BILL NUMBER: SB 636	ENROLLED
	BILL TEXT

	PASSED THE SENATE  AUGUST 25, 2014
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 22, 2014
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  JUNE 15, 2014
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JANUARY 15, 2014
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JANUARY 6, 2014

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Hill

                        FEBRUARY 22, 2013

   An act to amend Section 1701.2 of the Public Utilities Code,
relating to the Public Utilities Commission.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 636, Hill. Public Utilities Commission: proceedings.
   (1) Existing law establishes certain procedures that are
applicable to adjudication, rulemaking, and ratesetting cases of the
Public Utilities Commission.
   This bill would prohibit an officer, employee, or agent of the
commission that is personally involved in the prosecution or in the
supervision of the prosecution of an adjudication case from
participating in the decision of the case or in the decision of any
factually related adjudicatory proceeding. The bill would permit an
officer, employee, or agent of the commission that is personally
involved in the prosecution or in the supervision of the prosecution
of an adjudication case to participate in reaching a settlement of
the case, but would prohibit the officer, employee, or agent from
participating in the decision of the commission to accept or reject
the settlement, except as a witness or counsel in an open hearing or
a specified closed hearing.
   (2) The California Constitution authorizes the commission to
establish its own procedures, subject to statutory limitations or
directions and constitutional requirements of due process, and to
establish rules for all public utilities.
   This bill would correct certain statutory references from the
commission adopting regulations to the commission adopting rules.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 1701.2 of the Public Utilities Code is amended
to read:
   1701.2.  (a) If the commission pursuant to Section 1701.1 has
determined that an adjudication case requires a hearing, the
procedures prescribed by this section shall be applicable. The
assigned commissioner or the assigned administrative law judge shall
hear the case in the manner described in the scoping memo. The
scoping memo shall designate whether the assigned commissioner or the
assigned administrative law judge shall preside in the case. The
commission shall provide by rule for peremptory challenges and
challenges for cause of the administrative law judge. Challenges for
cause shall include, but not be limited to, financial interests and
prejudice. The rule shall provide that all parties are entitled to
one peremptory challenge of the assignment of the administrative law
judge in all cases. All parties are entitled to unlimited peremptory
challenges in any case in which the administrative law judge has
within the previous 12 months served in any capacity in an advocacy
position at the commission, been employed by a regulated public
utility, or has represented a party or has been a party of interest
in the case. The assigned commissioner or the administrative law
judge shall prepare and file a decision setting forth
recommendations, findings, and conclusions. The decision shall be
filed with the commission and served upon all parties to the action
or proceeding without undue delay, not later than 60 days after the
matter has been submitted for decision. The decision of the assigned
commissioner or the administrative law judge shall become the
decision of the commission if no further action is taken within 30
days. Any interested party may appeal the decision to the commission,
provided that the appeal is made within 30 days of the issuance of
the decision. The commission may itself initiate a review of the
proposed decision on any grounds. The commission decision shall be
based on the record developed by the assigned commissioner or the
administrative law judge. A decision different from that of the
assigned commissioner or the administrative law judge shall be
accompanied by a written explanation of each of the changes made to
the decision.
   (b)  Notwithstanding Section 307, an officer, employee, or agent
of the commission that is personally involved in the prosecution or
in the supervision of the prosecution of an adjudication case before
the commission shall not participate in the decision of the case, or
in the decision of any factually related adjudicatory proceeding,
including participation in or advising the commission as to findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or orders. An officer, employee, or
agent of the commission that is personally involved in the
prosecution or in the supervision of the prosecution of an
adjudication case may participate in reaching a settlement of the
case, but shall not participate in the decision of the commission to
accept or reject the settlement, except as a witness or counsel in an
open hearing or a hearing closed pursuant to subdivision (d). The
Legislature finds that the commission performs both prosecutorial and
adjudicatory functions in an adjudication case and declares its
intent that an officer, employee, or agent of the commission,
including its attorneys, may perform only one of those functions in
any adjudication case or factually related adjudicatory proceeding.
   (c) Ex parte communications shall be prohibited in adjudication
cases.
   (d) Notwithstanding any other law, the commission may meet in a
closed hearing to consider the decision that is being appealed. The
vote on the appeal shall be in a public meeting and shall be
accompanied with an explanation of the appeal decision.
   (e) Adjudication cases shall be resolved within 12 months of
initiation unless the commission makes findings why that deadline
cannot be met and issues an order extending that deadline. In the
event that a rehearing of an adjudication case is granted, the
parties shall have an opportunity for final oral argument.
   (f) (1) The commission may determine that the respondent lacks, or
may lack, the ability to pay potential penalties or fines or to pay
restitution that may be ordered by the commission.
   (2) If the commission determines that a respondent lacks, or may
lack, the ability to pay, the commission may order the respondent to
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the commission, sufficient
ability to pay potential penalties, fines, or restitution that may be
ordered by the commission. The respondent shall demonstrate the
ability to pay, or make other financial arrangements satisfactory to
the commission, within seven days of the commission commencing an
adjudication case. The commission may delegate to the attorney to the
commission the determination of whether a sufficient showing has
been made by the respondent of an ability to pay.
   (3) Within seven days of the commission's determination of the
respondent's ability to pay potential penalties, fines, or
restitution, the respondent shall be entitled to an impartial review
by an administrative law judge of the sufficiency of the showing made
by the respondent of the respondent's ability to pay. The review by
an administrative law judge of the ability of the respondent to pay
shall become part of the record of the adjudication and is subject to
the commission's consideration in its order resolving the
adjudication case. The administrative law judge may enter temporary
orders modifying any financial requirement made of the respondent
pending the review by the administrative law judge.
   (4) A respondent that is a public utility regulated under a rate
of return or rate of margin regulatory structure or that has gross
annual revenues of more than one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000) generated within California is presumed to be able to
pay potential penalties or fines or to pay restitution that may be
ordered by the commission, and, therefore, paragraphs (1) to (3),
inclusive, do not apply to that respondent.