BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 1735 - Utilities & Commerce Hearing
Date: July 8, 2003 A
As Amended: July 2, 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.
Current law requires the CPUC to annually publish a work plan
describing the scheduled decisions in the coming year.
Current law requires the CPUC to annually report on the number
of cases where resolution exceeded the time prescribed in the
scoping memos and the number of days that commissioners presided
in hearings.
This bill requires quasi-legislative and ratesetting cases to be
resolved within 18 months of the date the scoping memo is
issued, unless the CPUC makes a written determination that the
deadline cannot be met and issues an order extending the
deadline.
This bill requires the President of the CPUC to annually appear
before the appropriate policy committees of the Senate and
Assembly to report on the CPUC's work plan for the coming year,
the timeliness with which the CPUC completed its work in the
prior year, and the number of days commissioners presided in
hearings.
BACKGROUND
In the mid-1990's there was a 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 that CPUC
commissioners be 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
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 for an extension
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.
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,
but also require the CPUC to specify an alternate resolution
date in the scoping memo. 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.Show And Tell . The CPUC is already required to issue a report
to the Legislature on the number of cases that took too long
to resolve, the number of days commissioners presided in
hearings, what the commission did in the prior year, and what
it intends to do in the following year. This measure requires
the CPUC President to deliver that report in person to the
relevant Senate and Assembly policy committees.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (79-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (25-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(13-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
California Public Utilities Commission (if amended)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
SBC
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
AB 1735 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 8, 2003