Proposed Revisions to CPUC Rules of Practice & Procedure

Policy & Governance CommitteeCalifornia Public Utilities Commission

April 22, 2020 1

Schedule• Mid-May: Issue draft Resolution

• July 16: First opportunity to approve draft Resolution

• July-September: OAL approval process

• January 1: Rules effective

2

Draft Resolution and OAL Process

3

1. Draft Resolution with

revised rules and Statement

of Reasons(CPUC process)

2. Provide OAL with Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking with document link, which

OAL publishes(OAL process)

[opens the rulemaking record at OAL]

3. Public comment due 45 days after

OAL notice in step 2(CPUC process)

4. CPUC considers

comments and makes any

changes to draft Resolution

(CPUC process)

5 a. If no or insubstantial changes, then Rev.1 of the Resolution contains the Final Statement of

Reasons, summary and response to comments

(CPUC process)

5 b. If substantial changes, Resolution is

re-circulated for additional round of

comments due in 15 days

(CPUC process)

6. CPUC votes to adopt Resolution(CPUC process)

Closes the Rulemaking record

at OAL (OAL process)

7. OAL approves or

disapproves the proposed rules

60 days after step 6

(OAL process)

8. Rules become effective subject to

quarterly OAL schedule.

(OAL process)

Quasi-Legislative (QL) ProceedingsQuasi-legislative proceedings establish policy and include Rulemakings and Investigations that may affect entire industries.• Revised Rule 1.3(e): under definitions to clarify that QL

proceedings may address policy that have an “incidental effect on ratepayer costs.”

• "Quasi-legislative" proceedings are proceedings that establish policy or rules (including generic ratemaking policy or rules) affecting a class of regulated entities, including those proceedings in which the Commission investigates rates or practices for an entire regulated industry or class of entities within the industry, even if those proceedings have an incidental effect on ratepayer costs.

• Proposed new Rule 7.5: to better define and distinguish QL proceedings from other types of CPUC proceedings and to standardize procedural requirements.

4

Quasi-Legislative, Proposed Rule 7.5

5

Quasi-legislative proceedings need not include hearings but shall include the following components:

a) An assigned commissioner’s ruling or industry division staff report setting forth recommendations on how to resolve issues identified in the scoping memo;

b) At least one workshop providing an opportunity for parties to discuss issues identified in the scoping memo in person or via remote participation; and

c) At least one workshop to ensure that the issues are presented to members of the public who are not parties to the proceeding and have the opportunity to provide input

The Assigned Commissioner may choose to modify these requirements in the scoping memo.

Expedited Proceeding ScheduleNew rule (Rule 2.9) would establish transparent process where Applicants may request an expedited schedule for uniquely time-sensitive safety or financial matters• Applicants must demonstrate, referencing specific facts, that

“special circumstances necessitate expedited action by the Commission, and that the requested relief concerns a threat to public safety or a major direct financial impact to customers that justifies an expedited schedule.”

• Requests will be granted in exceptional circumstances

6

Expedited Schedule, contd. • The rule would create a standardized timeline for PHC

being noticed and held, and scoping memo being issued

• PD issued within 12 months from Application filing date

• Assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge may provide different schedule/ extend PD date. Intended to address unanticipated circumstances

7

Options for Deciding Requests for an Expedited Schedule

8

Option A Option BThe Commission shall make a determination on any requests for an expedited schedule at each Commission business meeting.

Assigned Commissioner decides on requests for an expedited schedule.

New Rule 13.9: Duty to Meet and Confer

• New rule requiring parties to meet and confer after rebuttal testimony is served and before evidentiary hearings

• Provides opportunity for parties to narrow contested facts and issues and explore settlement

• Assigned ALJ may modify the requirement as needed• Requires notice to give all parties opportunity to participate

9

Additional Changes• Rules 7.2 & 13.3 Remote Participation: provides for remote

participation in PHCs & where assigned commissioner’s presence required or requested

• Rule 14.2 Issuance of Recommended Decisions: requires revised proposed decisions (and alternates) to be served electronically on the service list upon publication. Proposed decisions that do not mail for comment will be served to the service list.

• New Catastrophic Wildfire Proceeding Category: AB 1054 amended Section 1701.1(a) to add a new “catastrophic wildfire” proceeding category and added Section 1701.1(d)(4) to define this new proceeding category. Rules implement these changes

• Rule 3.6 Tribal Lands Policy: Updates the rules to reflect the CPUC’s Tribal Land Transfer Policy adopted on December 5, 2019. 10

Additional Changes – Rule 12.1(d) Settlements

• Revised Rule: The Commission may reject any proposed settlement for failure to disclose all information potentially relevant to the settlement pursuant to section (a). The Commission will not approve settlements, whether contested or uncontested, unless the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.

• Purpose of change: The current rule does not require disclosure of relevant settlements made outside of a Commission proceeding, eliminating the opportunity for decisionmakers to consider relevant information when evaluating whether a proposed settlement before the Commission is in the public interest.

11

Additional Changes – Rule 13.6(a) Evidence

• Revised Rule: In hearings before the Commission, the technical rules of evidence, whether statutory, common law, or adopted by court, need not be applied in hearings before the Commission. Although evidence need not be excluded merely by application of rules governing admissibility, competency, weight or foundation in the record, the substantial right of the parties to fundamental due process and public policy protections shall be preserved.

• Purpose of change: The proposed modifications adds language to ease the admission and use of relevant evidence in CPUC hearings from the type of restrictions applied in court proceedings, while still retaining a standard of integrity of the evidence.

12

Questions & Discussion

13