California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 520 — Electricity: intervenor funding.

Last action — September 1 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities. Existing law requires the PUC to award reasonable advocate's fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of preparation for and participation in a hearing or proceeding of the PUC involving an electrical, gas, water, or telephone corporation to a customer who complies with specified procedures when the customer's presentation makes a substantial contribution to the adoption, in whole or in part, of the PUC's order or decision and where participation or intervention without an award of fees or costs imposes a significant financial hardship. This bill would establish a mechanism to provide compensation for reasonable advocate's fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of participation in processes of the Independent System Operator (ISO) related to proceedings concerning transmission planning, the transmission access charge, energy markets, and regionalization. The bill would require an organization intending to seek compensation to submit an annual notice of intent and eligibility to the PUC containing specified information. The PUC would be required to timely issue a finding as to whether the organization is an eligible group, as defined, that may file for compensation. The bill would authorize an eligible group, by March 31 of each year, to file for compensation from an electrical corporation that is a transmission-owning utility, as defined, for participation in eligible proceedings for the prior calendar year. The bill would require the PUC, within 90 days after the filing of the request for compensation or within 60 days after the submission of additional supporting documentation, whichever occurs later, to determine whether the eligible group has productively participated in an eligible proceeding, and if so, to direct that the reasonable costs of participation, including advocate's fees, expert witness fees, and associated costs, as respectively defined, be paid by the electrical corporation from moneys held in trust by the electrical corporation for that purpose. The bill would require that payment be denied to any eligible group that engages in vexatious behavior or attempts to unreasonably obstruct the orderly and timely fulfillment of the responsibilities of the ISO. The bill would require the commission to adopt rules governing the intervenor funding program at a publicly noticed meeting offering all interested parties an opportunity to comment. The bill would require PUC, in consultation with the ISO, to report to all relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature 3 years after the program is implemented with sufficient information for the Legislature to determine the effectiveness of the program in achieving greater access and transparency, increasing productive participation, and minimizing negative impacts on ratepayers and the environment. The PUC's authority to award intervenor compensation pursuant to the program would become inoperative 4 years after the program is implemented. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because certain provisions of the bill would require an order or requirement to be imposed by the PUC upon an electrical corporation, and a violation of the order or requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. September 1 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 23 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 5.) (July 12).

  5. Referred to Com. on U. & E.

  6. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 23. Noes 12. Page 1382.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  8. Published May 26 at 9 p.m.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1186.) (May 25).

  11. Set for hearing May 25.

  12. April 17 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  13. Set for hearing April 17.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 3. Page 621.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Set for hearing April 4.

  16. Referred to Com. on E., U. & C.

  17. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 19.

  18. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Mitchell · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Mitchell

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety energy
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 520 do?
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities. Existing law requires the PUC to award reasonable advocate's fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of preparation for and participation in a hearing or proceeding of the PUC involving an electrical, gas, water, or telephone corporation to a customer who complies with specified procedures when the customer's presentation makes a substantial contribution to the adoption, in whole or in part, of the PUC's order or decision and where participation or intervention without an award of fees or costs imposes a significant financial hardship. This bill would establish a mechanism to provide compensation for reasonable advocate's fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of participation in processes of the Independent System Operator (ISO) related to proceedings concerning transmission planning, the transmission access charge, energy markets, and regionalization. The bill would require an organization intending to seek compensation to submit an annual notice of intent and eligibility to the PUC containing specified information. The PUC would be required to timely issue a finding as to whether the organization is an eligible group, as defined, that may file for compensation. The bill would authorize an eligible group, by March 31 of each year, to file for compensation from an electrical corporation that is a transmission-owning utility, as defined, for participation in eligible proceedings for the prior calendar year. The bill would require the PUC, within 90 days after the filing of the request for compensation or within 60 days after the submission of additional supporting documentation, whichever occurs later, to determine whether the eligible group has productively participated in an eligible proceeding, and if so, to direct that the reasonable costs of participation, including advocate's fees, expert witness fees, and associated costs, as respectively defined, be paid by the electrical corporation from moneys held in trust by the electrical corporation for that purpose. The bill would require that payment be denied to any eligible group that engages in vexatious behavior or attempts to unreasonably obstruct the orderly and timely fulfillment of the responsibilities of the ISO. The bill would require the commission to adopt rules governing the intervenor funding program at a publicly noticed meeting offering all interested parties an opportunity to comment. The bill would require PUC, in consultation with the ISO, to report to all relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature 3 years after the program is implemented with sufficient information for the Legislature to determine the effectiveness of the program in achieving greater access and transparency, increasing productive participation, and minimizing negative impacts on ratepayers and the environment. The PUC's authority to award intervenor compensation pursuant to the program would become inoperative 4 years after the program is implemented. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because certain provisions of the bill would require an order or requirement to be imposed by the PUC upon an electrical corporation, and a violation of the order or requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 520?
SB 520 is sponsored by Mitchell.
What is the current status of SB 520?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 520?
Track SB 520 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 520

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 520

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →