BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1735|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1735
Author: Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
Amended: 8/18/03 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 6-0, 7/8/03
AYES: Bowen, Alarcon, Dunn, McClintock, Murray,
Vasconcellos
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow, Battin, Sher
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 6/3/03 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State Public Utilities Commission: ratesetting
and quasi-
legislative cases
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires the State Public Utilities
Commission to resolve all ratesetting and quasi-legislative
cases within 18 months of the date of filing, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Current law requires the State Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) 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 PUC orders the deadline
extended. Under current law, it's the intent of the
Legislature that all other proceedings be completed within
CONTINUED
AB 1735
Page
2
18 months.
Current law requires the PUC to annually publish a work
plan describing the scheduled decisions in the coming year.
Current law requires the PUC 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 PUC makes a written
determination that the deadline cannot be met and issues an
order extending the deadline. No single order may extend
the deadline for more than 60 days.
This bill includes language that allows the PUC to exceed
the 18-month timeframe if the scoping memo for the case
explains why a longer timeframe is required, and the
commissioner assigned to the case agrees.
This bill requires the President of the PUC to annually
appear before the appropriate policy committees of the
Senate and Assembly to report on the PUC's work plan for
the coming year, the timeliness with which the PUC
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 PUC was an
unaccountable body whose decisions were staff-driven and
made on a deadline of the PUC'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 PUC'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.
AB 1735
Page
3
Prior to starting any case, the PUC 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 PUC can extend the
deadline if necessary. Quasi-legislative and ratesetting
cases do not 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 PUC
commissioners be more directly involved in the PUC's
decisions, and encouraged the timely resolution of cases.
It required the PUC 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
This bill codifies the intent of the Legislature
established in SB 960 with regard to the speed with which
the PUC must resolve a case. The 18-month deadline isn't
an absolute deadline, because the PUC 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 PUC must subsequently examine the
record, issue a proposed decision, issue alternate
decisions, and vote. This might not be such a chore if the
PUC was processing one case at a time, but typically the
PUC has dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of varying
complexity open at any one time. Some PUC 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 PUC 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
AB 1735
Page
4
what it intends to do in the following year. This bill
requires the PUC President to deliver that report in person
to the relevant Senate and Assembly policy committees.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/03)
State Public Utilities Commission
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
SBC
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,
Calderon, Campbell, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu,
Cogdill, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz,
Dutra, Dutton, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia,
Goldberg, Hancock, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Jackson, Keene, Kehoe, La Malfa, La
Suer, Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Liu,
Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Maze,
McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nakano,
Nation, Negrete McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra,
Pavley, Plescia, Reyes, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner,
Salinas, Samuelian, Simitian, Spitzer, Steinberg,
Strickland, Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Wyland, Yee, Wesson
NC:mel 8/19/03 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****