SB 660 — Public Utilities Commission.

Summary

(1) The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission, with jurisdiction over all public utilities. The California Constitution grants the commission certain general powers over all public utilities, subject to control by the Legislature, and authorizes the Legislature, unlimited by the other provisions of the California Constitution, to confer additional authority and jurisdiction upon the commission that is cognate and germane to the regulation of public utilities. Existing law requires the Governor to designate the president of the commission from among its members and requires the president to direct the executive director, the attorney, and other staff of the commission, except for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates. This bill would authorize the commission to delegate specific management and internal oversight functions to committees composed of 2 commissioners. The bill would require the commission to appoint a chief administrative law judge who would be responsible for the oversight of the administrative law judge division and would require the chief administrative law judge to organize, coordinate, supervise, and direct the operations of the administrative law judge division as directed by the commission, consistent with commission policies and priorities. Existing law requires the executive director to keep a full and true record of all proceedings of the commission. This bill would delete that requirement and would instead require the chief administrative law judge to keep a full and true record of all proceedings of the commission. (2) Existing law requires the commission, upon initiating a hearing, to assign one or more commissioners to oversee the case and an administrative law judge, where appropriate. Existing law requires the assigned commissioner to prepare and issue, by order or ruling, a scoping memo that describes the issues to be considered and the applicable timetable for resolution. Existing law requires the commission to adopt procedures on the disqualification of administrative law judges due to bias or prejudice similar to those of other state agencies and superior courts. This bill would require the commission to additionally adopt procedures on disqualification of commissioners due to bias or prejudice similar to those of other state agencies and superior courts. For ratesetting or adjudicatory proceedings, the bill would require a commissioner or an administrative law judge to be disqualified for bias or prejudice based on specified criteria. The bill would require that the commission procedures prohibit a commissioner or administrative law judge from ruling on a motion made by a party to a proceeding to disqualify the commissioner or administrative law judge due to bias or prejudice. (3) The Public Utilities Act requires the commission to determine whether a proceeding requires a hearing and, if so, to determine whether the matter requires a quasi-legislative, an adjudication, or a ratesetting hearing. For these purposes, quasi-legislative cases are cases that establish policy rulemakings and investigations, which may establish rules affecting an entire industry, adjudication cases are enforcement cases and complaints, except those challenging the reasonableness of any rates or charges, and ratesetting cases are cases in which rates are established for a specific company, including general rate cases, performance-based ratemaking, and other ratesetting mechanisms. The act regulates communications in hearings before the commission and defines "ex parte communication" to mean any oral or written communication between a decisionmaker and a person with an interest in a matter before the commission concerning substantive, but not procedural, issues that does not occur in a public hearing, workshop, or other public proceeding, or on the official record of the proceeding on the matter. Existing law defines "person with an interest" to mean, among other things, a person with a financial interest in a matter before the commission, or an agent or employee of the person with a financial interest, or a person receiving consideration for representing the person with a financial interest. Existing law requires the commission, by regulation, to adopt and publish a definition of the terms "decisionmaker" and "persons" for those purposes, along with any requirements for written reporting of ex parte communications and appropriate sanctions for noncompliance with any rule proscribing ex parte communications. The act provides that ex parte communications are prohibited in adjudication cases and are prohibited in ratesetting cases, with certain exceptions. The act requires that ex parte communications be permitted in quasi-legislative cases, without any restrictions. The commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure define a "decisionmaker" as any commissioner, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, any Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge, the assigned administrative law judge, or the Law and Motion Administrative Law Judge. The Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that communications with a commissioner's personal advisors are subject to all of the restrictions on, and reporting requirements applicable to, ex parte communications, except that oral communications with an advisor in ratesetting proceedings are permitted without the restrictions. This bill would require that the commission determine whether every proceeding, not just those requiring a hearing, is a quasi-legislative, adjudication, or ratesetting proceeding. The bill would delete the provision that an ex parte communication concerns a substantive, but not a procedural matter, and instead would provide that an ex parte communication concerns any matter that the commission has not specified in its Rules of Practice and Procedure as being a procedural matter and that does not occur in a public hearing, workshop, or other public proceeding, or on the official record of the proceeding on the matter. The bill would prohibit the commission from considering as a procedural matter communications between an interested person and a decisionmaker regarding which commissioner or administrative law judge may be assigned to a matter before the commission. The bill would define a person involved in issuing credit ratings or advising entities or persons who may invest in the shares or operations of any party to a proceeding as an interested person. The bill would require that the commission, by rule, adopt and publish a definition of decisionmakers, that would be required to include certain individuals in the commission. The bill would require the commission to establish and maintain a communications log summarizing all oral or written ex parte communications that occur between an interested person and any decisionmaker. The bill would require the commission to post the communications log on its Internet Web site. This bill would require that a decisionmaker, in an adjudication or ratesetting case, who makes or receives a prohibited ex parte communication, or who receives an ex parte communication that was not timely reported, to disclose certain information regarding the communication in the record of the proceeding before the commission takes a vote on the matter. If a prohibited ex parte communication is not disclosed until after the commission has issued a decision on the matter to which the communication pertained, a party not participating in the communication would be authorized to file a petition to rescind or modify the decision. The bill would require the commission to render decisions based upon the record in a case and would provide that an ex parte communication not be part of the record of the proceeding. This bill would provide that ex parte communications are permitted in quasi-legislative proceedings, but would require that they be reported within 3 working days in the communications log maintained by the commission. This bill would require the commission to additionally prohibit communications concerning procedural issues in adjudication cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers, except for the assigned administrative law judge. Under existing law, the exceptions to the prohibition upon ex parte communications in ratesetting proceedings authorize a commissioner to permit oral ex parte communications if all interested parties are invited and given not less than 3 days' notice. If an ex parte communication meeting is granted to any party, it is required that all other parties also be granted individual ex parte meetings of a substantially equal period of time and that all parties be sent a notice of that authorization at the time the request is granted, at least 3 days prior to the meeting. The exceptions authorize a commissioner to permit written ex parte communications by any party provided that copies of the communication are transmitted to all parties. This bill would delete the requirement that if an ex parte communication meeting is granted to any party in a ratesetting proceeding, that all other parties also be granted individual ex parte meetings of a substantially equal period of time and that all parties be sent a notice of that authorization at the time the request is granted, at least 3 days prior to the meeting. The bill would prohibit oral communications concerning procedural matters in ratesetting cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers other than the assigned administrative law judge, except that a commissioner would be authorized to permit an oral communication relative to procedural matters if all interested parties are invited and given not less than 3 days' notice. The bill would prohibit written ex parte communications concerning procedural matters in ratesetting cases between parties or persons with an interest and decisionmakers other than the assigned administrative law judge, except that a commissioner would be authorized to permit a written communication relative to procedural issues by any party provided that copies of the communication are transmitted to all parties on the same day. This bill would expressly make the prohibitions upon ex parte communications that relate to adjudicatory or ratesetting proceedings applicable to ex parte communications that occur at conferences, as defined. The bill would also make the requirements that pertain to ex parte communications that relate to quasi-legislative proceedings applicable to ex parte communications that occur at conferences. This bill would authorize the commission to impose civil sanctions, including civil penalties, on any entity or person, other than a decisionmaker or employee of the commission, that violates ex parte communication requirements. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring an enforcement action in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco against a decisionmaker or employee of the commission who violates the ex parte communication requirements. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 308 of the Public Utilities Code, proposed by SB 48, to be operative only if SB 48 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of an order or decision of the commission implementing its requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the application of a 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

• Enrolled 09/15/15 - Enrolled Current pdf September 15, 2015
• Amended 09/04/15 - Amended Assembly pdf September 04, 2015
• Amended 08/19/15 - Amended Assembly pdf August 19, 2015
• Amended 08/18/15 - Amended Assembly pdf August 18, 2015
• Amended 07/07/15 - Amended Assembly pdf July 07, 2015
• Amended 05/06/15 - Amended Senate pdf May 06, 2015
• Amended 04/15/15 - Amended Senate pdf April 15, 2015
• Introduced 02/27/15 - Introduced pdf February 27, 2015
• SB660 View text html

Action History

1. April 25, 2016

   Last day to consider Governors veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5.

2. October 09, 2015

   In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

3. October 09, 2015

   Vetoed by the Governor.

4. September 16, 2015

   Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.

5. September 11, 2015

   Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2753.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

6. September 10, 2015

   In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

7. September 10, 2015

   Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 3092.) Ordered to the Senate.

8. September 04, 2015

   Ordered to third reading.

9. September 04, 2015

   Read third time and amended.

10. August 28, 2015

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

11. August 28, 2015

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 27).

12. August 27, 2015

    Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.

13. August 26, 2015

    August 26 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

14. August 19, 2015

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

15. August 18, 2015

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

16. August 17, 2015

    (Received at desk July 17 pursuant to JR 61(a)(10))

17. August 17, 2015

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 13).

18. July 07, 2015

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & C.

19. June 29, 2015

    July 6 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

20. June 18, 2015

    Referred to Com. on U. & C.

21. June 02, 2015

    In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

22. June 02, 2015

    Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 7. Page 1259.) Ordered to the Assembly.

23. May 28, 2015

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

24. May 28, 2015

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1158.) (May 28).

25. May 23, 2015

    Set for hearing May 28.

26. May 18, 2015

    May 18 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

27. May 08, 2015

    Set for hearing May 18.

28. May 06, 2015

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

29. May 05, 2015

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 795.) (April 27).

30. April 22, 2015

    Set for hearing April 27.

31. April 21, 2015

    April 21 hearing postponed by committee.

32. April 15, 2015

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U., & C.

33. March 24, 2015

    Set for hearing April 21.

34. March 12, 2015

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

35. March 02, 2015

    Read first time.

36. March 02, 2015

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after April 1.

37. February 27, 2015

    Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

• Hueso · Cosponsor
• Leno · Primary

Votes

Subjects