BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                          SB 2166  
                                                         Page 1

Date of Hearing:  June 23, 1998

                  ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                       Martha Escutia, Chair

           SB 2166 (Costa) - As Amended:  June 16, 1998


  SUBJECT  :  PUBLIC UTILITIES:  SERVICES TO TENANTS
 
  KEY ISSUES  :  

1) SHOULD UTILITIES BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUIRING TENANT UTILITY  
   SERVICE TO BE BILLED DIRECTLY TO THE LANDLORD UNLESS THE  
   LANDLORD AGREES  AND  THE TENANT IS UNCREDITWORTHY?

2) SHOULD THE LIEN EXEMPTION THAT CURRENTLY APPLIES TO DELINQUENT  
   FEES OR CHARGES RESULTING FROM THE FURNISHING OF WATER SERVICE  
   TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ALSO APPLY TO SEWER SERVICE? 

  SUMMARY  :  Clarifies permissible public utility billing practices  
relating to tenants.  Specifically, this bill  :

1) Prohibits municipally owned utilities and municipal utility  
   districts [MUDs] from requiring that service to subsequent  
   tenants be furnished on the account of the landlord or the  
   property owner unless the property owner voluntarily agrees to  
   that requirement and the entity determines that the subsequent  
   tenant is not creditworthy.

2) With respect to liens that may be obtained by a MUD on  
   delinquent accounts, provides the same exemption for delinquent  
   fees or charges for the furnishing of sewer service that  
   currently applies to the furnishing of water service to  
   residential property.

3) Repeals the provision which prohibits any MUD furnishing water  
   service for residential use to a tenant under an account  
   established by the tenant, from seeking to recover any charges  
   or penalties for the furnishing of water service from any  
   subsequent tenant or the property owner due to nonpayment of  
   charges by a previous tenant.  

  EXISTING LAW  :

1) Prohibits any municipally owned utility or MUD furnishing  
   services for residential use under an account established by a  
   tenant, from seeking to recover any charges or penalties for  
   the furnishing of services from any subsequent tenant or the  
   property owner due to nonpayment of charges by a previous  
   tenant.  (Public Utilities Code Sections 10009.6(a),  
   12822.6(b).  All further statutory references are to this Code  
   unless otherwise noted.)

2)  Imposes basically the same prohibition as above on both  
municipally owned utilities and MUDs, but it is limited to the  







                                                          SB 2166  
                                                         Page 2

provision of water (not sewer) service for residential use.   
(Section 10016(a)[municipally owned utilities]; Section  
12811.5(a)[MUDs].)   

3) Prohibits municipally owned utilities and MUDs from requiring  
   that service 
to tenants be furnished on the account of the property owner  
unless the property owner consents to that requirement through a  
written agreement.  (Sections 10009.6(b), 10016(b), 12811.5(a),  
12822.6(b).)

4) Provides that accounts of a MUD that are delinquent generally  
   become a lien on the property, but exempts from that provision  
   delinquent fees or charges for the furnishing of water service  
   to residential property, or electrical service.  (Section  
   12811.1(e).) 

5) Provides that a decision of a municipally owned utility or a  
   MUD to require a new residential applicant to deposit a sum of  
   money with the public utility prior to establishing an account  
   and furnishing service must be based solely upon the  
   creditworthiness of the applicant as determined by the utility.  
    (Sections 10009.6(a), 12822.6(a).)

  FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

  COMMENTS  :  According to the author, this bill "clarifies who  
should be the customer of record concerning water and sewer  
service bills.  It also straightens out who should pay a  
delinquent utility bill."

The author states that two years ago, Assemblymember Brewer  
successfully carried legislation (AB 1770) addressing delinquent  
utility bills.  However, the author contends that since that time  
some problems have developed which this bill attempts to resolve.   
According to the author, those problems are:

- Some municipal and public utilities providing water and sewer  
service are attempting to collect the delinquent utility bill of a  
tenant from the landlord or the new tenant.  The author contends  
that this is an unjust result which the Brewer bill attempted to  
end.  The author believes this bill clearly provides that recovery  
should only be against the customer of record.  "After all, that  
customer incurred the bill and he or she should pay for it."

- Landlords are being pressured to place the service in their name  
when a former tenant refuses to pay a debt he or she incurred.   
The bill states that if the landlord voluntarily agrees  and  if the  
new tenant is not creditworthy, the service may be placed in the  
name of the owner.

  Background  :  There are at least two types of public utilities:   
"municipally owned utilities," which are public utilities owned by  
cities; and "municipal utility districts" (MUDs), which are  
special districts organized for the purpose of  providing utility  
service.  There are hundreds of "municipally-







                                                          SB 2166  
                                                         Page 3

owned utilities" in the state, but there are only two major MUDs:  
the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which provides  
water and sewer service, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility  
District (SMUD), which  provides electrical service.
 
Under the law prior to AB 1770 (Brewer, Ch. 24, Stats. of 1996),  
municipal utilities and MUDs had the authority to require that a  
new service account be established in a landlord's or property  
owner's name rather than a tenant's name.  This authority was  
limited to situations where a previous tenant had been delinquent  
in payment for services under an account established in the  
tenant's name.  The law also authorized (and continues to  
authorize) MUDs to impose liens against property when a tenant's  
account for certain services was delinquent; however the lien  
authority does  not  apply to delinquencies for water service to  
residential property or electrical service.  Property owners  
complained that it was unfair to require them to assume  
responsibility for utility services provided to a tenant for  
delinquent charges to a tenant's 
account.  The law was changed with the passage of AB 1770 to only  
allow property owners to assume the responsibility for a tenant's  
water service voluntarily.  In addition, utility companies were  
given the ability to require security deposits from tenants deemed  
uncreditworthy.

  ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  According to supporters, public utilities  
continue to strong-arm landlords into paying the debts of their  
tenants, despite AB 1770.  Now, the sponsor asserts, instead of  
placing a lien on the property, or passing on the debt to the  
landlord when a tenant defaults on a debt, utilities are simply  
not establishing new water service unless the landlord agrees to  
accept responsibility.  This circumstance, they believe, is  
exactly what AB 1770 was designed to prevent.
 
In addition, supporters claim that public utilities which provide  
combined billing for water and sewer services are reading the law  
too narrowly to avoid the terms of AB 1770, as the law expressly  
mentions only water (and not sewer) service.  According to the  
sponsor, a large majority of public utilities combine water and  
sewer billing, necessitating the need for this change.  Finally,  
the sponsor believes this is a matter of fairness; public  
utilities are in contractual privity with tenants, they collect  
security deposits from them, and should not be allowed to seek  
remedy for default with anyone other than the "deadbeat" tenant or  
hide behind a narrow reading of the law.

  ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  The California Municipal Utilities  
Association (CMUA) opposes the bill for two reasons.  "First, the  
bill would restrict the ability of a city-owned utility or  
municipal utility district to ask a landlord of a residential  
rental property to become the customer.  Under existing law the  
landlord has the discretion to decline such a request, but this  
measure would not allow the utility to even make a request unless  
the utility first determined that a tenant and prospective  
customer is not creditworthy.  Second, the bill would prohibit a  
municipal utility district from liening residential property for  







                                                          SB 2166  
                                                         Page 4

unpaid sewer bills.  Since sewer service cannot be terminated in  
the same manner as water or electric service, for example, a lien  
on the property is the only practical remedy for collecting unpaid  
sewer bills.  Eliminating this authority would increase losses for  
unpaid sewer bills."

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) opposes the bill  
unless it is amended.  EBMUD believes that existing law provides  
adequate protection for property owners and landlords in the event  
of non-payment of a service account by a tenant.  EBMUD would be  
willing to remove its opposition if the bill were amended to  
delete provisions in the bill they assert are unfair.  They state  
these provisions place a higher burden on municipal utility  
districts to determine that the subsequent tenant is not  
creditworthy before allowing the public agency to seek voluntary  
consent by the property owner to establish the account in his or  
her name.  EBMUD believes this is an unnecessary burden upon  
public utilities because, in their view, existing law already  
provides sufficient protections for landlords and property owners  
against bearing the responsibility for payment of tenant accounts.

  Elimination of unnecessary provisions  :  As noted above, the bill  
would delete Section 10016 of the Public Utilities Code which  
relates only to water bills.  According to the author, this  
amendment was made only after consulting with Legislative Counsel,  
the California Municipal Utilities Association and others who  
concluded that there is no apparent need for Section 10016 since  
Section 10009.6 contains the same basic prohibition, including not  
only water but also sewer and other residential services.

  SUGGESTED TECHNICAL AMENDMENT  :  Since the statutes governing MUDs  
are parallel to the above provisions, the author may wish to amend  
the bill to also delete Section 12811.5 which relates only to  
water bills since Section 12822.6 already covers water, sewer and  
other residential services.   

  PRIOR LEGISLATION  :  AB 1770 (Brewer), Chapter 24, Statutes of  
1996.

  REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

  Support                              Opposition  

CA Association of Realtors (sponsor) CA Municipal Utilities  
Association
Berkeley Property Owners AssociationEast Bay MUD
Apartment Association, CA Southern Cities


  Analysis prepared by  :  Dan Pone / ajud / (916) 319-2334