BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 825 (Rendon) - Public Utilities Commission. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: July 16, 2015 |Policy Vote: E., U., & C. 11 - | | | 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes (see staff | | |comment) | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 825 would make a number of changes to the CPUC to increase public access to documents and to ease participation in proceedings. Fiscal Impact: Cost pressures of $200,000 annually (special*) for the CPUC commissioners to hold office hours at least once a month in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Ongoing costs of approximately $170,000 (special*) to increase the amount of information available on the CPUC website. AB 825 (Rendon) Page 1 of ? Ongoing costs of approximately $200,000 (special*) for the public advisor to have independent responsibility over the CPUC website. Unknown costs (special*) to post the transcripts of documents, evidence, testimony, and proceedings online. One-time costs of $157,000 annually for two years (special*) for a proceeding to reopen its confidentiality practices. Ongoing costs of $626,000 annually (special*) for hearings to consider motions to make confidential documents public. Unknown costs (special*) to require that the assigned commissioner attend all hearings in a proceeding. Ongoing costs between $450,000 and $850,000 (special*) to appoint an inspector general from the State Auditor's office to the CPUC. Ongoing costs of $220,000 annually (special*) to provide legal staff at the public advisor's office to ensure compliance with the Public Records Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. These costs may be offset by reduced workload in other CPUC division to oversee compliance. * Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account. Background: The CPUC is governed by five members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate Rules Committee. The CPUC is generally empowered to regulate privately owned public utilities in California. Policies and actions of the CPUC are generally made through a proceeding. Each proceeding is assigned a lead commissioner and an administrative law judge (ALJ). ALJs prepare proposed decisions which may be adopted in whole or in part by the commission. AB 825 (Rendon) Page 2 of ? Existing law requires the CPUC to hold at least one meeting per month in San Francisco. Any information furnished to the CPUC by a public utility is not open to public inspection except on order of the CPUC in the course of a hearing or proceeding. Existing law establishes the office of the public advisor, appointed by the CPUC, in order to assist the public and ratepayers who desire to testify before or present information to the CPUC in any hearing or proceeding. Proposed Law: This bill would: Require each commissioner to hold office hours and be available to meet with members of the public at least once a month in San Francisco or Los Angeles Require that the CPUC have the following information on its website: o A summary of electricity procurement contracts entered into by an electrical corporation during the previous three years which have expenses that the CPUC has approved as just and reasonable. o A list of all pending proceedings involving public utilities and whether any rate increase is being sought. o Transcriptions and available summaries of documents not subject to confidentiality. o A list of all Public Records Act requests o Advice letters approved by the CPUC. AB 825 (Rendon) Page 3 of ? o Reports of inspections and audits. Require a utility to place on its own website, if they have one, a summary of all rate application requests including the contact information for an utility official who can discuss the nature of the rate application. Require that all documents that the CPUC distributes to any service-of-process list be docketed and identified on the CPUC website. Require that all rate applications by public utilities include a summary of the application that can be understood by the utility's ratepayers. For any document filed in a CPUC proceeding by a public utility under a claim of confidentiality, (1) require that a public version of that document be filed concurrently, (2) allow any party to that proceeding to file a motion to make public that document, (3) require the assigned ALJ to provide direction to all parties in a proceeding as to what documents may be filed under a claim of confidentiality. Require the CPUC to open a proceeding to reexamine its confidentiality practices under Decision 06-06-066. Require the public advisor of the CPUC to be specifically responsible for: o Ensuring that the activities of the CPUC are transparent to the public. o Developing and making available public guides on how to participate in CPUC proceedings. AB 825 (Rendon) Page 4 of ? o Updating, maintaining, and posting the CPUC's service-of-process lists on its website. o Overseeing the CPUC's website to ensure adequate transparency for he public Require that the office of the public advisor be funded by the Public Utilities Reimbursement Account, which is funded by fees on the regulated utilities. Require the California State Auditor appoint an inspector general for the CPUC who will report any findings to the Legislature. The inspector general would have the authority to audit and investigate the CPUC's activities. The costs for the inspector's activities would be paid for by the Public Utilities Reimbursement Account Require that the assigned commissioner for a proceeding convene an all-parties meeting as soon as practicable to discuss the substantive manner to be decided in the proceeding and prospects for resolving issues that would otherwise be litigated. Require that the assigned commissioner attend all hearings in a proceeding. Prohibit an attorney that is prosecuting a manner before the CPUC in an adjudication hearing from meeting with any commissioner regarding the matter unless all parties are present. Related Legislation: SB 48 (Hill) would make various changes to the internal governance, annual reporting requirements, and meeting AB 825 (Rendon) Page 5 of ? requirements of the CPUC. SB 48 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. SB 660 (Leno/Hueso) would make changes to the ex parte communications at the CPUC. SB 660 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Staff Comments: Public office hours requirement: The CPUC estimates that the requirement for each commissioner to hold office hours at least once a month in San Francisco or Los Angeles will require additional staff, particularly to ensure compliance with ex parte rules and to provide the commissioner with legal support and analytical staff to address constituent concerns, at an annual cost of $200,000. However, staff notes that this provision is not increasing the commissioners' responsibilities other than making them more accessible. While this accessibility may lead to additional work and inquires, that workload would be associated with existing responsibilities of the commissioners. As such, these costs could be interpreted as cost pressures. Requirements for information to be posted on the CPUC website: This bill would require a number of items to be placed on the CPUC's website. While some of this information, such as advice letters approved by the CPUC and reports of inspections and audits, can be done with minimal staff workload and costs. However, the requirement that summaries of electricity procurement contracts and transcripts will likely result in the need for an additional $170,000 annually for one position. Staff notes that the CPUC does not currently receive information from the IOUs regarding procurement contracts, with the exception of Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards contacts. Thus the requirement that procurement contracts be posted on the website will involve the collection and summarization of a large amount of new information. Staff notes that the bill requires that a list of all pending proceedings before the CPUC be posted on its website along with a summary as to any amount of rate increase being sought. Since December 2014, a list of pending proceedings has been posted on the CPUC website and has been updated monthly. Should there be pressure for the CPUC to update this list more frequently, there AB 825 (Rendon) Page 6 of ? could be additional IT costs. The requirement for the posting of transcripts and available summaries of documents, evidence, testimony, and proceedings could have additional unknown costs because the court reporter bargaining agreement requires a per-transcript charge. It is unclear how the per-transcript charges would be assessed if the transcripts were made available on-line. Staff notes that allowing webcasting and video archives of hearings to be available instead of a transcript might lower costs. Confidentiality practices and procedures: This bill would also require the CPUC to reopen its existing decision (D. 06-06-066) on its confidentiality practices. The CPUC estimates that this requirement would necessitate an administrative law judge for two years at an annual cost of $157,000 annually. Section 6 of this bill would establish a process for the filing and contesting of confidential documents. The costs associated with this section are mostly associated with the required hearings with written findings and conclusions when there is a motion to make a document public. In 2014, there were 175 motions on confidentiality matters. The CPUC anticipates that the number of motions would increase with the passage of this bill. The cost of holding these hearings as required by the bill is estimated to be $626,000 annually for 4.5 positions. The CPUC notes that the bill's requirement that the assigned commissioner attend all hearings in a proceeding is likely to be very difficult and extremely costly to comply and may result in the slowing of proceedings. In 2014, there were 99 new proceedings plus 30 re-opened proceedings, of which 59 had hearings. There are five CPUC commissioners. However, the CPUC did not submit specific costs to these provisions. Inspector general costs: The costs associated with appointing an inspector general to the CPUC would have uncertain costs depending on the number of audits and investigations that would be conducted. Assuming that there would be one to three audits AB 825 (Rendon) Page 7 of ? or investigations a year, this provision will result in $450,000 to $850,000 in additional costs to the CPUC. Staff notes that the CPUC received appropriations in the 2015-16 Budget Act for a number of auditors. However, those positions would not fulfill the bill's requirement for an inspector general. Increased responsibilities of the public advisor: The public advisor would have increased responsibilities under this bill. Specifically, the requirement that the public advisor have the responsibility for ensuring that the activities of the CPUC are in compliance with the Public Records Act and Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act would necessitate legal staff and support in the public advisor's office, which does not currently exist, at a cost of about $220,000 annually. Staff notes that the CPUC already has staff overseeing compliance with Bagley-Keene and the Public Records Act. To the extent that the bill shifts these responsibilities to the public advisor's office, there potentially should be a decrease in staffing costs in other CPUC divisions. This bill would also require the public advisor to have independent responsibility for overseeing the CPUC website in order to ensure adequate transparency. The CPUC estimates that this responsibility could necessitate two new positions in the public advisors office at an annual cost of approximately $200,000. Similar to the legal staff for the office discussed above, these costs may be somewhat duplicative of staffing workload already within the CPUC. Because the bill requires that the public advisor's office have independent responsibility over the website, duplicative costs may be inherently required by the bill. The requirement for the public advisor to update, maintain, and post the service-of-process lists on the website could potentially have costs depending on how this requirement is interpreted. If this requirement can be satisfied by just posting the list itself on the website, there will be no costs to the CPUC as this list is already compiled by the CPUC's Docket Office. However, if this requirement is interpreted to require the public advisor to actually electronically serve documents to the service-of-process list, the CPUC could have AB 825 (Rendon) Page 8 of ? millions of dollars of new costs to develop necessary IT systems. This bill would require that the Office of the Public Advisor's costs be paid for by the Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account. Currently the office is paid for by this account, but as distributed administration costs so that the other CPUC funds pay a pro rata share of the office by reimbursing the account. It is unclear if the bill would affect the current practice. Unless it is the author's intent that the Office of the Public Advisor only be paid for by the Utilities Reimbursement Account, staff recommends that this provision be stricken from the bill. This bill contains codified findings and declarations. In the interest of code clarity and efficiency, staff recommends this bill be amended to place the findings and declarations in an uncodified section of the bill. This bill constitutes a state mandate as it creates a new crime. However, under the California Constitution, costs associated with this mandate are not reimbursable. -- END --