BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 512
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB
512 (Hill) - As Amended June 20, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 37-0
SUBJECT: Public Utilities Commission
SUMMARY: Makes various changes to processes to provide improved
transparency of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
activities and make revisions to rules governing intervenor
compensation to allow local governments to receive such
compensation, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the CPUC to hold its sessions at least once in each
calendar month, without specifying the location.
2)Makes the Administrative Adjudication Code of Ethics
applicable to administrative law judges of the CPUC.
3)Requires, except in adjudication cases, the CPUC, before
determining the scope of the proceeding, where feasible and
appropriate, to seek the participation of those who are likely
to be affected by a decision in the proceeding.
SB 512
Page 2
4)Requires the Policy and Planning Division of the CPUC to
undertake one or more studies of outreach efforts undertaken
by other state and federal utility regulatory bodies and to
make recommendations to the commission to promote effective
outreach, including metrics for use in evaluating success.
5)Requires the CPUC to include a docket card that lists the
public versions of all prepared oral and written testimony and
advice letter filings, protests, and responses on its Internet
Web site.
6)Requires the CPUC to make additional information available on
the Internet, including information on how members of the
public and ratepayers can gain access to the CPUC's ratemaking
process.
7)Requires the CPUC to develop, publish, and annually update a
report on public meetings held outside San Francisco in the
previous year and a schedule of meetings anticipated to be
held outside San Francisco during the upcoming year.
8)Expands the CPUC's current annual workplan report to described
all scheduled proceedings that may be considered by the CPUC
during the calendar year and require inclusion of performance
criteria for the CPUC and executive director..
9)Permits intervenor compensation to be paid to certain local
government entities that intervene or participate in
commission proceedings to the extent that their involvement
was for the purpose of protecting health and safety, under
specified circumstances.
SB 512
Page 3
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the CPUC with five members appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Senate and empowers it to
regulate privately owned public utilities in California.
(California Constitution Article XII; Public Utilities Code
Section 301 et seq.)
2)Requires the office of the CPUC to be located in the City and
County of San Francisco. Requires the CPUC to hold at least
one session per calendar month in the City and County of San
Francisco. (Public Utilities Code Section 306)
3)Requires the CPUC to publish and maintain on its website
specified information, including a docket card that lists all
documents filed and all decisions or rulings issued in those
proceedings, as provided. (Public Utilities Code Section
311.5)
4)Requires the CPUC to develop, publish and annually update an
annual workplan report that describes the scheduled ratemaking
proceedings and other decisions that may be considered during
the calendar year, along with other specified information to
be included in the workplan report. (Public Utilities Section
910)
5)Requires the CPUC to annually submit a report to the
Legislature on the number of cases where resolution exceeded
the time periods prescribed in scoping memos and days that
commissioners presided in hearings. (Public Utilities Code
Section 910.1)
SB 512
Page 4
6)Exempts the CPUC from the California Administrative Procedures
Act. (Public Utilities Code Section 1701)
7)Provides compensation for reasonable advocate's fees,
reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs to
public utility customers of participation or intervention in
any proceeding of the commission. (Public Utilities Code
Section1801 et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement. "Recent scandals at the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) have highlighted the need for more
visibility in the interactions between Commissioners and
regulated utilities, and a series of embarrassing audits of
the CPUC's mismanagement of public funds poor safety oversight
point toward poor management of the organization.
"SB 512 would reform the CPUC's governance structure, more
clearly outlining the roles and responsibilities of
Commissioners and staff, and it would end loopholes that allow
regulated utilities to influence CPUC Commissioners outside
the public eye."
2)Background. This bill addresses several areas of CPUC reform:
a) Performance criteria for the commission and the
executive director and annually evaluate the performance of
the executive director based on those criteria;
SB 512
Page 5
b) Allows the CPUC to meet anywhere, not just in San
Francisco;
c) Requires the CPUC to modify its annual report to list
its schedule of future rulemakings and report on the
timeliness of proceedings so that it says how long
proceedings have lasted;
d) Requires administrative law judges to adhere to ethics
provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act;
e) Requires testimony-oral and written-to be docketed on
the CPUC's Web site;
f) Requires the CPUC to perform outreach to affected groups
before opening a commission-instigated proceeding, and
requires them to outline the efforts in the opening
document of the proceeding;
g) Permits local government agencies that have been subject
to a utility catastrophe and consortia of local government
entities to receive intervenor compensation for
safety-related intervention.
When current CPUC President Picker addressed his colleagues
and CPUC staff in January 2015 he stated:
"We will move the agency forward with openness and
transparency.
SB 512
Page 6
"Re-building the CPUC into an organization that is more
fair, open, accessible, and effective must start at the
top."
This bill provides authority to enable the CPUC to implement
those actions that will move the CPUC toward openness and
transparency. In addition, by providing performance criteria
and review and information about the proceedings, the public
can be participate more effectively in CPUC proceedings.
With regard to intervenor compensation, the City of San Bruno
stated in its letter:
As we embarked on our participation in three
investigations related to the explosion in our
community we were shocked to discoverer
that?.such compensation it not available to
local government organizations like ours.
Cities and counties that have suffered
catastrophe are least able to devote their
limited resource to the arcane and expensive
task of participation in CPUC proceedings -
they have more than enough to do to just
respond, to address the needs of their
residents and to rebuild and recover.
As written, this bill is unclear that the communities eligible
for intervenor compensation would have suffered a catastrophic
loss and that the loss is related to utility infrastructure.
The author may wish to consider a clarifying amendment to
address this.
3) Proposed amendments:
SB 512
Page 7
d) "Eligible local government entity" means either of the
following:
(1) A local government entity that is not a publicly owned
public utility that intervenes or participates in a commission
proceeding for the purpose of protecting the health and safety
of the residents within the entity's jurisdiction after
suffering a catastrophic material loss, either in significant
damage to infrastructure or loss of life and property or both ,
as a direct result of public utility infrastructure.
(2) A consortium of local governmental entities that intervene
or participate in a commission proceeding for the purpose of
protecting public health and safety through prevention of
material loss, either in significant damage to infrastructure
or loss of life and property, as a result of public utility
infrastructure .
1802.4. An eligible local government entity is eligible for an
award of compensation pursuant to this article for its
involvement to the extent that the involvement was for the
purpose of protecting health and safety and consistent with
subdivision (d) of Section 1802. The eligibility of a local
government entity described by paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 1802, shall be for involvement to the extent
that the involvement was germane to the material loss suffered
and to improving safety within the entity's jurisdiction .
4) Support and Opposition:
Supporters state that transcripts are necessary and integral
to the development of a complete record in CPUC proceedings
and that parties must have timely access to the transcripts in
SB 512
Page 8
order to support positions taken in briefs, comments or other
documents submitted in the proceedings
With respect to intervenor compensation, supporters state that
local governments who have suffered catastrophic losses to
seek intervenor compensation.
Opponents state that local governments have the power to raise
revenue or prioritize workload to cover their operational
expenses for the direct benefit of their constituents to
advocate in CPUC proceedings. They believe it is inappropriate
to ask utility customers to indirectly subsidize the
activities of a local government or consortia of local
government entities.
5) Related Legislation:
SB 215 (Leno) of 2016: Enacts various reforms to existing law
to address issues of governance, transparency, and
accountability at the CPUC. Pending in the Assembly.
AB 2120 (Weber) of 2016: Expands eligibility for intervenor
compensation to consortia of school districts. Pending in the
Senate.
ACR 11 (Gatto) of 2016: Places a measure on the ballot to
author Legislature to reform the CPUC functions. Pending in
the Senate.
SB 48 (Hill) of 2015: Contained provisions related to judicial
review of Public Records Act and Bagley-Keene Open Meeting
Act. Vetoed by the Governor.
SB 512
Page 9
SB 660 (Leno) of 2015: Restricted the use of ex parte
communications in ratesetting and quasi-legislative
proceedings. Vetoed by the Governor.
SB 825 (Rendon) of 2015: Created an inspector general for the
CPUC, required the CPUC to publish more information, codified
procedures in proceedings regarding the release of
utility-furnished documents, increased the use of all-part
meetings, and made other changes. Vetoed by the Governor.
SB 1165 (Wright) of 2012: Allowed intervenor compensation to
be awarded for participation or intervention in proceedings at
the CPUC for a county office of education, on behalf of any of
the local educational agencies in whole or part within the
county or on behalf of itself, or for a community college
district. Died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1973 (Ruskin) of 2008: Required Senate confirmation of the
Governor-appointed president of the CPUC, and had the
executive director and attorney take direction from the
commission rather than the president. Died on the Assembly
Floor.
SB 532 (Kopp), Chapter 938, Statutes of 1995: Revised
procedures for administrative procedures by, among other
things, requiring that all state adjudicative proceedings
adhere to an "administrative adjudication bill of rights,"
which would promote greater due process, fairness,
accessibility, objectivity and consistency in adjudicative
proceedings. This bill exempted the CPUC from its
requirements.
SB 512
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Farm Bureau
California Public Utilities Commission (if amended)
City of Carmel by the Sea
City of Laguna Beach
City of San Bruno
Sierra Club
Opposition
AT&T
California Cable & Telecommunications Association (CCTA)
California Water Association (unless amended)
SB 512
Page 11
CTIA
Consolidated Communications
Sprint
T-Mobile
Verizon
Analysis Prepared by:Sue Kateley / U. & C. / (916)
319-2083