BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1266 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE Anthony Rendon, Chair AB 1266 (Gonzalez) - As Introduced February 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Electrical and gas corporations: excess compensation SUMMARY: This bill prohibits an electrical or gas corporation from recovering from ratepayers' expenses for excess compensation paid to an officer of the utility following a triggering event, unless approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), as specified. Specifically, this bill: a)Prohibits an electrical or gas corporation from recovering expenses for excess compensation from ratepayers following a triggering event unless the utility complies with specific requirements and obtains the approval of the CPUC, as specified. b)Defines "excess compensation" to mean any salary, bonus, benefits, stock options, or other consideration of any value paid to an officer of an electrical or gas corporation that is in excess of 10 times the average compensation paid by the utility to the utility's journeyman linemen. c)Specifies that a "triggering event" occurs if, after January AB 1266 Page 2 1, 2013, an electrical corporation or gas corporation violates a federal or state safety regulation with respect to the plant and facility of the utility and, as a proximate cause of that violation, ratepayers incur a financial responsibility in excess of five million dollars. d)Requires an electrical or gas corporation, prior to paying or seeking recovery of excess compensation following a triggering event, to file a Tier 3 advice letter with the CPUC that includes all of the following: The compensation history for the officer, The proposed compensation to be paid to the officer, including the compensation recovered from ratepayers and that paid solely by shareholders of the utility, Any justification for the proposed compensation, and Any additional information required by the CPUC. a)Requires the CPUC to open a proceeding, or expand the scope of an existing proceeding to evaluate the advice letter and consider the costs to ratepayers of the triggering event, and hold at least one duly noticed public hearing for the proceeding. b)Requires the CPUC to issue a written decision determining whether and, if so, how much of each officers' compensation shall be recoverable from ratepayers. AB 1266 Page 3 EXISTING LAW: 1)Gives the CPUC regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations and gas corporations, as defined. (Public Utilities Code Sections 218 and 222) 2)Requires the shareholder of a public utility to bear any expenses resulting from a bonus paid to an executive officer of a public utility that has ceased to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business, and prohibits any expense from being recovered in rates. (Public Utilities Code Section 451.5) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: "Neither shareholders nor ratepayers played any role in the management missteps that led to the multi-billion dollar disaster that the SONGS shutdown has become. To reward top executives for successfully passing the buck to everyday ratepayers and stockholders who are trying to build a secure retirement is inexplicable to me, and should face public scrutiny." 2)Background: The CPUC requires regulated utilities to go through a General Rate Case to request funding for distribution and generation costs. A General Rate Case is a state-mandated process in which utilities are required to provide a detailed forecast of how they will structure their operations and make investments for the next three years. The General Rate Case allows the CPUC to conduct a broad and detailed review of a utility's revenues, expenses, and investments in plant and equipment to establish an approved revenue requirement. Within the General Rate Case under the AB 1266 Page 4 "executive compensation" category, as part of the "total compensation" forecast of all utility employees or a separate line item, the CPUC reviews executive compensation. Furthermore, CPUC General Order No. 77-M requires the utility to file a statement showing the names, titles, and duties of all employees with a base salary of at least $125,000 annually. 3)Closure of San Onofre Nuclear Plant: In 2012, SCE announced that it was closing the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in San Clemente. The move comes after Southern California Edison (SCE) announced it could not afford to keep the plant open after a leak was discovered in a steam generator tube installed in 2010 that transported radioactive water from one of the reactors. In 2014, SCE reached a settlement with the CPUC to allow it to collect $3.3 billion from ratepayers and $1.4 billion from shareholders to fund the cost of the closing SONGS. The settlement also gave ratepayers a share of the money recovered from litigation against Mitsubishi, the manufacturer of the faulty steam generator, as well as an equal share of any legal settlement with Mitsubishi. 4)Executive Compensation: According to the author, "executive compensation [in the General Rate Case] is never the subject of a standalone proceeding where the public can engage? [In addition,] the [CPUC] has never conducted a proceeding to determine if the compensation for any individual is appropriate or justified, and never considers whether the utility's performance warrants any change in executive compensation. Not after the San Bruno disaster or the SONGS disaster, not even after SCE was fined $200 million for falsifying performance records and customer satisfaction surveys." This bill prohibits an electrical or gas corporation from AB 1266 Page 5 recovering expenses for excess compensation from ratepayers following a triggering event unless the utility submits to the CPUC a Tier 3 advice letter, as specified, and the CPUC opens or expands the scope of a hearing to consider the costs to ratepayers of the triggering event. The CPUC would have to hold at least one publically noticed hearing to consider the cost to ratepayers of the trigger event and issue a decision on whether and, if so, how much of each officers' compensation shall be recoverable from ratepayers. The author may wish to clarify that it intends to apply this bill only to electric or gas public utilities and not all electrical corporations and gas corporations. The author may also wish to specify that the compensation is limited to compensation which has been approved in rates. 5)Suggested Amendments: 706.(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Excess compensation" means any salary, bonus, benefits,stock options,or other consideration of any value, paid to an officer of anelectrical corporation or gas corporationelectric or gas public utility that is in excess of 10 times the average compensation paid by the utility to the utility's journeyman linemen. (2) A "triggering event" occurs if, after January 1, 2013, anelectrical corporation or gas corporationelectric or gas public utility violates a federal or state safety regulation AB 1266 Page 6 with respect to the plant and facility of the utility and, as a proximate cause of that violation, ratepayers incur a financial responsibility in excess of five million dollars ($5,000,000). (b) Noelectrical corporation or gas corporationelectric or gas public utility shall recover expenses for excess compensation from ratepayers following a triggering event unless the utility complies with the requirements of this section and obtains the approval of the commission pursuant to this section. (c) Following a triggering event and prior to paying or seeking recovery of excess compensation, anelectrical corporation or gas corporationelectric or gas public utility shall file a Tier 3 advice letter with the commission that, with respect to any officer paid excess compensation, includes all of the following: (1) The compensation history for the officer. (2) The proposed compensation to be paid to the officer, including the compensation recovered from ratepayers and that paid solely by shareholders of the utility. (3) Whether any of the compensation paid to officers was previously included or proposed to be included in rates and aAny justification for the proposed compensation. (4) Any additional information required by the commission. (d) If the utility has previously been authorized recovery or AB 1266 Page 7 has sought recovery of such costs in its rates, then tThe commission shall open a hearing, or expand the scope of an existing proceeding, to evaluate the advice letter. As part of the proceeding, the commission shall consider the costs to ratepayers of the triggering event. The commission shall hold not less than one duly noticed public hearing in the proceeding. The commission shall issue a written decision determining whether any of the previously authorized costs should be refunded to ,and if so, how much, of each officers' compensation shall be recoverablefrom ratepayers.6)Arguments in Support: According to the Coalition of California Utility Employees, the sponsor of the bill, "there has been a flurry of revelations of late concerning excess compensation for public utility executives. They have come at a time when some utilities have shut down resources and asked the ratepayers to absorb much of the cost. The appropriate filing of an advice letter with the California Public Utilities Commission will provide transparency for the ratepayer and the oversight of the Investor Owned Utilities. Excess compensation, in any form, to officers of a public utility that has violated federal or state safety regulations is unconscionable." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Coalition of California Utility Employees (Sponsor) California State Association of Electrical Workers AB 1266 Page 8 The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by:Edmond Cheung / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083