BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1414|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 1414
Author: Kehoe (D)
Amended: 8/20/10
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 10-0, 4/20/10
AYES: Padilla, Dutton, Corbett, Florez, Kehoe, Lowenthal,
Oropeza, Simitian, Strickland, Wright
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-0, 5/27/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Denham, Leno, Price,
Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox
SENATE FLOOR : 31-0, 6/2/10
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cogdill,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Florez,
Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Price, Romero,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Walters, Wolk, Wright,
Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Ducheny, Liu, Oropeza, Padilla,
Runner, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 60-16, 8/25/10 - See last page for vote
SENATE FLOOR : 21-14, 8/26/10
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Lowenthal, Negrete
McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian,
Steinberg, Wolk, Wright, Yee
CONTINUED
SB 1414
Page
2
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Blakeslee, Cogdill, Denham,
Dutton, Emmerson, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Liu, Oropeza, Wiggins, Vacancy
SUBJECT : Public Utilities Commission: procedures:
rehearings
SOURCE : The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
DIGEST : This bill clarifies the timeline and manner in
which the California Public Utilities Commission may extend
the review period for a rehearing application.
Assembly Amendments revise the Senate version to change the
review period and double-joint the bill with AB 2769
(Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, parties and certain other
entities are directly affected by an action, decision, or
order of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
may apply to the CPUC in order to have a rehearing on their
matter of concern. Moreover, a party may petition a state
appellate court or the state Supreme Court to review a CPUC
decision, but the party must first seek a rehearing by
CPUC.
This bill provides that if the CPUC has not acted upon a
rehearing application filed on or after January 1, 2011,
within 120 days, the CPUC by order may extend the period
for action upon the application. Any single order shall
not extend the review period for more than an additional
120 days. This "extension by order" provision may increase
the visibility and highlight for the commissioners those
cases that are still outstanding which may help CPUC with
managing the backlog. In any case, if CPUC orders an
extension, a party is not precluded from exercising its
right to take the case to court.
Background
Laws governing rehearing and judicial review of CPUC
CONTINUED
SB 1414
Page
3
decisions seek to achieve judicial economy by having
matters first resolved by the agency but also seek to
provide parties expeditious resolution of claims and
certainty as to the effect of CPUC decisions. A party may
petition a state appellate court or the state Supreme Court
to review a CPUC decision but is required to first seek a
rehearing by the CPUC. A petition for judicial review of a
CPUC decision is timely only if filed within one of the
following time periods: (1) within 30 days after the CPUC
issues a decision denying an application for rehearing; (2)
within 30 days after the CPUC issues a decision on
rehearing if an application for rehearing is granted; and
(3) within 60 days after an application for rehearing is
filed if the CPUC fails to act on the application for
rehearing.
According to the Utility Reform Network, the sponsor of
this bill, the CPUC rarely acts on an application for
rehearing within 60 days. The attached data provided by
the CPUC reflect a very high rate of applications being
deemed denied, although an exact percentage is impossible
to calculate because the data are presented by calendar
year rather than tracking each application. The CPUC's
January 2010 report to the Governor and Legislature on
"Timely Resolution of Proceedings and Commissioner Presence
at Hearings" does not separately report on applications for
rehearing, but the data in the report reveal that several
applications for rehearing have been pending for more than
a year.
Thus, a party that files an application for rehearing
typically becomes eligible to seek judicial review under
the "deemed denied" scenario when the CPUC fails to act
within 60 days. However, according to the sponsor and
confirmed by CPUC staff, when a party seeks judicial review
under this scenario, the CPUC typically asks the court to
not grant review until the CPUC rules on the application
for rehearing, and the court, exercising its discretion,
typically complies with the CPUC's request and declines
review. As a result, even when parties comply with all
procedural requirements to seek rehearing and judicial
review, review of CPUC decisions is effectively denied
until the CPUC acts on the application for rehearing, which
can take months or even years. Moreover, knowing the court
CONTINUED
SB 1414
Page
4
likely will decline review of a "deemed denied" application
for rehearing, parties are reluctant to undertake the time
and expense of appellate litigation. During this period of
delay, the underlying CPUC decision remains in effect.
With a limited exception rarely applicable, existing law
provides that an application for rehearing "shall not
excuse any corporation or person from complying with and
obeying any order" of the CPUC nor shall an application for
rehearing "operate in any manner to stay or postpone the
enforcement" of that order, unless the CPUC orders a stay.
Thus, in nearly all cases, a CPUC decision remains in
effect while an application for rehearing is pending.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
establishing a 120-day deadline for rehearing applications,
though this timeline can be extended by commission action,
will create workload-related cost pressures. If up to two
full-time attorney positions are needed to meet this
deadline, annual costs to the CPUC will be up to $290,000.
[Public Utilities Reimbursement Account].
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/10)
The Utility Reform Network (TURN) (source)
California Association of Competitive Telecommunications
Companies
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"I am returning Senate Bill 1414 without my
signature.
This bill provides that if the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) fails to act on an
application for rehearing within 120 days, the CPUC
may vote to extend the deadline by an additional 120
days.
Under current practice, the CPUC has 60 days to act
on a petition for rehearing of a decision. A party
CONTINUED
SB 1414
Page
5
who brings an action in California's backlogged
courts is admonished by the court for filing their
writ before the 60 days have run. Under this bill, I
expect that the courts will not alter their practice,
except that now a party will have to endure 120 days
of CPUC inaction before they can make their filing.
I am concerned that the provisions of this bill
undercut a party's ability to go to court if the
commission has not acted within 60 days. Party's who
do business before the CPUC deserve the right to
decision and the right to appeal a decision, or lack
thereof, to the courts. But at the end of the day,
the base problem remains the same - there is a large
backlog of petitions at the CPUC today and steps
should be taken to reduce the average time it takes
them to resolve a petition for rehearing. This bill
does not address that problem.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Conway, DeVore, Gaines, Harkey,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Norby, Vacancy, Vacancy
DLW:do 10/5/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
SB 1414
Page
6
**** END ****
CONTINUED