BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1735
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Sarah Reyes, Chair
AB 1735 (Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee) - As Amended:
April 24, 2003
SUBJECT : Public Utilities Commission: ratesetting and
quasi-legislative cases.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to resolve a ratesetting or quasi-legislative case within
18 months of the date of filing. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires PUC to resolve a ratesetting or quasi-legislative
case within 18 months of the date of filing, unless PUC makes
a written determination the deadline cannot be met and issues
an order extending that deadline.
2)Specifies that if PUC issues an order extending a deadline in
a public utility's general rate case proceeding for reasons
not caused by the utility, then the utility's test year
results of operations and rates shall be effective as of the
first day of the first test year.
3)Provides that if a rehearing of a ratesetting or
quasi-legislative case is granted, the parties shall have an
opportunity for final oral argument.
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)PUC to determine whether a proceeding requires a hearing, and,
if so, whether it will be a quasi-legislative<1> or
ratesetting hearing,<2> or an adjudication.<3>
2)PUC to resolve adjudication cases within 12 months of filing,
---------------------------
<1> Quasi-legislative hearings establish policy, including
rulemakings and investigations, and may result in adoption of
rules affecting an entire industry.
<2> In ratesetting hearings, rates are established for a
specific company.
<3> Adjudications are enforcement cases and complaints.
AB 1735
Page B
unless PUC makes a written determination that the deadline
cannot be met and issues an order extending the deadline.
3)PUC to issue a decision within 60 days after a proposed
decision is served, in ratesetting and quasi-legislative
matters, except that, under extraordinary circumstances, PUC
may extend that date for a reasonable time.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
PUC's decision-making processes were last examined
comprehensively in 1996 in conjunction with the electric
restructuring effort. At that time, concerns were raised 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.
SB 960 (Leonard) also provided an uncodified statement of
legislative intent, stating in part that:
"It is further the intent of the Legislature that the
Public Utilities Commission establish reasonable time
periods for the resolution of proceedings, that it meet
those deadlines, that those deadlines not exceed 18 months
and be consistent with the rate case plans, whichever is
shorter."
This bill codifies the 18-month deadline for ratesetting and
quasi-legislative proceedings.
PUC requests amendments
The PUC requests 2 amendments to this bill. First, PUC suggests
that many times there are proceedings that can be expected to be
quite complex and produce several decisions, and asks that this
bill be amended to allow PUC to identify those proceedings at
AB 1735
Page C
the outset and exempt them from the required timeline.
This bill allows PUC to identify proceedings in which the
18-month deadline for final resolution cannot be met, but the
suggested change from PUC would allow PUC to decide up front
that a case would be excluded from case resolution deadlines,
which runs counter to the intent of this bill to improve PUC
accountability and case resolution backlog.
Second, PUC asks that this bill be amended to leave unchanged
PUC's own procedures for handling rehearings in ratesettings and
quasi-legislative hearings, which differs from procedures in
place for adjudication cases. This request is well taken.
Given that ratesetting cases are not enforcement cases, the
rehearing protections afforded litigants in adjudication cases
do not appear essential to fair resolution of ratesetting cases.
This bill will be amended to reflect this.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Public Utilities Commission (if amended)
SBC
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Paul Donahue / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083