BILL ANALYSIS 1 1 SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN SB 1624 - Bowen Hearing Date: April 13, 2004 S As Amended: March 22, 2004 Non-FISCAL B 1 6 2 4 DESCRIPTION Current law establishes a division within the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to represent the interests of public utility customers and subscribers. That division is known as the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA). This bill clarifies that ORA has all the rights of a party to intervene in CPUC proceedings and in judicial review of CPUC decisions. BACKGROUND The CPUC decision-making process is a formalized, evidence-driven process where interested parties submit testimony and are subjected to cross-examination by opposing parties. CPUC decisions are supposed to be made based on the weight of the evidence, subject to consistency with the laws of the state. Because the evidence is so crucial to CPUC decision-making, the Legislature created the ORA as a counterweight to the perspective of the utilities, tasking it with the responsibility of providing independent evidence and analysis. ORA participates in virtually all CPUC cases with the duty of representing the interests of public utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The ORA director is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Parties who disagree with CPUC decisions may appeal those decisions, first to the CPUC itself, then to the Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court. The Court has the discretion to accept the case or refuse to hear it. There is some question as to whether the ORA, as a representative of public utility customers, can challenge a CPUC decision in court. COMMENTS 1.Who Should Get To Go To Court . The ORA is the statutorily mandated representative of the ratepayer, representing ratepayers in virtually every CPUC case. Given that mandate and the fact that every other party to a CPUC case can challenge a CPUC decision in court, it makes little sense to deprive the sanctioned ratepayer representative of that same right. Individual ratepayers have neither the interest nor where with all to contest CPUC decisions in court. Groups that rely on intervenor compensation to pay for their efforts, such as TURN, can take the CPUC to court, but they only get paid if the CPUC agrees to pay them, so taking on the CPUC is a very substantial financial risk for these groups. This contrasts sharply with the ability of utilities to seek court review, who can have their court costs covered through utility rates. 2.Give Me Liberty Or . . . Unlike other parties in CPUC proceedings, the ORA isn't independent of the CPUC. The ORA's budget is a line item within the CPUC's budget and the CPUC President can direct the CPUC staff in the performance of their duties. This lack of independence may make it difficult for the ORA to utilize the authority to challenge the decisions by essentially taking its boss to court. However, that difficulty may create a useful tension to ensure the ORA challenges the CPUC only when it believes the CPUC is clearly wrong. Besides, the benefit of providing the ORA with clear authority to challenge the CPUC lies as much with the threat of judicial review as with actually obtaining judicial review. POSITIONS Sponsor: Author Support: California Alliance For Consumer Protection Oppose: None on file Randy Chinn SB 1624 Analysis Hearing Date: April 13, 2004