BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
------------------------------------------------------------
|SB 531 - Baca |Hearing Date:April 13, | S|
| |1999 | |
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
|As Amended:April 7, 1999 | | B|
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | |
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | 5|
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | 3|
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | 1|
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | |
|------------------------------+--------------------------+--|
| | | |
------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
Current law establishes an expedited complaint process at
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This
process is a relatively informal one where attorneys are
not permitted and the paperwork requirements are minimal.
This bill requires the CPUC to develop a means of handling
consumer complaints on an electronic basis by June 30,
2000. This bill permits a complaint to be handled
electronically if all of the following conditions are met:
a. All parties agree to electronic handling;
b. The dollar value of the complaint does not
exceed the small claims court limit, which is
currently $5,000;
c. The case can be competently adjudicated
electronically considering the facts and laws
involved;
d. The hearing officer has the technical means to
administer the proceedings;
e. The CPUC has the proper electronic systems in
place;
KEY QUESTION
1)Should an electronic complaint process be instituted at
the CPUC?
BACKGROUND
The CPUC has an expedited complaint process that's modeled
after the small claims court process. The dollar value of
the complaint is tied to the small claims court limit
(currently $5,000) and attorneys are not permitted. Last
year, the CPUC handled 18 complaints this under this
process. This bill attempts to make the complaint handling
process even more convenient by requiring the CPUC to
institute an Internet-based complaint handling system.
COMMENTS
1)Some argue that the CPUC complaint is somewhat less than
user-friendly. This bill attempts to improve the process
by making it much easier for consumers to have their
utility problems considered by the CPUC. As the CPUC's
consumer protection role evolves, this bill may
eventually provide consumers with unprecedented access to
the CPUC.
2)This bill is sponsored by GTE, which hopes that by
streamlining the complaint process, it will make
complaint resolution more convenient for everyone.
3)While the CPUC support the goals of the bill, it is
concerned with the cost of the program and would prefer
the bill be amended to create just a pilot program, just
as several county courts have created electronic filing
pilot programs.
4)While the principal behind the bill is clear, other
conforming changes to the statutes are probably necessary
to ensure consistency. For example, Section 1704 of the
Public Utilities Code requires that copies of the
complaint be served upon the corporation which is the
subject of the complaint. Yet the formal service of the
complaint is not in keeping with the electronic process
envisioned in the bill. The author and Committee may
wish to consider adding the following technical
amendment:
page 3, line 11 - after the word "complaint" add ",
pursuant to Section 1704"
5)Section 1704 also requires the CPUC to establish the
place and time of the hearing for airing the complaint.
Under this bill, a formal hearing may not be required and
an exchange of e-mail or a conference call may suffice.
The author and Committee may wish to consider amending
the bill to permit the complaint to be resolved without a
hearing.
6)To the extent that a decision resulting from this process
is appealed, is the electronic record created pursuant to
this bill sufficient for the court's purposes?
7)Once this electronic process has been established, it
won't be useful if consumers don't know it exits. This
could be corrected by requiring utilities to place an
insert in their monthly customer bills or requiring them
to place a notice on the actual bill itself. Utilities
could also be required to let customers who call in with
complaints know of this electronic option. Certainly the
CPUC's website should prominently display this option.
The author and Committee may wish to consider amending
the bill to provide some form of customer notice .
8)The Rules Committee has asked that this bill be referred
to the Judiciary Committee if the bill is approved by
this Committee.
POSITIONS
Support:
California State Council of Laborers
CPUC (support, if amended)
GTE California Inc.(Sponsor)
Office of Ratepayer Advocates (support, if amended)
Oppose:
None reported to Committee.
Randy Chinn
SB 531 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 13, 1999