BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                              1
          1





                SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
                            MARTHA M. ESCUTIA, CHAIRWOMAN
          

          AB 736 -  J. Horton                               Hearing Date:   
          June 30, 2005              A
          As Amended:         June 27, 2005            FISCAL       B
                                                                        
                                                                        7
                                                                        3
                                                                        6

                                      DESCRIPTION
           
           Current law  requires an order by the California Public Utilities  
          Commission (CPUC) before a public utility sells or disposes of  
          any useful public utility property.

           This bill  authorizes the CPUC to authorize the sale or disposal  
          of public utility property through an advice letter process for  
          transactions valued at $5 million or less.  That process must be  
          completed within 120 days unless the advice letter is contested  
          or the documentation supporting the sale or disposal is  
          incomplete.  The CPUC is authorized to limit the types of  
          transactions that can use the advice letter process.

                                      BACKGROUND
           
          Reviewing and approving public utility asset sales ensures that  
          utilities retain the assets that are necessary for delivery of  
          high quality service.  To the extent that assets are sold, this  
          process ensures that the utility and its ratepayers are fairly  
          compensated.  These types of reviews are among the most common  
          formal proceedings before the CPUC.

          This review process has been criticized for being costly and  
          cumbersome.  Some have asserted that the high cost of compliance  
          has led some utilities to simply not comply.  Independent of  
          this bill, the CPUC is establishing a pilot program to create a  
          more streamlined review process.  Their proposal is to process  
          certain transactions via an advice letter process, which is a  
          less formalized review that does not require attorneys or  
          hearings.  Only transactions worth less than $500,000 and that  
          are not subject to review by the CPUC under the California  











          Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be eligible for this  
          process.  Theoretically advice letters are reviewed by  
          interested parties, including the Office of the Ratepayer  
          Advocate, though in practice this does not always happen.  

          This bill expands that proposed pilot program by specifically  
          requiring an advice letter process for transactions under $5  
          million.  It also requires a decision to be made within 120 days  
          if there is no objection to the advice letter.













































                                       COMMENTS

           There has been some concern that the informality of the advice  
          letter process may make it inappropriate where the sale of  
          utility property requires CEQA review.  This concern could be  
          dealt with by giving the CPUC the authority to use a different  
          process for transactions worth less than $5 million.  The bill  
          could also contain intent language clarifying the desire to  
          fully comply with CEQA.   The author and committee may wish to  
          consider making these amendments  .

          For smaller utilities the $5 million threshold may represent  
          such a significant part of the utility's rate base that an  
          advice letter process would provide an inadequate review.   The  
          author and committee may wish to consider  adding intent language  
          that the CPUC not use the advice letter process where there is a  
          material impact on the utility's ratebase.
                                           
                                   ASSEMBLY VOTES
           
          Assembly Floor                     (76-0)
          Assembly Appropriations Committee  (18-0)
          Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee                       
          (11-0)

                                       POSITIONS
           
           Sponsor:
           
          Volcano Communications Group

           Support:
           
          California Telephone Association
          California Water Association
          Global Valley Networks
          Kerman Telephone Company
          Sierra Telephone
          SureWest Communications
          Wild Goose Storage, Inc.
          An individual

           Oppose:
           










          None on file
          




          Randy Chinn 
          AB 736 Analysis
          Hearing Date:  June 30, 2005