BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 1266 (Gonzalez) - Electrical and gas corporations: excess compensation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: May 4, 2015 |Policy Vote: E., U., & C. 7 - 3 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |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 1266 would prohibit an electrical or gas corporation from recovering expenses for excess compensation, as defined, from ratepayers if there have been safety violations that result in over $5,000,000 in ratepayer costs. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing costs, potentially $200,000 annually, to the Public Utilities Reimbursement Account (special) for proceedings and review of excess compensation. Background: All CPUC regulated utilities are required to have their rates approved by the CPUC through a General Rate Case (GRC). These cases usually are performed every three years and allow the CPUC to examine the utility's revenues, expenses, and infrastructure investments, including executive compensation. A utility can AB 1266 (Gonzalez) Page 1 of ? request changes to rates outside of the GRC through an advice letter, which are procedurally less formal than the GRC or other proceeding. Advice letters are classified into three tiers based on when and how they become effective. Tier 3 advice letters require commissioners to hear the item and take a vote at a publically noticed meeting. In 2012, Southern California Edison (SCE) temporarily shut down the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) after a steam generator failed and leaked radioactive gas. In 2013, SCE announced that it could not afford to keep the plant open and that SONGS would be permanently retired. Under a CPUC approved settlement, ratepayers will be responsible for paying for $3.3 billion of the $4.7 billion total costs necessary to retire the facility and supply replacement power. In 2013, SCE's chairman received $11 million in total compensation in 2013, and less than three weeks following the SONGS settlement, the president of SCE cashed out nearly $9 million in stocks. Proposed Law: This bill would prohibit an electrical or gas corporation from recovering expenses for an officer's excess compensation from ratepayers following a "triggering event" unless the utility files a Tier 3 advice letter with the following information: The officer's compensation history. The officer's proposed excess compensation, delineating between the compensation requested to be paid by ratepayers and compensation paid by the shareholders. Whether the excess compensation was previously included or proposed prior to the triggering event. If the excess compensation was previously requested prior to a triggering event, the CPUC would be require to open a proceeding, or expand an existing hearing, to consider the ratepayer costs of the triggering event and whether any previously-approved expenses for excess compensation should be refunded to ratepayers. AB 1266 (Gonzalez) Page 2 of ? This bill would define "excess compensation" as any salary, bonus, or benefits paid to an officer of a utility that is more than 10 times the average compensation paid to the utility's journeyman linemen. A "triggering event" would be defined a violation of federal or state plant and facility safety regulations after January 1, 2013 that result in the ratepayers incurring a financial responsibility of over $5 million. Staff Comments: Costs to the CPUC associated with this bill are largely unknown because it is unknown how often triggering events will occur and the bill does not specify how long the limitations on excess compensation would be imposed. As an example, assuming that the bill's limitation on excess compensation be limited to the existing GRC cycle and California's three largest IOUs all have a triggering event after receiving authorization to recover excess compensation in rates, the CPUC would likely need $200,000 annually ongoing in proceeding costs to consider whether ratepayers should be refunded costs associated with excess compensations. Staff notes that the bill defines excess compensation for an officer of an IOU as any salary, bonus, benefits, or other consideration of any value, paid to an officer that is more than 10 times the average "compensation" paid by the utility to the utility's journeyman linemen; however "compensation" for the linemen is not defined. The Senate Energy and Utilities analysis on this bill reported that the average annual salary of linemen is approximately $80,000. However, SCE reported to this committee that the average annual compensation of its linemen was $201,626 based on the average lineman's base salary plus overtime ($162,602) and 24% for benefits. As the definition of "compensation" would affect when the review required by this bill would be triggered, staff recommends that compensation be defined and be specified in annual amounts or, alternatively, the author may wish to consider setting excess compensation at a set amount, say $2 million, which would be adjusted annually for AB 1266 (Gonzalez) Page 3 of ? inflation. 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 --