BILL NUMBER: AB 840 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2003
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Calderon
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
An act to amend Section 1756 of, and to add Section
1769 to , the Public Utilities Code, relating to ,
public utilities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 840, as amended, Calderon. Public Utilities Commission:
evidence: orders or decisions: review.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission is not
required to apply the technical rules of evidence to hearings,
investigations, and proceedings, which are governed by certain
existing law and by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the
commission.
Existing law provides for judicial review of an order or decision
of the Public Utilities Commission in the courts of appeal or Supreme
Court, and requires the writ of mandamus to lie from the
Supreme Court and from the court of appeal to the commission in all
proper cases as prescribed in a specified section of the Code of
Civil Procedure authorizes an aggrieved party to
petition for a writ of review .
This bill would require all evidence in any adjudication to be
taken in accordance with certain existing law governing evidence in
administrative proceedings. The bill would require judicial
review of a decision of the commission upon the verified petition of
the party beneficially interested, that there is no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy. The bill would also require judicial
review upon the verified petition of the party beneficially
interested, that the decision relies on reasoning that misconstrues,
misinterprets, or misapplies a relevant statutory provision or that
it relies on unconstitutional or unenforceable statutory provisions.
The bill would require the commission to amend its rules
of practice and procedure in accordance with the requirements of this
bill.
The bill would require a writ of review to issue if either a
petition for a writ of review challenges a decision of the commission
on the grounds that the decision relies on reasoning that
misconstrues, misinterprets, or misapplies a statute, the petition
challenges the decision on the grounds that the decision relies on an
unconstitutional or prohibited federal law or regulation that the
commission may not declare unenforceable, or whenever the court deems
appropriate for purposes of inquiring into and determining the
lawfulness of the decision.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1756 of the Public Utilities Code is
amended to read:
1756. (a) Within 30 days after the commission issues its decision
denying the application for a rehearing, or, if the application was
granted, then within 30 days after the commission issues its decision
on rehearing, or at least 120 days after the application is granted
if no decision on rehearing has been issued, any aggrieved party may
petition for a writ of review in the court of appeal or the Supreme
Court for the purpose of having the lawfulness of the original order
or decision or of the order or decision on rehearing inquired into
and determined. If the writ issues, it shall be made returnable at a
time and place specified by court order and shall direct the
commission to certify its record in the case to the court within the
time specified.
(b) A writ of review shall issue in any one of the following
circumstances:
(1) The petition, in whole or in part, challenges the decision on
the ground that the decision relies on reasoning that misconstrues,
misinterprets, or misapplies a relevant statutory provision.
(2) The petition, in whole or in part, challenges the decision on
the grounds that the decision relies on a statutory provision that is
unconstitutional or prohibited by federal law or regulations, and
the commission has no authority to declare the statute unenforceable
under Section 3.5 of Article III of the California Constitution.
(3) Whenever the court deems appropriate for purposes of inquiring
into and determining the lawfulness of the decision.
(c) The petition for review shall be served upon the
executive director of the commission either personally or by service
at the office of the commission.
(c)
(d) For purposes of this section, the issuance of a decision
or the granting of an application shall be construed to have
occurred on the date when the commission mails the decision or grant
to the parties to the action or proceeding.
(d)
(e) The venue of a petition filed in the court of appeal
pursuant to this section shall be in the judicial district in which
the petitioner resides. If the petitioner is a business, venue shall
be in the judicial district in which the petitioner has its
principal place of business in California.
(e)
(f) Any party may seek from the Supreme Court, pursuant to
California Rules of Court, an order transferring related actions to a
single appellate district.
(f)
(g) For purposes of this section, review of decisions
pertaining solely to water corporations shall only be by petition for
writ of review in the Supreme Court, except that review of complaint
or enforcement proceedings may be in the court of appeal or the
Supreme Court.
(g)
(h) No order or decision arising out of a commission
proceeding under Section 854 shall be reviewable in the court of
appeal pursuant to subdivision (a) if the application for commission
authority to complete the merger or acquisition was filed on or
before December 31, 1998, by two telecommunications-related
corporations including at least one which provides local
telecommunications service to over one million California customers.
These orders or decisions shall be reviewed pursuant to the Public
Utilities Code in existence on December 31, 1998.
SEC. 2. Section 1769 is added to the Public Utilities Code,
to read:
1769. (a) Notwithstanding Section 1701, all evidence in any
adjudication shall be taken in accordance with Section 11513 of the
Government Code.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, judicial
review of a decision of the commission shall be had upon the verified
petition of the party beneficially interested, under either of the
following circumstances:
(1) Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
(2) The petition challenges the decision on either of the
following grounds:
(A) The decision relies on reasoning that misconstrues,
misinterprets, or misapplies a relevant statutory provision.
(B) The decision relies on a statutory provision that is
unconstitutional, or unenforceable on the basis that federal law or
federal regulation prohibits its enforcement.
(c
(b) The commission shall amend its rules of practice and
procedure in accordance with this section.
____ CORRECTIONS Title -- Line 1.
____