BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT
Senator Don Perata, Chair
BILL NO: SCA 6 HEARING DATE:5/7/03
AUTHOR: BATTIN ANALYSIS BY:Darren
Chesin
AMENDED: 4/22/03
FISCAL: YES
PRIOR ACTION :
Senate Energy, Utilities and
Communications Committee: 8-0
SUBJECT :
Public Utilities Commission: election
BACKGROUND :
Pursuant to the California Constitution, the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) consists of five members
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for
staggered six-year terms. The Legislature, with a
two-thirds vote of each house, may remove a CPUC
commissioner for incompetence, neglect of duty, or
corruption. The Governor has no authority to remove a
confirmed commissioner.
When the predecessor to the CPUC, the Railroad Commission,
was first established in 1879, it was comprised of three
popularly elected members. Because of the extraordinary
influence of the railroads, both as landowners and near
monopolistic transportation companies, the elected Railroad
Commission proved inadequate at checking the power of the
railroads. Resentment of the railroads grew, inspiring
reform efforts in both the Republican and Democratic
parties that gave birth to the Progressive movement. The
Progressives won a near-majority in the Legislature in
1909. In 1910, Progressive candidate Hiram Johnson was
elected Governor. This led to 23 Progressive-sponsored
constitutional amendments in 1911, all but one of which was
approved by the voters.
One of those constitutional amendments created the CPUC
that Californians are familiar with today. The theory
behind the creation of the CPUC was appointed commissioners
would be independent of improper, corrupt, or partisan
political influence, and that staggered terms would provide
for greater stability. The requirement for Senate
confirmation was added in 1946.
PROPOSED LAW :
This measure would instead require the five members of the
CPUC to be elected for 4-year terms at gubernatorial
elections. The measure would require the state to be
divided into five districts with the voters of each
district electing one member, and would provide for the
establishment and adjustment of district boundaries by the
Legislature. This measure would also require the
Legislature to impose by statute a requirement that a
member reside in the district represented by that member.
This measure would provide that vacancies be filled for the
remainder of the term in the same manner now in effect for
other statewide elected officials (nomination by the
Governor with confirmation by both houses of the
Legislature) and CPUC members would be subject to existing
recall and impeachment procedures.
This measure would include members of the Public Utilities
Commission among those state officers whose salaries and
benefits would be established by the California Citizens
Compensation Commission using the value of the salary and
benefits paid on January 1, 2006, as the base amount.
If approved by the Legislature, this measure would appear
on the March 2, 2004 ballot. If passed by the voters,
candidates for CPUC membership would seek office in 2006.
COMMENTS :
1.According to the author, The CPUC affects every person in
the state through its regulation of energy, natural gas,
water, telecommunications and transportation companies.
Its members wield tremendous power, all with very little
oversight or accountability. The current appointment
SCA 6 (BATTIN)
Page 2
process has only resulted in confusion and inexperience
on the CPUC. Most of the members lack any real expertise
that is directly related to the position. To remedy
this, SCA 6 would amend the state constitution to require
that CPUC officials be chosen through public elections,
allowing the decision to be made by the people who they
represent. A major provision of SCA 6 is the regional
election of representatives. Energy, water,
telecommunications and transportation issues vary
throughout the state, and this would ensure that the
various regions would have a greater voice by electing a
CPUC member to represent their valid concerns.
2.This measure was amended in the Senate Energy, Utilities
and Communications Committee to remove a two-term
limitation on serving on the elected CPUC. If unchanged,
CPUC members would be the only state elected officers not
subject to term limits. Should this bill be amended to
reinstate the two-term limit? If so, this measure should
also be amended to clarify the point at which an
unexpired term counts against the limit for the person
appointed to fill a vacancy.
3.Should this measure be amended to increase the number of
seats on the CPUC? Based on the 2000 federal census,
each of the five CPUC districts would contain almost 6.8
million people.
4.Since the CPUC directly regulates various industries and
considers rate adjustments, should this bill be amended
to prohibit CPUC candidates from accepting contributions
from the entities over which it governs? Although
ultimately unsuccessful, this committee has previously
approved legislation to prohibit industry contributions
to the Insurance Commissioner.
5.It is not clear which set of Proposition 34's
contribution limits would apply to a candidate for the
CPUC. For instance, candidates for the Legislature are
limited to accepting $3,000 per person per election while
candidates for the Board of Equalization and statewide
offices (other than Governor) may accept up to $5,000 per
person per election. This issue must eventually be
clarified in a separate bill amending the Political
Reform Act.
SCA 6 (BATTIN)
Page 3
6.Thirteen mostly southern states have elected Public
Utility Commissions including Arizona and Georgia. Of
those, nine are elected statewide, two are elected by
district, and two are elected by the Legislature.
7.SCA 21 (Solis) was introduced in 1995 and sought to
create a publicly-elected CPUC, much as this bill does.
That measure eventually died in a conference committee.
POSITIONS :
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: Verizon
California Manufacturers and Technology
Association
SCA 6 (BATTIN)
Page 4