BILL NUMBER: AB 2803	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 17, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 27, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 14, 2004
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MARCH 26, 2004

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Jerome Horton

                        FEBRUARY 20, 2004

   An act to add Section 1701.7 to the Public Utilities Code,
relating to the Public Utilities Commission.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 2803, as amended, Jerome Horton.  Public Utilities Commission:
hearings :  record on economic impacts  .
   Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory
authority over public utilities and can establish its own
procedures, subject to statutory limitations or directions and
constitutional requirements of due process.  Existing law requires
the commission to determine whether a proceeding requires a
quasi-legislative, an adjudication, or a ratesetting hearing.  
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the commission
assess the economic effects or consequences of its decisions within
existing resources and commission structures, and prohibits the
commission from establishing a separate office or department for the
purpose of evaluating economic development consequences of commission
activities. 
   This bill would require, if the commission determines that a
ratesetting or quasi-legislative case requires a hearing, that the
assigned commissioner or administrative law judge designate in the
scoping memorandum whether there is a need to  perform an
economic impact analysis   develop a record on the
economic impact of issues presented in the case  .  The bill
would require  the assigned commissioner or the assigned
administrative law judge, in determining whether an economic impact
analysis is necessary,   every party in the case to
provide a showing  to assess whether the  ratemaking
  ratesetting  or quasi-legislative case is likely
to affect prescribed  and designated  elements of economic
significance.  The bill would require, if the assigned commissioner
or the assigned administrative law judge determines that  an
economic impact analysis   it  is necessary
 , that the findings of the analysis   to
develop a record on the economic impact of issues presented in the
case, that appropriate findings relative to the economic issues
designated in the scoping memorandum  be included as a part of
the final written decision.   The bill would require the
commission to assess prescribed and designated elements of economic
significance and find that on balance, the proposed decision is in
the public interest.  The bill would provide that the commission's
costs are reimbursable from the utility, to be paid into an account
to be created by the commission in the Utilities Reimbursement
Account in the General Fund, to be available for expenditure by the
commission upon appropriation by the Legislature.
   Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an
order or direction of the commission is a crime.
   The provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and would
require every party in designated cases to provide a showing to
assess whether the case is likely to affect prescribed and designated
elements of economic significance.  Because a violation of that
requirement and a violation of an order or decision of the commission
with respect to reimbursement of the commission's costs would be a
crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by
creating new crimes.  
  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state.  Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason. 
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  yes.
State-mandated local program:   no   yes  .


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


  SECTION 1.  Section 1701.7 is added to the Public Utilities Code,
to read:
   1701.7.  (a) If the commission determines that a 
ratemaking   ratesetting  or quasi-legislative case
requires a hearing pursuant to Section 1701.1, the assigned
commissioner or the assigned administrative law judge shall designate
in the scoping memorandum whether there is a need to 
perform an economic impact analysis.  In determining whether an
economic impact analysis is necessary, the assigned commissioner or
the assigned administrative law judge shall   develop a
record on the economic impact of issues presented in the case.  If it
is determined that it is necessary to develop a record on the
economic impact of these issues, every party to the case, including a
public utility, shall provide a showing to  assess whether the
 ratemaking   ratesetting  or
quasi-legislative case is likely to affect employment, capital
investment, infrastructure deployment, public safety, or any other
element determined to be of economic significance.   If
  Every party to the case, including a public utility,
shall have the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the
evidence, whether the ratesetting or quasi-legislative case is likely
to affect employment, capital investment, infrastructure deployment,
public safety, or any other element determined to be of economic
significance in the scoping memorandum.
   (b) If  the assigned commissioner or the assigned
administrative law judge determines that  an economic impact
analysis is necessary, the findings of the analysis   it
is necessary to develop a record on the economic impact of issues
presented in the case, appropriate findings relative to the economic
impact designated in the scoping memorandum  shall be included
as a part of the final written decision.   The commission shall
assess whether the ratesetting or quasi-legislative case is likely to
affect employment, capital investment, infrastructure deployment,
public safety, or any other element determined to be of economic
significance in the scoping memorandum and shall find based upon the
assessment, that on balance, the proposed decision is in the public
interest.
   (c) The requirements of this section apply to any ratesetting or
quasi-legislative case initiated on or after January 1, 2005.
   (d) The commission's costs of studying and evaluating the economic
impact of issues, including the costs of any required consultants,
are reimbursable from the utility.  Cost reimbursements received by
the commission shall be transferred to an account to be established
by the commission in the commission's Utilities Reimbursement Account
in the General Fund, and shall be available for expenditure by the
commission upon appropriation by the Legislature.
   (e) The Legislature finds and declares that to the extent that the
commission is required by this section to analyze and make findings
relative to the economic impact of issues presented in a ratesetting
or quasi-legislative case, the commission may, consistent with
Section 1701.5, require more than 18 months from the date the scoping
memorandum is issued to resolve the issues raised in the scoping
memorandum.  
   (b) Any additional cost to the commission resulting from the
implementation of subdivision (a) shall not be borne by ratepayers or
the General Fund.  
  SEC. 2.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.