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