BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 895 Page 1 GOVERNOR'S VETO AB 895 (Rendon) As Enrolled September 16, 2015 2/3 vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(June 1, 2015) |SENATE: |39-0 |(September 10, | | | | | | |2015) | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(September 11, | | | | | | |2015) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: U. & C. SUMMARY: Requires proceeds of any claims arising out of the 2000 to 2002 energy crisis to be monetary and deposited into the Ratepayer Relief Fund, to be appropriated for the benefit of ratepayers, as specified. AB 895 Page 2 The Senate amendments do the following: 1)Require that all settlements entered into by the Attorney General (AG) or the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) be monetary. 2)Limit the restrictions on the distribution and expending of proceeds to claims recovered by the CPUC. 3)Restrict the use of the Ratepayer Relief Fund to reducing rates for customers or to reduce debt service on bonds. 4)Allow the CPUC to recover its litigation and investigation costs. 5)Provide that actions to enforce the CPUC's process for handling and determining disclosable public records, as well as actions to enforce Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act requirements, may be taken to the superior court. 6)Make various legislative findings regarding the judicial review provisions of the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. EXISTING LAW: 1)Establishes the Ratepayer Relief Fund in the State Treasury to benefit electricity and natural gas ratepayers, and to fund investigation and litigation costs of the state in pursuing allegations of overcharges and unfair business practices against generators, suppliers, or marketers of electricity or AB 895 Page 3 natural gas. (Government Code Section 16428.15) 2)Requires that any energy settlement agreement entered into by the AG, after reimbursing the AG's litigation and investigation expenses, to be directed for the following purposes in priority order: a) to reduce ratepayer costs of those utility ratepayers harmed by the actions of the settling parties, and b) for deposit in the Ratepayer Relief Fund. (Government Code Section 16428.3) 3)Authorizes funds deposited in the Ratepayer Relief Fund to be appropriated by the Legislature for purposes that benefit ratepayers. Money in the fund may be appropriated to finance energy litigation and investigation expenses of state entities, to reduce rates for customers in the affected service areas of electrical utilities and gas utilities, and to reduce the debt service on bonds issued, as specified. (Government Code Section 16428.5) FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would have increased revenues, potentially in the billions of dollars, to the Ratepayer Relief Fund. COMMENTS: 1)Authors Statement: "After the 2000-02 energy crisis, various lawsuits were filed seeking billions in refunds to California ratepayers. Litigation continues to this day. However, a recent out-of-court case settlement (Dynegy 2012), negotiated by the CPUC, resulted in money being spent on developing a statewide electric vehicle charging program, rather than on refunding ratepayers. Using settlement refunds for purposes other than direct refunds to ratepayers is a policy decision the Legislature should make. AB 895 ensures legislative AB 895 Page 4 oversight over the use of ratepayer refunds resulting from electricity crisis litigation, so that the funds will be used to benefit ratepayers instead of used for other purposes by the CPUC." 2)Background: In 1996, legislation established a competitive deregulated electricity market in California which worked well until May 2000, after a serious drought diminished the supply of inexpensive hydropower. This led to the Western Electricity Crisis of 2000 to 2001. California's increasing electricity prices, partnered with inadequate infrastructure and the deteriorating financial stability of major investor-owned utilities, triggered a crisis in California. These problems made market manipulation possible, and caused all-time high retail electricity prices and power outages throughout California. Since that time, various lawsuits have sought billions of dollars in refunds. Litigation continues to this day, resulting in settlements and judgments in favor of California electric ratepayers. Most recently, on April 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal law governing the natural gas market does not shield energy companies from state antitrust claims made over the 2000 to 2002 energy crisis, opening the door to further litigation. 3)CPUC Handling of Electric Crisis Settlement Funds: The CPUC has directed most funds from energy crisis litigation to ratepayers. However, a recent out-of-court case settlement (Dynegy 2012), negotiated by the CPUC, resulted in money being spent on developing a statewide electric vehicle charging program, rather than on refunding ratepayers. This program is not meeting the milestones specified in the settlement order, raising questions about the supposed benefit to ratepayers and the effectiveness of the current process. 4)Ratepayer Relief Fund: The Ratepayer Relief Fund was AB 895 Page 5 established primarily to benefit ratepayers, and fund investigation and litigation costs of the state in pursuing allegations of overcharges or unfair practices that adversely affected ratepayers. Money in the fund may be appropriated to finance energy litigation and investigation expenses of state entities, to reduce rates for customers in the affected service areas of electrical utilities and gas utilities, and to reduce the debt service on bonds issued, as specified. This bill ensures legislative oversight over electric crisis settlement funds by requiring that settlement funds be deposited into the Ratepayer Relief Fund, to be appropriated by the Legislature, for the benefit of ratepayers. 5)Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: The CPUC is subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which requires state entities take "action" only at a public meeting following public posting of an agenda describing the item for proposed action. Any private gathering of a majority of the members of a state body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within its jurisdiction is unlawful. In June 2014, a court decision held that Californian can enforce transparency laws, such as the Bagley-Keene Act, on the CPUC only in a court of appeals or the Supreme Court. Yet, any superior court can enforce such laws against other state agencies. Current law only allows a review of procedural issues of an agency's decision, not the substance; for the CPUC, however, current law does not allow a review of either. This bill provides that actions to enforce the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the CPUC's process for disclosing public records may be taken to the superior court. In addition, this AB 895 Page 6 bill makes various legislative findings regarding the judicial review provisions of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE: This bill requires all energy crisis settlement agreements entered into by the Attorney General and Public Utilities Commission to be monetary, and specifies that the priority use of settlement funds is to reduce ratepayer rates. Although I agree with the intent to maximize ratepayer benefits from energy crisis settlements, this bill unreasonably limits the range of solutions that may well serve the public interest. Analysis Prepared by: Edmond Cheung / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0002518