BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 62
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB
62 (Hill) - As Amended August 19, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
SUBJECT: Public Utilities Commission: Office of the Safety
Advocate
SUMMARY: Codifies a Division of Safety Advocates within the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that was created
in the 2016-17 State Budget and makes various changes.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Codifies a Division of Safety Advocates within the CPUC;
2)Renames the Division the Office of Safety Advocates;
3)Clarifies that advocacy prioritizes safety and takes costs
into consideration;
4)Clarifies that the CPUC is responsible for CPUC safety
management, rather than delegated to the Safety Advocate; and
5)Adds safety transparency to the newly created Office's
SB 62
Page 2
mission.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes a division of the commission responsible for
consumer protection and safety responsible for inspection,
surveillance, and investigation of the rights-of-way,
facilities, equipment, and operations of railroads and public
mass transit guideways, and for enforcing state and federal
laws, regulations, orders, and directives relating to
transportation of persons or commodities, or both, of any
nature or description by rail. (Public Utilities Code Section
309.7)
6)Specifies the CPUC may supervise and regulate every public
utility in the state and may do all things, whether
specifically designated in this part or in addition thereto,
which are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such
power and jurisdiction. (Public Utilities Code Section 701)
7)Specifies that whenever the CPUC, finds that the rules,
practices, equipment, appliances, facilities, or service of
any public utility, or the methods of manufacture,
distribution, transmission, storage, or supply employed by it,
are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper, inadequate, or
insufficient, the commission shall determine and, by order or
rule, fix the rules, practices, equipment, appliances,
facilities, service, or methods to be observed, furnished,
constructed, enforced, or employed. (Public Utilities Code
Section 761)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
SB 62
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 62 fixes
problems with the PUC's proposal for an in-house advocate for
safety. As the funding for the proposal was approved in this
year's Budget, the Legislature must provide statutory policy
direction to 1) ensure that the Commission cannot shift
responsibility for safety onto this advocate, as
responsibility lies ultimately with the Commission, to 2)
advocate for the transparency of safety-related performance,
and to 3) sunset the advocate, so that it can't limp on in
perpetuity without action by the Legislature."
2)Background: For the 2016-17 Fiscal Year, the CPUC requested
and the State Budget authorized 11 permanent positions and
$1.694 million in funding to create a Division of Safety
Advocates, an independent division within the CPUC. The CPUC
requested establishing a Division of Safety Advocates in
response to, according to the CPUC, "unprecedented failures of
utility infrastructure over the past five years that threaten
the safety of Californians." According to the CPUC, "Creation
of a Division of Safety Advocates would allow the CPUC to have
a division dedicated to establishing a safety focus,
testifying in hearings, and exclusively prioritizing and
advocating for the protection and safety of Californians as a
party to CPUC proceedings."
3)Codifying the Safety Division: According to the author, this
bill will codify this newly created Division, consistent with
the CPUC's approved funding request, with the following
changes:
SB 62
Page 4
a) Renames the Division the Office of Safety Advocates;
b) Clarifies that advocacy prioritizes safety and takes
costs into consideration;
c) Clarifies that the CPUC is responsible for CPUC safety
management, rather than delegated to the Safety Advocate;
and
d) Adds safety transparency to the newly created Office's
mission.
1)Suggested Amendments: The author may wish to consider the
following substantive and clarifying amendments:
a) Reorder paragraphs (b) (1) to (3) to prioritize public
safety over internal processes and cultural changes within
the commission.
b) Strike "risk-informed, cost-effective" and replace with
"effective" to be specific about the need to advocate for
safety management and infrastructure improvements that are
effective.
c) Strike paragraph 309.8(c). This language is not
necessary. The CPUC currently has broad authority to compel
entities to produce information.
d) Modify the reporting requirement to be addresses to the
appropriate committees.
SB 62
Page 5
e) Modify the content of the reporting requirement to focus
on those activities conducted by the Office of Safety
Advocates that pertain to public safety and the internal
processes and procedures within the commission.
309.8. (a) There is hereby established within the commission
the Office of the Safety Advocate to advocate for the
continuous, cost-effective improvement of the safety
management and safety performance of public utilities.
(b) The office shall promote public utility safety by doing
all of the following:
(1) Recommending improvements to the commission's safety
management policy and procedures and its safety culture.
Advocating, as a party to commission proceedings and on behalf
of the interests of public utility customers, for
risk-informed, cost-effective effective public utility safety
management and infrastructure improvements and for the
transparency of safety information, including, but not limited
to, information relating to past performance.
(2) Recommending improvements to the commission's safety
management policy and procedures and its safety culture.
(2) (3) Informing the official record on safety-related risks
in applicable commission proceedings and assisting the
commission in its efforts to hold public utilities accountable
for their safe operation.
(c) The office may compel the production or disclosure of any
information it deems necessary to perform its duties from any
public utility, any affiliate of a public utility, or any
contractor of a public utility undertaking work on behalf of
the public utility that pertains to the safety of the public
utility's system. An objection to a production or disclosure
request shall be decided in writing by the assigned
commissioner or by the president of the commission, if there
is no assigned commissioner.
(d) On or before January 10 of each year, the office shall
provide to the chairpersons of the appropriate fiscal and
SB 62
Page 6
policy committees of each house of the Legislature and to the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee all of the following
information:
(1) The number of personnel years used by the office during
the prior fiscal year.
(2) The moneys expended by the office in the prior fiscal
year, the estimated moneys to be expended by the office in the
current fiscal year, and the moneys proposed for appropriation
for the office in the following budget year.
(3) Workload standards and measures for the office.
(1) The actions taken by the office to recommend improvements
of the commission's safety management policy and procedures
and its safety culture related to oversight of utilities.
(2) The actions taken by the office to recommend improvements
to public utility safety management policy and procedures and
safety culture.
(3) The proceedings in which the office participated and a
brief description of the testimony filed
(e) (d) This section shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020,
deletes or extends that date.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file.
Opposition
SB 62
Page 7
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083