BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 215| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 215 Author: Leno (D) and Hueso (D) Amended: 8/18/16 Vote: 21 SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 1/13/16 AYES: Hueso, Fuller, Cannella, Hertzberg, Hill, Lara, McGuire, Morrell, Pavley, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Leyva SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/21/16 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen SENATE FLOOR: 37-0, 1/26/16 AYES: Allen, Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Liu, Wolk ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/22/16 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Public Utilities Commission SOURCE: The Utility Reform Network DIGEST: This bill proposes a suite of reforms of the rules, operations and procedures of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pertaining to the laws and rules related to ex parte communications and criteria and process for disqualification of commissioners to a proceeding SB 215 Page 2 Assembly Amendments remove the prohibition of ex parte communications in ratesetting proceedings and clarify the disclosure requirements on interested persons and decision makers for ex parte communications; and make numerous technical changes to the bill. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Establishes the CPUC with five members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate and empowers the CPUC to regulate privately owned public utilities in California. (Article XII of the California Constitution; Public Utilities Code §301 et seq.) 2)Requires the CPUC to adopt procedures on the disqualification of administrative law judges (ALJs) due to bias or prejudice. (Public Utilities Code §309.6) 3)Requires the CPUC to determine the nature of a proceeding, specifically whether it is quasi-legislative, ratesetting, or adjudicatory and establishes definitions and rules related to each. (Public Utilities Code §1701 et seq.) 4)Directs the CPUC to adopt rules, by regulation, to define decisionmakers and persons of interest for purposes of applying rules regarding ex parte communication. (Public Utilities Code §1701.1) 5)Provides that a proceeding is subject to request for rehearing within 10 days of the date of a decision and if not appealed, shall not be subject to judicial review. (Public Utilities Code §1701.1) 6)Prohibits ex parte communication in adjudication cases. (Public Utilities Code §1701.2) 7)Prohibits ex parte communication in ratesetting cases, but SB 215 Page 3 permits oral ex parte communication if (a) all parties are invited with no less than three days' notice (b) written ex parte communication, provided copies are transmitted to all parties, and (c) when an ex parte meeting is granted to a party, all other parties are also granted individual ex parte communication. (Public Utilities Code §1701.3) 8)Provides that ex parte communication in quasi-legislative cases is permitted without restriction. (Public Utilities Code §1701.4) This bill: 1)Reforms and expands rules regarding ex parte communications in proceedings and requires the CPUC. 2)Requires the CPUC to adopt procedures on the disqualification of commissioners due to bias or prejudice similar to those for ALJs and specifies criteria for such action in ratesetting and adjudicatory proceedings. 3)Requires the CPUC to define decisionmaker for the purposes of ex parte communication rules to include commissioners, the personal staff of a commissioner who are acting in a policy or legal advisory capacity, the chief ALJ, and the ALJ assigned to the proceeding. 4)Requires the CPUC to establish rules regarding the types of issues considered procedural matters and specifies that communication between an interested person and decisionmaker regarding which commissioner or ALJ may be assigned to a matter is not considered a procedural matter. 5)Requires the CPUC to establish rules for reporting ex parte communications, including ex parte communications that may be prohibited, and applies the rules governing ex parte communications in adjudication and ratesetting cases to communications that occur at conferences. SB 215 Page 4 6)Requires the CPUC to render its decisions based on the evidence of the record and prohibits ex parte communication from being part of the record of the proceedings. 7)Provides that the CPUC commissioners may meet in a closed session to discuss administrative matters so long as no collective consensus is reached or vote taken on any matter requiring a vote of the commissioners and requires the CPUC to adopt rules to define administrative matters. 8)Provides for penalties for violations of ex parte communication rules, including allowing the CPUC to impose a civil penalty where financial benefits exceed the maximum of the $50,000 limit per violation. 9)Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an enforcement action in the superior court against a decisionmaker or employee of the CPUC who violates the ex parte communication rules. Background The CPUC quasi-independent, but still accountable to the Legislature. The CPUC was established by constitutional amendment as part of the sweep of progressive reforms in the early 1900s. Article XII of the California Constitution grants the CPUC authority to regulate public utilities "subject to control of the Legislature" and grants the Legislature "plenary power" to confer authority and jurisdiction upon the CPUC, with the intent that the CPUC be accountable to the Legislature. Emails demonstrate "Culture of Conversation". During the summer and fall of 2014, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), bowing to legal pressure from the City of San Bruno, began to release a growing number of emails between the utility and CPUC officials. PG&E released 65,000 emails from over a five-year period that PG&E says it believes "violated CPUC rules governing ex parte communications." The initial release of emails revealed efforts by PG&E executives to influence the CPUC's assignment of the ALJ to the San Bruno proceeding. Many of the other emails exposed regular, private, familiar communications between PG&E and certain CPUC commissioners, including former CPUC President Michael Peevey and current commissioner Michael SB 215 Page 5 Florio, as well as senior CPUC officials. Criminal investigations opened. Since PG&E's initial release of the emails, both the state Attorney General and the United States Department of Justice have opened investigations into communications between the CPUC and regulated entities. PG&E has fired three senior executives. A senior CPUC official has resigned, while other top CPUC officials - including longtime CPUC President Michael Peevey and Executive Director Paul Clannon - have retired under pressure. Investigators working with the Attorney General's Office have raided the CPUC offices and the homes of former CPUC Commissioner President Peevey and PG&E former-Vice President Brian Cherry. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS). In early February 2015, only after a newspaper published details of the search warrant which mentioned a previously undisclosed meeting between Southern California Edison (SCE) executive and then-CPUC President Peevey, SCE disclosed a meeting that occurred two years prior in Warsaw, Poland between then-CPUC President Peevey and a utility executive in which they discussed how to resolve the shutdown plans for SONGS. The facility had a failed steam generator that required SONGS to be permanently retired. In November 2014, the CPUC approved a settlement agreement between utilities and ratepayer advocates that split the costs of retiring the facility and the associated replacement power, with ratepayers shouldering $3.3 billion of the $4.7 billion total costs. In light of the information about the meeting in Poland, some of the parties to the settlement agreement have rescinded their support. In December 2015, the CPUC voted 4-0 to fine SCE $16.7 million for violations of ex parte communications rules regarding the SONGS closure proceeding. Ex parte communications. Substantive communication outside of the public record that occurs between a decisionmaker and a party with an interest in a CPUC proceeding are known as "ex parte" communications. Statute recognizes that ex parte communications can conflict with the need for public decision at the CPUC. The current law directs the CPUC to adopt regulations requiring reporting of ex parte communications. Statute does not require a CPUC decisionmaker to report ex parte communication with an interested party. Statute directs CPUC to SB 215 Page 6 identify each of its proceedings according to one of three categories - adjudicatory, quasi-legislative, and ratesetting - and provides ex parte rules applicable to each type of proceeding. The types of proceedings and the statutory ex parte rules applicable to each are: Adjudication cases - enforcement cases and complaints, except those challenging the reasonableness of rates or charges. Statute expressly prohibits ex parte communication related to an adjudicatory proceeding. Quasi-legislative cases - those that establish policy, including, but not limited to, rulemakings and investigations which may establish rules affecting an entire industry. Statute expressly allows for ex parte communication without restriction in these types of proceedings. Ratesetting cases - cases in which rates are established for a specific company. Statute lacks clarity as it expressly prohibits ex parte communication related to ratesetting cases, yet, provides circumstances in which ex parte communication is permitted and establishes procedures for reporting and managing such communication. Party of One. The CPUC's laws and rules governing ex parte communication are unique among other state agencies, and also among similar agencies across the nation. Many of the experts who presented at the March 11, 2015 oversight hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications on ex parte communication noted that rules governing ex parte communications in ratesetting proceedings may be the most permissive as compared to other agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other states' ratesetting agencies. California law is less clear in ratesetting proceedings, a major function of the CPUC, both stating that ex parte communication is prohibited, while allowing for a number of exceptions. Many of the presenters at the March 11, 2015 hearing advocated for doing away with ex parte communication in ratesetting proceedings because of the lack of fairness, the un-level playing field, and the time and resources that are required of commissioners and others. A report released June SB 215 Page 7 2015, authored by Michael Strumwasser and requested by the CPUC, reviewed ex parte communication practices at the CPUC and also recommended prohibiting ex parte communication in ratesetting proceedings and requiring disclosure in quasi-legislative proceedings. However, some interested parties have expressed concerns that doing away with ex parte communications may further challenge interests with a less prominent issue in a ratesetting proceeding to have their concerns heard. This bill requires disclosure of ex parte communications in ratesetting proceedings, including a description of the interested person's communications and contents. Unlike current practice, the bill also requires decisionmakers to promptly disclose these ex parte communications. The bill strengthens enforcement of violations of ex parte communications rules and prohibits communications regarding procedural issues with any decisionmaker, except the ALJ in an adjudicatory proceeding. Disqualification of commissioners. The law directs the CPUC to establish rules to address incidents when an ALJ may be disqualified from a proceeding. However, no similar mention is made of addressing concerns of bias by commissioners. In recent times, any motions to recuse a commissioner from a proceeding due to a party's claim that there is undue bias have been denied. After the release of the PG&E emails, the City of San Bruno motioned for a recusal of then - CPUC President Peevey. That motion was denied. The ALJ at the time stated that "no specific rule sets forth a procedure for addressing motions to seek the recusal of a Commissioner for cause." Related/Prior Legislation AB 825 (Rendon, 2015) proposed a suite of reforms of the CPUC to make the agency more accessible and transparent to the public. The bill was vetoed by the Governor. AB 1023 (Rendon, 2015) proposed to codify the summary log requirements currently required at the CPUC for ratesetting proceedings and extend those requirements to quasi-legislative proceedings. The bill was vetoed by the Governor. SB 48 (Hill, 2015) proposed a suite of reforms of the governance and operations of the CPUC, including some of the same reforms SB 215 Page 8 in SB 611 (Hill, 2013). The bill was vetoed by the Governor. SB 512 (Hill, 2015) proposes a suite of reforms of the operations and governance of the CPUC, including requiring the CPUC to hold no less than six sessions per year in Sacramento, expanding the information required of the CPUC in its annual report and workplan to the Legislature and Governor, requiring specific information on its Web site, applying the Code of Ethics from the Administrative Procedures Act to ALJs, and others. The bill is currently under consideration by the Assembly Floor. SB 660 (Leno and Hueso, 2015) proposed many of the same reforms included in SB 215 of the ex parte communications laws related to ratesetting and quasi-legislative proceedings, addresses the process for disqualifying a commissioner from a proceeding, and other reforms of the CPUC. The bill was vetoed by the Governor. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, increased CPUC costs in the range of $250,000 to $600,000 (Public Utilities Reimbursement Account). SUPPORT: (Verified8/22/16) The Utility Reform Network (source) California Environmental Justice Alliance California Large Energy Consumers Association Center for Accessible Technology Communications Workers of America, District 9 Consumer Federation of California Goodin, MacBride, Squeri & Day LLP Greenling Institute Mussey Grade Road Alliance Non-Utility Stakeholders Group SB 215 Page 9 San Diego Area Congregations for Change Sierra Club California OPPOSITION: (Verified8/22/16) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The authors state that decision-making based on the public record is central to the work of the CPUC whose decisions are addressed in proceedings more akin to a judicial process in a courtroom setting and unlike other state agencies or bodies. The recent release of 65,000 emails has demonstrated a cozy relationship between some of the commissioners and staff at the CPUC and the regulated utilities. These exchanges have severely undermined the public's trust in the agency. While in some cases the rules may have been broken, it is also evident that the problems at the CPUC are more systemic than solely a personality or an individual. There is a need to strengthen and clarify rules governing ex parte communication to preserve the public trust and prevent future scandals. This bill seeks to remedy three specific problems: "(1) unreasonable process and unduly restrictive standards for determining whether a commissioner should be disqualified due to prejudice, (2) unreasonably permissive rules governing ex parte communications, and (3) commissioners and staff who violate ex parte communication rules are adjudicated by the CPUC itself rather than by an independent judiciary." ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/22/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, SB 215 Page 10 Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Melendez Prepared by:Nidia Bautista / E., U., & C. / (916) 651-4107 8/23/16 10:09:11 **** END ****