BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     ACA 11


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          ACA  
          11 (Gatto, et al.)


          As Amended  May 27, 2016


          2/3 vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Utilities       |12-1 |Gatto, Burke, Dahle,  |Chávez              |
          |                |     |Eggman, Cristina      |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Hadley,               |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Roger Hernández,      |                    |
          |                |     |Obernolte, Quirk,     |                    |
          |                |     |Santiago, Williams    |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Roger         |                    |








                                                                     ACA 11


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Hernández, Holden,    |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Authorizes the Legislature to reallocate or reassign  
          all or a portion of the functions of the California Public  
          Utilities Commission (CPUC) to other state agencies,  
          departments, boards, or other entities, consistent with  
          specified purposes.  Specifically, this constitutional  
          amendment:  


          1)Repeals the provisions of the California Constitution  
            pertaining to the CPUC effective January 1, 2019.  Specifies  
            that a statute that was valid at the time the statute was  
            enacted is not invalid by virtue of the repeal of those  
            constitutional provisions.


          2)Authorizes the Legislature to reallocate or reassign all or a  
            portion of the functions of the CPUC to other state agencies,  
            departments, boards, or other entities, in furtherance of  
            consumer protection, public health, environmental protection,  
            increased transparency, public access, and preserving the  
            ability of third parties to advocate or intervene.


          3)Directs the Legislature to adopt appropriate structures to  
            provide greater accountability for the public utilities of the  
            state and provide the necessary guidance to the CPUC to:  1)  
            focus its regulatory efforts on safety, reliability, and  
            ratesetting; and 2) implement statutorily authorized programs  
            for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.









                                                                     ACA 11


                                                                    Page  3






          4)Requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and approval of  
            the voters in a statewide election.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:


          1)One-time General Fund costs of around $220,000 to include the  
            text and analysis of the constitutional and arguments for and  
            against the measure in the statewide voter information guide.


          2)Unknown potential costs or savings resulting from any future  
            legislative actions to provide more accountability and  
            reorganize or reassign the functions of the CPUC to other  
            state entities.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose:  According to the author, the 21st century no longer  
            requires the CPUC to be enshrined in the California  
            Constitution.  This measure will place before the voters an  
            initiative to strike Article 12 from the Constitution, thereby  
            removing the CPUC's constitutional protections.  This bill  
            further directs the Legislature to reform and modernize the  
            CPUC.
          2)Background:  In 1911, the voters established the Railroad  
            Commission in the California Constitution.  In 1912, the  
            Legislature passed the Public Utilities Act, expanding the  
            Railroad Commission's regulatory authority to include natural  
            gas, electric, telephone, and water companies, in addition to  
            railroads and marine transportation companies.  In 1946, it  
            was renamed the California Public Utilities Commission. 










                                                                     ACA 11


                                                                    Page  4





            The CPUC is comprised of five Commissioners appointed by the  
            Governor and confirmed by the Senate Rules Committee for six  
            year terms.


            The CPUC's status as a Constitutionally-authorized agency is  
            somewhat unique and has empowered the CPUC to enact and  
            enforce policies and programs it finds cognate germane.   
            Limitations on the CPUC's broad authority are those that have  
            been enacted by statute.


          3)Problems at the CPUC:  According to the author, the CPUC's  
            ability to regulate wide-ranging and diverse industries - from  
            electric and natural gas companies to limousines and  
            transportation network companies - has been called into  
            question.  The author provides numerous examples to  
            substantiate this view. 
            Following the 2010 explosion of a Pacific Gas and Electric gas  
            line that resulted in numerous injuries and deaths in San  
            Bruno, an independent study found the CPUC had not been  
            adequately overseeing gas pipeline safety.


            In December 2011, nearly 500,000 Californians experienced  
            widespread power outages of up to six days in the Los Angeles  
            region due to windstorms.  The Assembly Utilities and Commerce  
            Committee's investigation revealed that the CPUC allowed  
            Southern California Edison (SCE) to keep unspent maintenance  
            funds and that the CPUC did not check to make sure that the  
            maintenance work was performed.


            In January 2012, a leak of contaminated steam was detected at  
            one of the two new replacement generators at the San Onofre  
            Nuclear Power Station (SONGS).  In June 2013, SCE decided to  
            permanently shut down SONGS as a result of design flaws  
            affecting both generators.  In a meeting held in Warsaw,  
            Poland in March 2012 between then-CPUC President Peevey and an  








                                                                     ACA 11


                                                                    Page  5





            SCE executive outlined a settlement framework.  In November  
            2014, the CPUC allocated three quarters of the cost of the  
            SONGS generators to be paid by ratepayers without review of  
            the expenses for the steam generator replacement projects. 




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083  FN:  
          0003235