President Batjer: Good morning, everyone. And welcome
to the California Public Utilities Commission Committee
meeting of January 15, 2020. Everyone, please
rise. For the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which
it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. Sorry, it's
so awkward. We're hearing this horrible echo. Robert, would you please
play the safety announcement?
Robert: Yes, Commissioner.
Safety Announcer: As you are aware, our number one priority is
safety. As such, we will address certain safety
concerns in this venue. In the event of an
emergency--
President Batjer: We just lost contact with San Francisco.
Safety Announcer: point is in the Garden Plaza area between
the War Memorial Herbs Theater and the War
Memorial Opera House on Van Ness. When going
out the rear exits, head through the courtyard
and down the front steps, then head south
on Van Ness by crossing McAllister Street. You'll
find the Garden Plaza area on your right immediately
after walking past the Herbs Theater. When going
out the side exits, after heading out either
exits, you'll find yourself on Golden Gate
Avenue. From there proceed east, turn
south on Van Ness and walk towards McAllister
Street. After crossing McAllister, the Garden
Plaza area will be on your right after passing
the War Memorial Herbs Theater. In the event
of an emergency, Executive Director Alice
Stebbins will call 911, and our public advisor,
Alison Brown, is certified in CPR and first Aid. Thank you for your attention.
President Batjer: Okay. Thank
you, Robert. Appreciate that. The committee's
rotate turns on which committee starts first.
So for this meeting, the Policy and Governance
Committee will go first. So I will now turn
over to Commissioners Rechtschaffen and Randolph.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: Thank you, President Batjer. We're going to spend
a short amount of time just providing an update
from the Policy and Governance Committee.
And our work to improve our practice and procedures and the overall accessibility
of our proceedings and interaction with the
public. We've been proceeding on two tracks
over the past a couple of years, just to recall,
we've had three public workshops, one in San
Francisco in 2018, one in Fresno. Then we had
one last month here in San Francisco that
Commissioner Shiroma attended along with Commissioner
Randolph and me, and we've had about five
or six updates before Commissioner meetings,
talking about these issues, and now, we're ready
to move forward this year with implementing
actual rules changes. We proceeded in two
tracks. Some of the work we've done, and a
big focus of the next immediate step, will
be to implement specific changes in our rules
of practice and procedure. The formal set
of rules that guide proceedings here at at the
PUC. Separately, and in parallel with this
process, we have already implemented and will
continue to implement lots of recommendations
that do not require rules changes, but that make
our processes more transparent and hopefully
more accessible to the public, encourage participation
by a much broader set of stakeholders. Some
of these are technology changes, such as providing
more remote access meetings at different times
and places that more members of the public
can access them and more boots on the ground
outreach by our media and use an outreach and
other other staff. In terms of the specific
rules changes, we've posted on our website
and this is the second page of a 10 or 12
page document that we won't go through here.
The status of the recommendations that we've
heard over the course of these workshops, and
what we've listed is what we're planning
to go forward with. And if you go through the
materials, you'll see that of the suggestions
that we discussed and presented to the public
in December, we are proceeding with essentially
all of them. There's one exception, which is
that, for some of the parties had suggested
using the scoping memo to set out an approach
to evidentiary hearings in a proceeding. After
hearing from the public and others, we decided
that that didn't make sense to go forward
with. So we're not going forward with that one.
Some of the other recommendations, particularly
the last one number, or one of the last ones,
number 24 relating to how we improve our public
participation hearings in a way to make them
more effective and more useful to the public.
We're still trying to figure out the best
way to do that, so we don't have any. It's
not likely that we will have concrete proposals
related to that any time soon. But for the rest--
President Batjer: Can I, may I ask a question?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen, when you spoke about
earlier the scoping memo, will you continue
any further reports on that or that
sort of done?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I don't know if we have
anything else specific related to the scoping memo.
We do, by statute, there is a separate schedule
for catastrophic wildfire proceedings that
requires a timeframe for scoping memos. That's
in this rules package. There's also a proposal
to provide for a template for other expedited
proceedings that refers to obligations for
the scoping memo. I don't know if we are doing
anything else. I'm looking at Commissioner Randolph.
Commissioner Randolph: Yeah, I think you've caught
it all. I don't think we are anticipating changing
the, you know, what's in the scoping memo
or anything like that? We're just looking
at timing as it relates to expedited proceedings,
that are expedited, either by statute, like
the wildfire, the catastrophic wildfire proceedings,
or ones that we choose to create an expedited
process for, and some of these proposals,
kind of teeing off of what Commissioner
Rechtschaffen was saying, some of these
proposals are going to need more, there's going
to need to be some drafting. So that's what
we're working on right now is drafting
up actual proposed language. And it may
be that some issues become, you know, too
difficult and complex, and they may fall out
of this package and proceed on a separate
track. But our goal is to have a a draft resolution
that includes as many of these ideas as possible
with language written up that will then go
through the public process where we will
get public comment and we will hold a public meeting to discuss these
proposals following the Office of Administrative
Law and the administrative process for adopting
formal rules changes.
President Batjer: So we will go through
the 90 day posting or 45 day, if we have a
lot of comments. We'l l be under the APA rules.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: That's correct. To be more
responsive to your question, however, if there
are other ideas for changing the scoping memo
or any of these other proposals that you or
other Commissioners have, we could certainly
incorporate them. We would probably want to
vet them at another committee meeting or get
public input prior to putting him in the resolution
in the OEL package. This is not the entire
universe by any means. It's just a set of recommendations
that we developed, we culled from our prior
workshops that we think makes sense to go
forward with. Its many others that we could
certainly entertain, so please feel free to
suggest them. In fact, that's one of the purposes
of reporting back to the other Commissioners
to elicit suggestions. Commissioner Shiroma
had suggested that we incorporate a meet and
confer obligation, and we did discuss that
with with the parties, there were different
comments about what the most propitious time
for doing that is, and that will, we will have
a proposal on that in this rules package.
Just to finish up on what Commission Randolph
was saying. You'll see, and in the cover, the
cover sheet, we specifically have a legend
about the types of rules changes we're having.
Some fall into the category of statutorily
driven changes. Others are clarifications. So
it's a fairly, numerically, there's quite a number
of those which are mostly non controversial.
And then there's a bucket about expediting
our proceedings and the last bucket about
improving the accessibility of our proceedings.
As I mentioned, some of those won't be or they're
not finished, and some of those may not translate
into rules changes. Others we're going
forward with, for example, how to, what legal
weight or dignity a process to institute
to make sure that public comments are considered
in our decisions, and how to communicate that
to the public through any proposed decision.
Some of those are going forward, but not all
of them are ready to finally go forward with. So that's the status--
President Batjer: Have you all discussed having, sort of, the
time frame of when you would want to put the package
forward to the Office of Administrative Law?
<v Commissioner Rechtschaffen>We're pretty close
to drafting, finish drafting, the ALJ Division
has taken the lead on a number, and our
staff has taken the lead on a number. I'm
looking at the talented people in the back
who work for Commissioner Randolph, who
are working on some of it. Judge Yacken has finished, is pretty far
along with a set of proposed rules changes
that the ALJ division was taking the lead
on. Am I right? So I think, we're in pretty good shape there.
Unknown1: Yes, that's correct. We'll have a work plan
to follow soon. We're coordinating with ALJ
Division and report back in the next P&G
committee or via email. Whatever is preferred.
Commissioner Randolph: Yeah, I think our goal is to have a work plan,
coming at the next P&G committee that
will lay out a schedule. And that'll give
you an idea of what sort of the last point
at which you should stop proposing changes
for this package, which is not to say that, you know, we couldn't pursue
other changes, but there are a lot of basic
clarifications and work that we really wanna
get going on that we've kind of waited to
have some of these more substantive changes.
And so at some point, we will want to say,
OK, this is the package, so that we can get
those smaller clarification and changes that we need to do that.
President Batjer: But you are, to Commissioner
Rechtschaffen's point earlier, you are still open for new suggestions?
Commissioner Randolph: Yes. Yes. Yeah.
So between now and when we present the work
plan, feel free to send any suggestions,
and then the work plan will give us a more
specific time, at which point we really
want to have the package done. So that'll
really be the like, okay, you've got, like,
three more weeks or whatever.
<v Commissioner Rechtschaffen>And this is a
rolling process. There's no, we don't have
to put everything into a single package that
goes back to the Office of Administrative
Law. Of course, it's for more efficient and
less work if we can do that, but if in three
months or four months time, we decide we need
something new, we can start a separate process.
President Batjer: I think it's always better. It's
because it's a lengthy process. It pretty much is a year
long process to get through the APA procedures
and make sure that you have the proper public
input along the way, obviously, following
those rules. So I think my experience has
always been, even though, sometimes you'll put
a rate package before Office of Administrative
Law. It might be a little mighty big, but it's
worth the time to get as much as possible
because you're really talking about another year with a new package. But
that's just my own experience.
<v Commissioner Rechtschaffen>We would be
interested in hearing any substantive comments
any of the Commissioners have on what's been proposed so far.
President Batjer: Excellent. May I ask, are
there some things, and I should know this,
but I'm gonna ask somewhat lame question.
Are there things contained in the package that
you all worked on last year, when you were
working on 1054 with the Legislature?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I don't think they're too many that fall into
that category. These focus on changes that
are in our existing regulatory authority
or that might--
President Batjer: I thought you mentioned there
were a few that might need statutory review.
Commissioner Randolph: From the larger list of ideas we
have, there are something that will need statutory changes.
But, on this package, with the document that we posted on the website, these are
just the rule changes, and so they're more limited in scope.
Commissioner Shiroma: Onto that. Sorry, President Batjer, I--
President Batjer: I think I interrupted you, Cliff. I
think you were going through your review, and I asked my
scoping question, and we kind went off to the races.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I think between what--
President Batjer: I apologize.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: No, no, of course. That's what the point
of this discussion is. I don't think I had, looking at my notes, I
think between what I said and what Commissioner
Randolph said, we've covered most of the update
we wanted to provide. We wanted to open it up for discussion.
<v President Batjer>Commissioner Shiroma,
do you have some comments?
Commissioner Shiroma: Yes. Thank you, and really,
it's going to be back to the question of timing.
President Batjer: It's hard, we can't,
I'm sorry, We can't hear you. I don't know if your mic's on.
Commissioner Shiroma: How's this? Oh, there we go.
President Batjer: Much better. Thank you.
Angle it. There we go. All right. Well, first of all, do
you wanna thank Commissioner Randolph and
Commissioner Rechtschaffen on this Herculean task and
the teams in the Administrative Law Judge
and Legal divisions. And the December 6
workshop was very insightful in terms of
going through these 24 potential changes.
Now, I appreciate that within those potential
changes, there are some that would
be a statutory requirement which means a legislative
change. There are others that are within our
control for clarification, for expediting
and accessibility, as you've outlined here
in the color coding, which is very very handy.
The workshop was very well attended, and I
found it very interesting and insightful
to hear the practitioners who litigate in
front of the judges and the Commission, and to
hear their feedback from their working experience
and through case law, what have you. So I
felt that the ideas that you proferred up for
workshop were very good, and I think, on the scoping memo, as far
as pulling back on that, I think is prudent
because things can change beyond the scoping
memo for the evidentiary hearings, and within
the scoping memo rubric there is, it is
a very powerful tool. There's lot of flexibility
for the lead Commissioners' offices and the
judge to structure and frame those to really get at what kinds of questions
need to be answered by the parties and what
have you. I really enjoyed the workshop, by
the way. Now my question is this. It goes
back to President Batjer's question about
timing. I wonder if if there is a means or
you're entertaining prioritizing a bin of,
a subset of these 24 that could be moved ahead
more quickly into the regulatory, the Office
of Administrative Law, framework, or if that's
something that you might include in your work
plan. And is the next meeting the second meeting in February?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: Correct.
President Batjer: Again, It's hard to
hear you. I'm so sorry, Commissioner Shiroma.
We're really having difficulty hearing you.
Commissioner Shiroma: Okay? How's this?
President Batjer: That's good.
Commissioner Shiroma: Okay, What I was asking--
President Batjer: The echo has stopped, so
that's good too. I'm not echoing back at myself.
Commissioner Shiroma: What I was asking is if amongst the 23 ideas,
23 reforms, if there is a subset that is a
priority or that can be bundled together to
go ahead and move forward through the regulatory
process, the Office of Administrative Law
process.
Commissioner Randolph: So I think that kind
of gets back to the point that President Batjer
was making about, you know, that's a lengthy process, and you want to include
as much as possible. So our goal is to include all
of them in that initial package. But recognizing
that if any one of them becomes so unwieldy
that it, like, you know, that it bogs down
the entire package, then, you know, we may
set that aside. But our goal is that for the
initial resolution, that would start the OAL
process, we would like to include all of these.
President Batjer: I would echo that I hope that could
be our goal along with that caveat or qualifier. That
if there's something that needs more work, we could pull it out
of our package. But I think more, in the case of the reforms
you all have worked so hard on and so thoroughly
on along with staff, that getting to the
Office of Administrative Law so we can get
to the finish line will be really excellent.
With as full of packages we can. Any other
points or questions that anybody has?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: You need to ask if
there's any members of the public who wish to--
President Batjer: Yeah, I was just going to say, is there any member of,
members of the public there who would
like to question or comment on the Policy
and Governance Committee report? I'm not
seeing anyone or hearing anyone, and there's
no one here in Sacramento. So I want to thank
you all very much again. This is, of all
the things we do, I've got to say this is
some of the most exciting for me. I know that
sounds a little silly, perhaps, but making our
processes more effective for us internally
as well as for the public we serve is near
and dear to my heart. So thank you again for
all this work that you've undertaken well
before my arrival here. And I appreciate it
very much. I think we will wait to the end
before we ask for the substantial compliance?
Molly: Yeah. For this one, yeah.
President Batjer: So, I'm getting clarification on
the agenda from from my right hand person, Molly. So
thank you very much for the presentation.
And we will move on now to the presentation
for Emerging Trends. It's been postponed.
Wait, excuse me, it has been postponed 'til
later date. Sorry. And we will be instead taking
up the Finance and Administration Committee
meeting and information. So today, the presentation
is on Strategic Directive Number 10. And that
is decision, excuse me, decision making process.
Still struggling a little bit with my cold.
I invite Ericles, our General Counsel and
Anne, our chief Administrative Law Judge
to come to the table to present, and I suspect they're there. There. I see you.
Ericles: Good morning, Commissioners. This
morning, Chief ALJ Anne Simon and I are going to
be presenting on Strategic Directive 10 which
is on the decision making process, which is
near and dear to all of our hearts here. And
we're gonna be highlighting a few aspects
of the decision making process to just kind
of check in with how we doing. So, the
first, I guess, yeah, that would be great.
The first item under Strategic Directive 10
is, number one, to ensure that Commissioners are
actively engaged in decision making process.
And before I get into specific things, that
was gonna highlight, I wanted to say that
this is one of the hardest working Commissions
in the state of California. I'm not trying
to say other Commissions don't work hard. I'm
sure they do. But the amount of substantive
responsibility on your shoulders and the
sheer, kind of, deluge of decision making that
you make on a regular basis, it's really,
you know, quite overwhelming. And I have a
front row seat to witness this. And, you
know, the hours that you put in, tirelessly,
here and throughout the state, doing the Commission
business. To me, it's a testament of how
actively engaged the Commissioners are,
and, you know, the state of California is
definitely getting their money's worth. So if you can click on the next. So one
of the kind of key markers to me are rate-setting
deliberative meetings which allow the
Commission, on rate setting proceedings,
to meet in closed session to discuss those
cases, and in the past, they have not been
used as much. But I think probably for
the past five or, five going on six years,
the Commission has been making use of this
tool, and, so that, to me, is a very positive
marker of Commissioner engagement in the decision
making process and allows the Commission to
work through challenging issues. And we have,
you know, quite a few challenging issues on
every agenda. And that improves the Commission,
the Commission's decision making function, and
the policies that, you know, the Commission
does debate in those rate-setting deliberative
meetings, and at the public meetings, promote
policies that do benefit California economy
and protect ratepayers. In 2019, we had 14
RMs, and at those 14 RDMs, 25 agenda items were discussed. So that's--
President Batjer: Please, for the benefit of the public
that's listening in, you might explain what a RDM is.
Ericles: A rate setting deliberative meeting allows
the Commission to discuss in closed session rate making
items that are on the current agenda, and that
usually occurs the Monday before the Thursday
Commission meeting. And at those meetings, the
Commission discusses policies that are involved
in those pending items they work through, you
know, challenging, some of the challenging
issues, you know, to help you resolve those issues. And it's a real integral
part of the decision making process. And it,
like I said earlier, in the past, it wasn't
used that frequently, and now, it really has
been integrated as a regular feature of the
Commission's decision making process.
President Batjer: Thank you.
Ericles: The other item I wanted to highlight,
each Commissioner plays a role, as assigned
Commissioner in proceddings that were assigned
to them. And they, the Commissioners, have been
actively engaged in their own proceedings,
including chairing or participating workshops,
public participation hearings and Advisory
Board meetings. And I have listed a few examples.
Here's, you know, this is not an exhaustive list,
but I just highlighted ones that were of interest.
So, for example, in workshops, the Commission
held workshops in deenergization with a focus
of first responders, and that was held
in Calabasas, California. The Commissioner's
held a Water Wales Forecasting and Rising
Drought Workshop. And that was in Sacramento,
California. There was a workshop on TNC access
for persons with disabilities that was held
in Los Angeles. There were also some public
forums. One was a proposed, dealt with a proposed
Sprint and T-Mobile merger, and those forms
were held in Fresno, LA, and San Diego. There
was a communications en banc that was held
in Sacramento. So, in terms of public participation hearings and
these are hearings that are held in conjunction
with general rate cases, there were public
participation hearings in CalWater GRC, held
throughout CalWaters Service territory,
in Dixon, Palmdale, Bakersfield, Kernville, Selma,
Lucerne, Chico, Willows, Orville, Torrance,
Montebello, Stockton, and San Carlos. There
was an Edison Grid Safety and Reliability
programme in Rialto and Oxnard. San Gabriel
Valley Water GRC in Fontana, and an
SDG&E GRC Phase Two in Escondido. The
Commission has to be on point to respond to
emergencies, and this year, they held an emergency
meeting on the PSPS, public safety power shutdowns.
They held a PHC, a pre-hearing conference
on emergency disaster relief. And they did
an order to show cause on PSPS related to PG&E's PSPS activity that happened
this fall. So I think that was all that I was going to cover on mine. And the
rest is gonna be covered by Chief ALJ Simon.
President Batjer: Thank you, Ericles.
Ericles: You're welcome.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. My presentation is going to
largely cover the infrastructure for the Commission's
decision making item, sub item two on strategic directive 10 says, asks us to
look at how well we're doing at implementing
procedures, practices and rules for Commission
decision making that are consistent, understandable,
and accessible to the public, interested persons
and parties. And before going into the details,
I thought it would be interesting to take
a look at the decisions that are actually
produced. The strategic directive talks about
all sorts of things, but what decisions
have you been making? So, in 2018 and 2019,
you made over 400 decisions each year. And
when we look at them by a proceeding type,
about 40% of your decisions are on applications.
And, surprisingly to me, because I mostly
work on formal proceedings, about 40% of the
Commission's decisions are actually decisions
made on draft resolution presented to the
Commission that are outside of formal proceedings,
typically from the industry divisions resolving
advice letter requests, but also resolutions
from ALJ division, both required assignments and
also on citation appeals. And your decisions
are scattered throughout the other types of proceedings. And then if we look next
at the decisions by industry, you'll see that,
the plurality, again, about 40% is in the
electric industry, out of that total of over
400 communications, next, and, the other
type trailing behind. So that's what, actually, we're looking at when we're
looking at your decision making.
President Batjer: It appears to me that 18 seemed to have more case
work, that's looking at the blue on your
chart, than 19. I could just see that the end
of 19, we were a very busy Commission. So I can't
imagine any greater decision making or work load
than is represented here, but.
Ericles: I'd like to make a one side comment about that in that,
the actual quantitative number of decisions.
It's just one piece of the story, you know,
one decision could be something, you know, very
transactional, and in the scheme of things,
simple. Or it could be, you know, a general
rate case that has been going on for a year
and a half that's a 600 page document. So
all quantitative decisions are not equal.
President Batjer: No. Totally, Totally understand. I was
just looking at the statistics, but that's well said. Thank
you, Ericles. Sorry, Anne, I interuppted you.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. Ericles was more eloquent
on that point than I would have been. We don't
really need to discuss the next slide very
much as the Policy and Governance Committee
discussion has covered the constant work and
revision and review of the formal rules of
practice and procedure. And President Batjer,
I'm so glad to hear you're really interested in
them. If you ever get tired of being President
of the Commission, there's a place in a ALJ
Divisions for someone who is enthusiastic
about the rules as you are. But--
President Batjer: I'm enthusiastic about
streamlining and economizing and those
sorts of things, so I don't know how welcome
some of my opinions would, actually, Anne.
ALJ Simon: Well, we're a
very opinionated bunch and our opinions span
the spectrum, so I think you would fit right
in in that regard. But looking at procedures and practices that are
not in the formal rules that nevertheless serve
to promote accessibility and understanding,
the Commission has the discuss and hold
methodology for items on its agenda, which is not
used very often but is available to allow for
public airing of issues in the infrastructure.
Again, every proposed decision is sent out
to of the service list with instructions for
how and when to comment, as are draft resolutions
proposed by staff, so that everyone is reminded
each time about what to do. The third
sub-element is to enable and encourage the
parties, the public and governmental entities
to participate actively in developing the
record and Commission proceedings. Many of
the elements of this, I will just note, are,
take place outsid,e by staff outside ALJ Division,
the News and Outreach office, in particular,
has, you know, when you've heard reports from them
and as you work with them, very large operation
in trying to ensure broad participation.
And Commissioners themselves also work on
that. So I am talking about the much more limited
area of encouragement, of participation in
infrastructure for participation in formal
proceedings that ALJ division sort of has
it's hands on, and I will note also that much
of what we've been discussing in this part is
of strongly tied to the Commission's public
website, that the vast majority of the ways
in which we encourage public participation
and enable people to know how to participate
are either exclusively web-based or are
strongly mediated by what is on our website
as a source of information and navigation
for people, I'll lead into these two examples,
the Intervener Compensation program, which
has an extensive web presence on the Commission's
web page, and the smaller, but very important,
Practitioners Page, looking at intervener
compensation, these are just numbers for the past two
years. Also subject to the caveat that they're just
the raw numbers, so that the $10,000 intervener
compensation request and the $1.8 million
intervener compensation requests are both
one request and one decision each. The Commissioners
have inquired about how many interveners actually
participate in seeking intervener compensation.
In both years, it's hovered around 40. There's an
appendix to the presentation that has the names
of the unique interveners if you're deeply
interested in that. I know that the multi-million
numbers at the bottom of total icons requested
in Calendar 2018 or 2019 and total I-comp
awarded in 2018 and 2019. There's a time lag.
So it isn't that the Commission awarded $10
million out of the 14 million requested in
2018. $14 million worth of requests came in,
and $10 million worth of awards went out.
But there's, many of those awards from requests
filed in prior years, but it gives you, at
least, a sense of the the scope of the program.
President Batjer: I had, If I may ask just a quick question.
I've had, since I've been in the Commission,
a few comments made to me by interveners
and people who would would like to be interveners.
One, those who are small organizations that
don't have perhaps a sophistication that a
organization like TURN or Sierra Club have,
they find that it's very difficulty, our
process to become an intervener is rather
complicated. I don't know that we've done a review of that in recent
times. So that's one question. And two, I
understand that at one point, our compensation
to the interveners was lagging quite behind
in terms of a schedule, and I understand that
that has improved. And I just wanted to hear
if that is indeed true, if we're keeping up
on a fairly good schedule that we're
compensating with in an appropriate time frame.
ALJ Simon: Thank you, President Batjer, if I may take
the first first. Everyone agrees that the process for the
intervener compensation program is very complicated.
That is largely the result of the complexity
of the statutory requirements that had set
our intervener compensation parameters. And
of the dedicated staff, both in the intervener
compensation unit and ALJ Division and the
people in the public adviser's office who
tried to work with members of the public, do
their best to simplify, but there are some just
bedrock complexities that we can't simplify
our way out of. We are always open to suggestions
for trying to make it easier for people to
find their way into, and then, through the
system. ALJ Division and the Public Advisor's
office are always working on improving and
updating the Public Advisor's office material
on the intervener compensation system. And when
Public Advisor folks go to public participation
hearings and things like that, they're available
to answer individual questions at the time
and have information available for people
who, at public participation hearings, can
come up to them and say, Oh, I would like to
intervene in this or I'm trying to intervene
in this and having problems. But we, it
would be misleading to say that the process
is ever going to be as simple as it should
be for people who are not sophisticated
consumers of governmental processes and--
President Batjer: And would that take statutory changes, Anne,
to streamline or make it take out some of the complications for those smaller
organizations?
ALJ Simon: Yes, it would, President Batjer.
President Batjer: Okay, okay. Good to know. Thank you.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I would add, and Commissioner
Randolph could jump in. We've talked about other
things we could do to make the process easier.
Most of the focus, I think, has been on better
training our staff, News and Outreach and others
who work with the public to make them better
able to communicate with smaller groups to
get them to participate. I don't know if the ALJ
Division's been involved in those trainings or not.
ALJ Simon: Yes, we are.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: That's one effort we've been trying--
President Batjer: And that's ongoing, Cliff, because
I know that there's people come and go out of those units.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I believe there is. There
were there were some formal things that were
done. I don't know if, I don't anyone from News
and Outreach is here who wants to comment. There
were some formal things that were done, including
some training modules and otherwise or short
videos. I think it's ongoing. I don't think
we've reached a sweet spot. I think we need
to keep working on it. There's some statutory
fixes that we've talked about, and my office
proposed one, and I don't know where it is
in the legislative process. We're constrained,
as Anne said, by statute and court decisions,
which have interpreted the statutory provisions
pretty strictly, so there are some things
we could do. Tackling intervener compensation,
though, is a bit like opening a Pandora's
box because there are some serious critics
of the program, and it would not, it's
not easy to surgically do things, I think it would
engender a much broader discussion and debate
legislatively, but we could certainly continue
to work on our outreach and communication.
It is a little bit within the scope of the
Policy and Governance Committee, but we really
haven't done a great deal other than to encourage better training and outreach.
President Batjer: Okay, that's very
helpful. You can check with with Terry and see
if that is indeed ongoing and there's any other
things that we can do to support her
efforts in upgrading or further changes in
the curriculum that would be helpful to to
those who wish to participate in the program.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. As to your second
question, the Intervener Compensation program has
made great strides this calendar year in catching
up with the backlog, but there still is a
backlog of requests to process. Intervener
compensation is, as a program, has a kind
of 1 to 1 dependency, output to staffing. And
when we lose fast in the intervener compensation
unit, then the requests are not of the initial
analysis of the request and the appropriateness
of the numbers, and whether everything is
working out falls behind, and we then can't
complete the proposed decisions for the Commission's
consideration on as many requests as we would
like to. We had a staffing trough in 2017 and
2018 which was reflected in people's correct
perception that their requests were not going
through as quickly as they should. We have
been working on staffing. We have done better
about staffing in 2019, but we're still
incompletely staffed in intervener compensation,
so we're still not able to turn out the
compensation proposed decisions for your
consideration of his quickly as we would like
to turn them around. Note that in the past two
years, you've decided about 100 intervener
compensation request, and it's an indication
of how many of them there are. As you can
see, there are, um, about a third more than
that came in in those years than we were able
to put out in terms of keeping up, looking
at the last two years, and that began from
a deficit. So it is a constant concern to try this keep that unit staffed and
having the tools to turn the proposed decisions
out for your consideration as rapidly
as they should. And it's an area that ALJ
Division management is constantly looking
at and trying to help get the resources that it needs--
President Batjer: There needs to be some more
emphasis on that, perhaps, Anne, you and I can,
and Alice Stebbins can huddle with Chris Rohas,
our new HR leader, there might be some new ideas
that we have or ways to do a more widespread
throwing the net further into recruitment.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. I would be happy to participate
in in that. And would, your offer of help is much appreciated.
President Batjer: Okay, Thank you.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. So the next item in sort of encouraging
parties, but in this case, the public to participate
actively is a kind of poaching on a project
of News and Outreach. But this seems a good
opportunity to mention it, which is the development
of an area of the docket card, the online
docket card, in which people can directly post
public comments that will appear directly
on the docket cards. This is in a period
of soft rollout and testing. ALJ division
and News and Outreach have been working on it
for some time to try to get the infrastructure
right. It was a programming project for IT, so kind of large coalition of staff
working on it. The News and Outreach did a soft rollout in September 2019 which
meant the site is fully functional, it's up,
but News and Outreach has not done a push
to let people know about it. That pushes launch
is probably going to be later this month or
early next month. And in the meantime, ALJ
division is just kind of checking that things
actually get posted, that they're accessible,
that the reports that IT has programmed can
actually run, that it's possible to review
comments. And so far everything seems to be
working internally. And so when News and Outreach has all their work in order to
do a public splash about it, the site appears to
be ready to receive whatever comments members
of the public would like to put on public comment
on the docket card. President Batjer, were
you going to say something?
President Batjer: No, unfortunately, just
clearing my throat from my cold. I apologize.
I should have turned my mic off sooner.
ALJ Simon: Thank you. So then, the last sub-element of the
strategic directive to ensure that decision
making documents in the administrative record
are logged and available to the public to the
extent allowed by law, and that accessibility
to the record is regularly assessed and enhanced.
So it's important to note that the this sub-element
refers to formal proceedings. It is not a
sub-element that refers generally to all
possible decision making documents within
the Commission. So with that in mind,
look at the docket. The docket card itself, would you mind
going back one? I'm sorry. Just to refresh everyone's
recollection, you find the docket card by
docket number and in roughly chronological,
reverse chronological order by type of documents
filed, you can find the documents that you
are looking for. (inaudible) So in the past years,
roughly 13,000 documents have been submitted,
almost all of them through the electronic filing
system that the Commission maintains. Some
documents still are submitted on paper, a
very small number because people don't have
access to the infrastructure for e-filing,
typically individual complainants. But the
largest proportion of paper documents filed
are documents to be kept confidential. We
are in process of working with IT to try to
improve the filing system so that it can
handle confidential document filing. But it
doesn't right now. So the vast majority of
those documents, 13,000 are e-filed. Documents
are rejected for various reasons. The format
is not complying. They didn't comply with the
Administrative Law Judge's instructions,
or there is some other defect that has to
be fixed before it can be formally filed.
These numbers include recycled documents. It's
been rejected, and then it's fixed and it's
resubmitted and filed. And the instructions
for electronic filing again are electronicly
tethered to the Commission's website. People
in Docket office also will answer phone
questions about how to do it from people who
are having trouble. And it is important to
remember that Commission's rules for formal
proceedings provide an opportunity for the
filer to correct an inadvertent error or formatting
problem and have the filing accepted as of the
date it was originally tendered. So as not
penalized filers who have problems with the
e-filing system for one reason or another
Docket Office staff is available to help
people who call and do, I think, an excellent
job of that. The work of Docket office staff
in dealing with callers also helps to alert
us to of problems with the docketing system
that we may not have been aware of because
people inside of the system know how it's
supposed to work. And they're not always aware
of the traps for the unwary that may be laid.
And the comments from people on the phone are
very helpful to us in identifying problems.
So going on to pick up one of the things I
mentioned, we do have new features for accessibility
online of items related to formal proceedings
done through the docket cards. I've mentioned
the public comment portal. Earlier this
spring, transcripts of public participation
hearings, pre hearing conferences, evidentiary
hearings, all the things we have transcripts
for are now available on the docket card
without a special request. We're working on
a couple of things with IT. The confidential
document e-filing, which I have mentioned
and also developing a capability to e-file
and e-accept documents, supporting documents
in formal proceedings like exhibits and testimony,
so that they can be made electronically available
through the docket card. All of those, both of those
things require both analysis, how they're gonna
work and programming, and we are working with
IT and our existing consultant to try to
make those, get those two new features into
testable form, and then hopefully, working
form target before the end of this year. But I
can't, I don't think I could be more precise
than that at this moment. One way to deal with finding out about documents
in a proceeding without getting yourself on the
service list and being inundated with documents
is to subscribe to the subscription service,
which is a link on the website, and at the
end of every day, links to published documents
in the proceedings that the subscriber has
identified are sent to the subscribers' email
address at no charge. And I have recently
had occasion to try the Subscription Service
out myself. As I am pinch hitting for
Jessica Heckmon in helping out on the large
number of wildfire related proceedings.
So I have subscribed to wildfire proceedings
on the subscription service and I, at the end
of every day, I get a long list of documents,
both that have been filed, and in one of the
upgrades that was made earlier this year,
submitted for filing. So that the subscription
service now is much closer, the experience
being on the subscription service, is much
closer to the experience of being on the service
lift itself because the subscription, the subscriber
can see documents that have been submitted
for filing as though they had been served
but not yet filed. But you don't get the mass
of documents, so you don't have to look at
them. But you are not just waiting now to
see the formally filed documents, so that
improvement has been available, also since this
spring. And finally, I don't want to forget
that we maintain a large number of files on
paper of, in central files, all the official
documents are on paper. There are staff in central files who keep that stuff
in order and are also available to provide for
the identified fee. Copies of paper documents
on paper to members of the public who requests
them, either by walking in during business
hours or by using the email request form that's
identified on the website. And I personally am
very happy that Central Files still exists. And
President Batjer, this is one of the things
where there are strong differences of opinion
within the division. Some people would just
like all the paper to disappear, and the paper
makes me happy. So I am glad to be able to
report on the continued existence and operation of Central
Files. And I think we're available for questions.
President Batjer: I had something
just this week that came up that was no longer available online, and we had
to go to Central File and pull the paper copy,
which was probably 15, 17 years old, anyway,
so I had an immediate appreciation, recently, but I think
it has to do with demographics, our demographics Anne.
ALJ Simon: Okay, so we're available for any questions or comments.
President Batjer: Well, thank
you both very much. I will ask my fellow
Commissioners to insert themselves on any questions
or comments, but I know you're both extraordinarily
busy and that this additional activity is
is just that. Additional. And so I'm mindful
of the time that you both have taken to update
us on these important aspects of our
processes. So I appreciate it. And there are
a couple of things that I've noted here
that I'm gonna be checking on to see if we
can help with some of the things that are
ongoing that you mentioned. Did the other
Commissioners have any questions or comments on
the Finance and Administration direct committee?
Commissioner Randolph: I'll just make kind of a brief
comment that I think we've come a long way, and I
think we have a long way to go. I think that
it's nice to see some of these improvements
we've been talking about for a long time. Like,
you know, kudos to you, Anne, for getting
the transcripts available online. I mean,
that was a heavy, heavy lift. And it's
very much appreciated. And all of the continued work in IT that goes on to try
to figure out how to make these processes
work better. And the continued work to
try to figure out how to make the docket process
work better as well. That's incredibly complicated
and difficult, and I know it can be very
frustrating for parties and the public when there
are lags in terms of documents that are available on the docket. And one of
the things that is very much appreciated is,
as you mentioned earlier, the ability for
folks to call up and ask for help and to
get help. And so I really appreciate that.
That work. But I do think you know, these are longstanding issues that will
continue to take time to innovate and iterate.
And so I still feel like we do have, we do
have more work to do.
President Batjer: Thank you. Commissioner Randolph.
Commissioner Shiroma or Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
Commissioner Shiroma: Thank you. Yes, on the metrics,
first of all, thank you very much for the presentation.
It is insightful to see the progress and on the
decision making slide, I think it's slide seven,
does this also include the litigation for general counsel>
ALJ Simon: Are we including decisions on rehearing in that total?
Commissioner Shiroma: There are times when the Commission
also makes decisions on proceeding with litigation
or policies or what have you or litigation strategy
in the upper courts, you know.
Ericles: No, that is not included. We were looking at this
from the context of the Commission as a quasi
judicial body making decisions in its own
proceedings. Obviously, we also participate in
other fora like FERC, FCC, and there you're
not a decision maker, you're party in those,
you know, fora. It also does not include,
you know, our participation in federal litigation
either when were sued or whether we're appealing
decisions that have been made from other
agencies where we've intervened as a party.
That's kind of a whole different topic. If
that's something you're, you know, interested
in, briefings on, we will be happy, you know,
to do that. But a lot of that decision
making is in closed session. So it's not
something we can really discuss publicly,
but we do, obviously, the Commission participates,
you know, as a party in these federal
agency, and also, you know, we're have a very
strong presence in the state and federal courts.
For rehearings of our own decisions, we often are challenged in court. We have
a very good, I think, success rate in having
our decision's upheld. And I can get you the
statistics if you like.
<v Commissioner Shiroma>Yes, again., not
to create more work, but if you have them
available, I think that's another useful metric
in amplifying the overall workload of the
Commission, and I would say that the report is
in compliance and we can give it a thumbs up.
President Batjer: I was going, you're one
step ahead of me. I wanted to, thank you,
Commissioner Shiroma. I wanted to, again, thank
you for the presentation. And Commissioners,
do you find that the CPUC is in substantial
compliance with SD10, compliance with SD10,
or working towards compliance? I think that
Commissioner Shiroma says substantial compliance.
Commissioner Shiroma: Indeed, I did. Thank you.
President Batjer: We don't necessarily--
Commissioner Rechtschaffen: I agree.
Commissioner Randolph: I think we're somewhere in
between substantial compliance and working
towards compliance because, as I mentioned,
I feel like we've made a huge amount of progress,
and as Anne presented, there's a huge amount
of ongoing work. So given that we're doing
so much ongoing work, I will go ahead and
say we're substantially in compliance as long as that keeps going.
President Batjer: Okay, So we are finding
that for directive, strategic directive
number 10, decision making process, that we
are in substantial compliance. So thank you all
again. I do know that there's some dependencies
on becoming, you know, staying in that status,
in particular IT programming and so forth.
So we'll all work on those other dependencies,
like News and Outreach, and IT to help us
make and continue making substantial progress
on being substantially compliant. So is
there is there anybody in the audience who
would like to make a public comment on the
presentation? I don't see many people in the
audience even, let alone someone who would
like to make a public comment. All right,
thank you all for attendin. The Finance and
Administration Committee is now adjourned.
Commissioner Shiroma: Thank you, President
Batjer, does that conclude our committee?
President Batjer: It does indeed. I'm sorry.