BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 825
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
825 (Rendon) - As Amended May 14, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Utilities and Commerce |Vote:|14 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |10 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill modifies various statutes governing the operation of
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This bill imposes new
requirements to increase the transparency of the PUC
AB 825
Page 2
decision-making and changes the process of the judicial review
of PUC decisions. Specifically this bill:
1)Prohibits PUC from reassigning any staff from duties or
activities authorized by statute to other duties or activities
unless authorized by the Legislature. Requires the PUC's
internal auditor to report directly to the commission.
2)Deletes the requirement to furnish reports of the inspections
and audits and other pertinent information to the Board of
Equalization (BOE), and instead requires the information to be
posted on the PUC's Internet Web site.
3)Requires each public utility submitting a rate change
application to include, and electronically post, a summary
that can be easily understood as specified.
4)Requires a public utility, subsidiary, affiliate or holding
company seeking to confidentially file a document in a PUC
proceeding to also file a public version that allows any other
party to the proceeding to understand the nature of its
contents. Authorizes any party to the proceeding to file a
motion to make any document filed under the claim of
confidentiality public. Requires an administrative law judge
assigned to the proceeding or the assigned Commissioner to
hold a hearing to determine if the document should be made
public.
5)Requires PUC to post on its Internet Web site a summary of all
electricity procurement contracts entered into by an
electrical corporation during the previous 3 years, the
expenses PUC approved as just and reasonable, and a list of
all public utilities with pending rates-setting cases with
specified information in summary form.
AB 825
Page 3
6)Establishes a process of judicial review to permit any
aggrieved party to obtain a review of the PUC order in the
superior court for the City and County of San Francisco or the
County of Los Angeles as specified. Allows for the
reimbursement of court costs as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Total annual increased PUC costs of approximately $4.6 million
(special fund) and 33 PY for the following requirements and
activities:
a) Prohibition on reassignment;
b) Internal Auditor reports to Commissioners;
c) Confidentiality motions and hearings;
d) Confidentiality proceeding;
e) Superior Court review of decisions (PUC costs).
1)Estimated annual reimbursable costs for the Los Angeles and
San Francisco Superior Courts in the range of $900,000 to $2.1
million (special fund).
AB 825
Page 4
According to the PUC, since 2000, there has been an average of
nine writs of review filed annually in the Courts of Appeal.
This bill requires these cases to first be heard in the Los
Angeles and San Francisco Superior Courts. The estimated range
represents nine (average) to 21 filings (the high in 2002).
2)Unknown annual increased intervenor compensation costs,
potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more
(special fund).
COMMENTS:
Purpose. According to the author, recent media reports on the
PUC have lessened the public's trust in the Commission, in part,
by showing the Commission's decision-making process lacked
transparency, with some deals done in private meetings with
investor-owned utility representatives. This bill will improve
transparency and increase public trust.
Additionally, this bill would initiate a fundamental change in
the long-standing judicial review process for PUC decisions.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 825
Page 5