1

My First 275 Days at the California Public Utilities Commission

Karen Clopton

Chief Administrative Law Judge

October 6, 2009

2

ALJ Division

Guiding Statements

3

Just, reasoned, efficient, and innovative resolution of matters in a manner that ensures due process and respects the dignity of all participants.

ALJ DivisionVision

4

ALJ DivisionMission

The ALJ Division provides a neutral forum that ensures fair, reasoned, and efficient dispositions of proceedings and embraces new technology and work practices to continually improve our procedures.

5

ALJ DivisionValues

Integrity, trust, and mutual respect Respect for transparent process that embraces

justice, independence, adherence to law, and due process

Wisdom and expertise are explicitly valued Openness to change, adaptability, resilience, and

optimism Open and constructive information flow Collegiality and appreciation for each member of ALJ

Division’s contributions Continual striving to do the best job possible

Commitment to foster the professional development and job satisfaction of all members of the ALJ Division

Commitment to public service

6

Formal v. Informal Decision-making

• ALJ Division oversees most of the formal process, including several hundred active applications, complaints, rulemakings, investigations, and petitions

• Legal Division oversees the appellate process, beginning with applications for rehearing

• Industry Divisions approve tariffs and programs through informal filings called “advice letters”

7

“Soup to Nuts” Process Review Preliminary Report and Recommendations

Presented May 21, 2009 to Commission

8

The Charge:President Peevey’s “Renewed Vision” message to

the CPUC staff on January 28, 2009 stated the goal as:

“Continuing the streamlining and reinvention of our processes. We’re moving more quickly now than before, but too often I think we rely on process not just to gather information and give everyone their day in court, but as a way of delaying the tough choices. Our new Chief ALJ will lead a soup-to-nuts review of our processes, and make recommendations for change.”

9

Information Gathering

To implement President Peevey’s Challenge, information was gathered from:

• Focus Groups

• Meetings

• Written comments • Other feedback

10

Stakeholders Focus Groups

We held a series of five focus groups on February 25-27 and invited:

• Consumer advocates

• Intervenors

• The Division of Ratepayer Advocates

•Conference of California Public Utility Counsel

• Former Commissioners • Utility representatives

• On February 18, the ALJ Division tested the focus group methodology and discussion areas with the 40 ALJs.

11

The Charge of the Focus Groups• Explore new ideas to improve

• Streamline

• and Clarify CPUC Processes • in order to promote greater efficiency• transparency • and integrity in processing our cases 

12

Two Fundamental Recurring Themes Emerged

• Transparency

• Accessibility

13

Summary of Recommendations

1) New Agenda Format

2) Create Subject Matter Compendiums

3) Working Groups

14

How the Agenda Works Now• The Commission votes on items in its public business meeting and

puts out an agenda 10 days in advance of that meeting. Each agenda item includes:– the relevant proceeding/Advice Letter information– assignment information (Commissioner, Administrative Law

Judge, Examiner)– a brief description of the proposed disposition of the matter– a link to the proposed decision or draft resolution– a history of the item on the agenda (holds) – any relevant statutory rules that govern comments on the item

• Links to the proposed decisions and draft resolutions are updated if those documents are modified.

15

Example of Current Agenda Format

31 [8317] R06-05-028 - Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motion to review the Telecommunications Public Policy Programs. In 2006, the Commission opened this Rulemaking to evaluate California’s universal service public policy programs in light of the competitive forces that had irrevocably changed how consumers purchase communication services. The Commission recognized that "business as usual" monopoly regulatory practices around traditional voice telephone were not sustainable in a competitive communication marketplace with various types of carriers with different technologies competing. Through this Rulemaking, the Commission set out to reform California LifeLine in order to ensure high-quality communication services were affordable and widely available to all. This decision recognizes significant technological and regulatory changes in the telecommunications industry and the flexibility of the statutory structure underlying the Moore Universal Telephone Service Act, which we now refer to as the California LifeLine Program (California LifeLine). The decision reviews the current state of California LifeLine including how, absent change, the fund will grow by more than 60% to almost $500 million over the next few years. The decision recognizes that the current methodology is not in the best long-term interest of consumers and reviews the options for change. The decision “de-links” California LifeLine from the AT&T basic rate structure in order to ensure ongoing compliance with Section 874 of the Public Utilities Code, and determines that a Specific Support methodology is the best option to continue to meet the goals of the Moore Act and our overall universal service goals. The decision sets a Specific Support discount at 55 percent of the highest basic rate of the state’s communications companies without regard to the telecommunication provider or technology of service selected. This has the advantage of providing each customer the same support amount and may provide greater flexibility to low income customers to select services beyond basic residential landline phone service, including voice services from cable providers or from wireless communications services. Such an approach acknowledges the range of providers of voice communications services beyond traditional landline telephones, and enhances technology neutrality by allowing a LifeLine customer to choose the provider that best meets his or her unique needs. The initial California LifeLine discount under the revised methodology will be $12.20 effective on January 1, 2010. The decision also expands the LifeLine program to include data services for consumers that receive wireless equipment through the Commission's Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP). Customers who meet the eligibility requirements for both the DDTP and California LifeLine programs can apply their California Lifeline discount to data services provided by carriers. The decision clarifies that wireless carriers may be reimbursed by California LifeLine for providing discounted service to customers, and modifies the income-based criteria to match the low income energy program (CARE) income-based criteria on an interim basis pending the outcome of the review the CPUC is conducting of the interim CARE income-based criteria. Finally, the decision eliminates extra payments to carriers for administration, bad debt, and to make-up for forgone federal support. This proceeding is closed. (Comr Chong - ALJ Bushey) Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment. Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Quasi-Legislative. Agenda 3232, Item 52 4/16/2009 (Grueneich); Agenda 3233, Item 33 5/7/2009 (Grueneich) http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Cyberdocs/AgendaDoc.asp?DOC_ID=382542

16

Recommendation 1: New Agenda Format

• Create a new template for the Agenda that is – Visually Bolder– Simpler – Clearer– More Concise– Easier to Read

• Effectively communicates the purpose, possible outcomes, and estimated costs of the proposed action.

17

Example of New Agenda Format

18

Recommendation 2: Create Compendiums• Compile searchable subject matter

Compendiums reflecting the outcome of – Decisions– Rule-Makings– Resolutions– Policy Guidance

• Currently, the CPUC maintains its decisions in a serial decision format by docket number

• Initial focus on subjects of high public and policymaker interest

19

Recommendation 3: Working GroupsCreate three small working groups from diverse perspectives to address decision-making process issues that might require statutory initiatives including:

• Public Access, Participation and Accommodation, Public Notices, Intervenor Compensation Program;

• Ex Parte and Proceeding Categorization Rules; and

• Practice and Procedure modifications with a focus on identifying opportunities for improving initial case management, calendaring, scheduling and utilization of ADR.

20

Timeline for Implementation

Timeline forImplementation

Agenda Description

Changes over next 90 days

Compendium releases

Working Group Formation

(7-9 members ofDiverse Constituencies

ie. Consumer Groups, DRA,Regulated Entities,

CPUC Staff)

Pilot Project: Solar

Compendium

September 2009

Water Conservation Rate Design

Compendium

December 2009

Energy Procurement

Compendium

June 2010

Reports and Recommendations

due byNovember 2009

New Format rollout by end of year

Energy Efficiency Compendium

December 2010

21

Ordering Paragraphs

• Stand Alone

• Uniform Language of Obligation

• Ensure Better Compliance

• Facilitate Compendium Building

22

Electronic-Filing

Prior filing system was paper based with about 7500 filings each year

23

How are we doing?

• E-filing opened to all users in September 2006: 15% of all documents e-filed

• In 2008: Nearly 8000 filings were accepted, with 88% received electronically.

• February 2009: 90% of documents weree-filed.

• Goal is to have all supporting documents e-filed by February 2010.

• Goal is to introduce e-filing for advice letters by 2010.