BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
SB 201 - Speier Hearing
Date: April 24, 2001 S
As Introduced: February 8, 2001 FISCAL B
2
0
1
DESCRIPTION
Current law establishes a division within the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to represent the
interests of public utility customers in CPUC proceedings.
The director of the division, known as the Office of
Ratepayer Advocate (ORA), serves at the pleasure of the
Governor and is subject to confirmation by the Senate. The
Governor's ability to appoint the ORA director and the
specific Ratepayer Advocate Account in the General Fund are
scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2002.
Current law provides that should the sunset take place, the
law would return to the way it read prior to 1997 whereby
the CPUC appointed and funded the ORA to represent the
interests of utility customers and subscribers in CPUC
proceedings.
This bill removes the sunset, requires the ORA director to
be paid a salary equal to 90% of that received by the CPUC
commissioners, and deletes the replacement section of law
that would take effect should the sunset actually take
place.
BACKGROUND
ORA is the state-sanctioned representative of consumers at
the CPUC and it's required to participate in all
significant electric, telecommunications, natural gas, and
water cases. In the smallest cases, ORA may provide the
only financial analysis of the case, but in larger cases,
ORA frequently presents the only comprehensive alternative
analysis to the one put forth by the utility.
In 1996, concurrent with the electric restructuring effort,
the existing ORA was modified to make its director a
Governor's appointment and to provide a separate line item
within the CPUC budget. The purpose of this change was to
ensure ORA accountability. Without this bill, those
provisions will sunset, meaning ORA will be returned to its
former status and make its director an appointee of the
CPUC.
Many other consumer groups are represented at the CPUC. In
order to encourage participation, state law provides for
compensation of costs if that group makes a substantial
contribution to the case and participation by that group
couldn't occur without significant financial hardship, as
determined by the CPUC.
COMMENTS
1)Narrow Or Wide Vision? The statute creating ORA has been
narrowly read by some utilities to limit its activities
to formal proceedings at the CPUC. This is inconsistent
with the original purpose for creating ORA, which was to
create an advocate for ratepayers and to give that
advocate all of the same broad investigatory powers
possessed by the CPUC. Should that narrow interpretation
prevail, ORA could be barred from investigating issues
which could lead to formal proceedings. As such, the
author and committee may wish to consider clarifying this
by deleting the phrase "in commission proceedings" on
Page 2, Line 6.
2)Salary . This bill statutorily sets the salary of the ORA
director at 90% of the salary paid to CPUC commissioners.
The salary for the President of the CPUC is set by
Government Code Section 11553, while the remaining CPUC
commissioners have their salary set by Government Code
Section 11553.5. Today, the other four CPUC
commissioners receive a salary of $114,191 each, while
the CPUC President receives a slightly higher
(approximately 3%) salary.
On March 21, 2001, Regina Ann Birdsall was appointed by
the Governor to head the ORA at a salary of $101,220,
which is approximately 88.6% of the salary paid to four
of the commissioners, but somewhat less than that if one
factors in the higher salary paid to the CPUC President.
It's not clear why the ORA director's salary should be
set in statute. The author and committee may wish to
consider deleting this provision, leaving the director's
salary in the hands of the Department of Personal
Administration.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
None on file
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
SB 201 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 24, 2001