BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 1735 - Utilities & Commerce Hearing
Date: June 24, 2003 A
As Amended: May 28, 2003 FISCAL B
1
7
3
5
DESCRIPTION
Current law requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to assign its cases into one of three categories:
adjudication, quasi-legislative, and ratesetting. Adjudications
are required to be completed within 12 months, unless the CPUC
orders the deadline extended. Under current law, it's the
intent of the Legislature that all other proceedings be
completed within 18 months.
This bill requires quasi-legislative and ratesetting cases to be
resolved within 18 months of the date of filing, unless the CPUC
makes a written determination that the deadline cannot be met
and issues an order extending the deadline.
BACKGROUND
In the mid-1990's, there was increasing concern that the CPUC
was an unaccountable body whose decisions were staff-driven and
made on a deadline of the CPUC's own choosing without regard for
the need for expeditiousness.
In 1996, the Governor signed SB 960 (Leonard), Chapter 856,
Statutes of 1996, which revised the CPUC's processes by
establishing three types of cases -- adjudicatory cases, such as
enforcement and complaint cases; quasi-legislative cases, where
policies are established; and ratesetting cases, where rates are
established -- and creating specific processing rules for each
type of case.
Prior to starting any case, the CPUC is required to hold a
hearing establishing the type of case, the issues to be
considered, and the timetable for resolution, which are all
contained in a scoping memo. Adjudicatory cases are to be
resolved within 12 months, though the CPUC can extend the
deadline if necessary. Quasi-legislative and ratesetting cases
don't have firm resolution deadlines established, though the
intent of the Legislature is that those cases be resolved within
18 months.
SB 960 also declared the intent of the Legislature to ensure
that the CPUC commissioners are more directly involved in the
CPUC's decisions, and encouraged the timely resolution of cases.
It required the CPUC to annually report to the Legislature on
the number of cases that took too long to resolve and the number
of days that commissioners presided in hearings.
COMMENTS
1.We Don't Just Intend It, We Mean It . This bill codifies the
intent of the Legislature established in SB 960 with regard to
the speed with which the CPUC must resolve a case. The
18-month deadline isn't an absolute deadline, because the CPUC
can extend it if it articulates the reasons why it wants to
extend it and issues an order, just as it can now do for
adjudicatory cases.
While 18 months seems like a long time, resolving a case can
be a complicated matter. The parties must go through a
discovery process, formulate a case, prepare testimony,
present witnesses and cross-examine opposing witnesses, and
brief the case, while the CPUC must subsequently examine the
record, issue a proposed decision, issue alternate decisions,
and vote. This might not be such a chore if the CPUC was
processing one case at a time, but typically the CPUC has
dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of varying complexity open
at any one time. Some CPUC cases extend for several years as
the issues are dealt with in phases, with the character of the
second phase dependent on the outcome of the first.
This bill refers to the resolution of a case within 18 months
of the date of filing. The author and committee may wish to
consider making this more precise by requiring instead that
the CPUC resolve the issues raised in the scoping memo within
18 months of the date of issuance of the scoping memo.
The CPUC has suggested allowing it to establish deadlines of
greater than 18 months in the scoping memo. The author and
committee may wish to consider the benefit of such an
amendment, which would give parties fair warning at the front
of the process that the case will take longer than 18 months.
Absent such an ability, parties would have to wait until the
end of the 18 month process before the CPUC would be allowed
to make a finding that it needs more time.
2.Is That Report Card Signed? SB 960 tried to encourage more
timely resolution of CPUC cases by moral suasion, statements
of legislative intent, and an uncodified requirement that it
provide the Legislature with an annual report card on the
timeliness of its decision-making. The author and committee
may wish to consider codifying the report card requirement and
requiring the CPUC President to come before the respective
policy committees of the Senate and Assembly each year to
present the report card.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (79-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (25-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(13-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
SBC
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
AB 1735 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 24, 2003