
wish to consider how the public will be affected, either
positively or negatively, by requiring commissioners to vote
on requests to "hold" proposed decisions.
3)Will This Bill Restrict Dissent? By requiring a majority vote
to delay consideration of a proposed decision, this bill could
have the unintended effect of stifling dissent. Arguably, if
a commissioner feels he or she has a majority of commissioners
on his or her side to approve a proposed decisions, why would
he or she vote to provide another commissioner with more time
to create an alternative decision?
Arguably, the same "conflict" takes place today in that a
commissioner could push for a vote to override another
commissioner's request to "hold" a particular proposed
decision. This bill takes what is an informal practice
(allowing a proposed decision to be held over unless a
commissioner demands a vote to override it) and turns it into
a formal practice (requiring all requests to hold a proposed
decision over to be voted upon).
4)Logistical Implications . Prior to voting on any proposed
decision, the commission must make the decision available for
30 days of public notice and comment, though that 30 days may
be reduced in emergencies or upon stipulation of all parties.
One practical effect of this bill is that instead of allowing
a proposed decision to be held or put over prior to it being
set for hearing, every proposed decision will have to be
calendared 30 days in advance to allow the vote to hold over
the proposed decision to take place. This process may slow,
rather than speed up, final resolution of cases.
5)Speed vs. Quality . There's little dispute that quicker
processing of cases by the CPUC is a virtue if it doesn't
degrade the quality of the decisions. It's not clear how
requiring commissioners to vote to extend deadlines will
accomplish the goal of getting the CPUC to make speedier
decisions on complex issues.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (71-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (21-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(15-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
None on file
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
AB 2490 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 25, 2002