(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.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law prohibits the sale or display of the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, as specified, or its image, by the State of California, subject to exceptions serving educational or historical purposes. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2017, prohibit the use of an elected leader or senior military officer of the Confederate States of America to name state or local property. The bill would require a name associated with the Confederate States of America used to name state or local property prior to January 1, 2017, to be changed and any sign associated with the name to be removed. The bill would prohibit its provisions from being construed to require renaming of a city, county, or other political jurisdiction named after an elected leader or senior military officer of the Confederate States of America, or from requiring the renaming of property, as specified, that incorporates the name of the city, county, or political jurisdiction in which it is situated. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make a statement of legislative findings and a conforming change. (2) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue driver's licenses and identification cards. The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents. This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield and to take other specified security measures for the enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced driver's license, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require those fees to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a driver's license, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced driver's licenses, provisional licenses, and identification cards. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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.
The Public Utilities Act authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to appoint an attorney for the commission who holds that office at the pleasure of the commission. The act requires the attorney to represent and appear for the people and the commission in all actions and proceedings involving any question under the act or under any order or act of the commission. The act requires the attorney to commence, prosecute, and expedite the final determination of all actions and proceedings directed or authorized by the president, except as otherwise directed or authorized by vote of the commission, to advise the commission and each commissioner in regard to all matters in connection with the powers and duties of the commission or a commissioner, when requested, and generally to perform all duties and services as attorney to the commission that the president, or vote of the commission, may require of him or her. This bill would require that any contract or other agreement by the commission for services by outside legal counsel to represent the commission in a criminal investigation initiated by any federal, state, or local agency be approved by a vote of the commission no sooner than 30 days after it is submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for review.
(1) The Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission without obtaining a specified certificate or permit, as appropriate, from the commission and imposes various other requirements. The act defines a transportation network company as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles. A transportation network company is subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission, which requires, among other things, a criminal background check of each participating driver. A transportation network company is also required to have a specified certificate or permit, as appropriate, from the commission, and is subject to various other requirements. A violation of the act is generally a misdemeanor. This bill would authorize the commission to fix the rates and establish rules for transportation network companies, prohibit discrimination, and award reparation for the exaction of unreasonable, excessive, or discriminatory charges by a transportation network company. This bill would require the commission, in consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol and with the United States Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies if they choose to participate, to study specified background check measures and to adopt a background check measure as a condition to participate as a driver of a transportation network company if it determines that the measure would enhance public safety. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law imposes specified requirements for liability insurance coverage on transportation network companies and their participating drivers. Existing law requires the commission and the Department of Insurance to collaborate on a study of transportation network company insurance, as specified, and to report the findings of the study to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2017. This bill would require the study to contain additional information regarding transportation network company insurance. The bill would also require the commission to study accessability issues for disabled populations with regard to transportation network companies and to report the findings of the study to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2017. (3) Existing law authorizes the commission to inspect the accounts, books, papers, and documents of a charter-party carrier of passengers. This bill would authorize the commission to collect any necessary data from a transportation network company. The bill would also require the commission to commence a proceeding to determine how data collected from a transportation network company can best be shared with local planning agencies and other local governments for purposes of transportation and environmental planning. (4) Existing law authorizes peace officers to enforce and assist in the enforcement of specified criminal violations of the Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act with respect to charter-party carriers of passengers. Existing law requires the commission to coordinate enforcement of the act with peace officers through educational outreach and establishing lines of communication so that the commission is notified if an action is commenced so that the commission may take appropriate action to enforce the fine and penalty provisions of the act. This bill would authorize peace officers to enforce and assist in the enforcement of specified criminal violations of the Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act and rules adopted by the commission with respect to transportation network companies. (5) The Passenger Charter-party Carriers' Act authorizes a peace officer to impound a bus or limousine of a charter-party carrier of passengers for 30 days if the officer determines that (A) the driver was operating the bus or limousine when the carrier did not have a permit or certificate issued by the commission or the carrier's permit or certificate was suspended, or (B) the driver was operating the bus or limousine without having a current and valid driver's license of the proper class, a passenger vehicle endorsement, or the required certificate. A provision of the Vehicle Code also authorizes a peace officer to impound a bus or limousine of a charter-party carrier of passengers for 30 days if the officer makes any of the determinations described above. Existing law provides that both of these provisions do not authorize the impoundment of privately owned personal vehicles that are not common carriers nor the impoundment of vehicles used in transportation for compensation by charter-party carriers that are not required to carry individual permits. This bill would authorize a peace officer to impound any vehicle of a charter-party carrier of passengers for 30 days in those circumstances and would delete the limitation on the impoundment of the above described vehicles. The bill would revise the Vehicle Code provision in the same manner. (6) 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.
Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, that all city, county, city and county, and district employees who conduct audits or that conduct audit activities of those respective agencies, conduct their work under the general and specified standards prescribed by the Institute of Internal Auditors or the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, as appropriate. Those standards generally provide, among other things, that auditors should be independent of the activities they audit. Existing law makes every willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law upon any public officer, or person holding any public trust or employment, where no special provision is made for the punishment of that delinquency, a crime. This bill would prohibit the general counsel of the city, county, city and county, or district, or the employees of the general counsel from having direct oversight over the city, county, city and county, and district employees that conduct audits or that conduct audit activities of those respective agencies. By expanding the definition of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
(1) Under existing law, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, an employee who, on or after July 1, 2015, works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days, as specified. Existing law requires an employee to accrue paid sick days at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked subject to specified use and accrual limitations. For the purposes of the act, an "employee" does not include a provider of in-home supportive services, as described. This bill, on and after July 1, 2018, would entitle a provider of in-home supportive services who works in California for 30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment to paid sick days, subject to specified full amount of leave time amounts and that rate of accrual. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with stakeholders, to convene a workgroup to implement paid sick leave for in-home supportive services providers and to issue guidance in that regard by December 1, 2017. The bill would authorize the department to implement that paid sick leave without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act. (2) On and after July 1, 2014, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $9 per hour. On and after January 1, 2016, existing law requires the minimum wage for all industries to be not less than $10 per hour. This bill would require the minimum wage for all industries to not be less than specified amounts to be increased from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2022, inclusive, for employers employing 26 or more employees and from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023, inclusive, for employers employing 25 or fewer employees, except when the scheduled increases are temporarily suspended by the Governor, based on certain determinations. The bill would also require the Director of Finance, after the last scheduled minimum wage increase, to annually adjust the minimum wage under a specified formula. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, the bill would require the Director of Finance to annually determine, based on certain factors, whether economic conditions can support a scheduled minimum wage increase and certify that determination to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to publish specified retail sales and use tax information on its Internet Web site to be used by the Director of Finance in making that determination. On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is a specified amount for employers employing 26 or more employees, in order to ensure that the General Fund can support the next scheduled minimum wage increase, the bill would also require the Director of Finance to annually determine and certify to the Governor and the Legislature whether the General Fund would be in a deficit in the current fiscal year, or in either of the following 2 fiscal years.
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, authorizes the Board of Parole Hearings, after considering the views and interests of the victim, to advance a parole hearing that was set after a hearing at which parole was denied to an earlier date when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public and victim's safety does not require the prisoner to serve the additional period of incarceration required as a result of the previously set hearing date. Marsy's Law authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by passing a statute with 34 of the membership of each house concurring, unless the amendments expand the scope of Marsy's Law's provisions, recognize additional rights of crime victims, or further the rights of crime victims, in which case the Legislature may amend its provisions by passing a statute with a majority vote of membership of each house concurring. This bill would prohibit the board from advancing a parole hearing to a date less than 2 years after a hearing at which parole was denied.
(1) The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers to provide services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities. Under existing law, the regional centers purchase needed services for individuals with developmental disabilities through approved service providers or arrange for those services through other publicly funded agencies. The annual Budget Act also appropriates funds to the department to fund regional center operations. This bill would require the department, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature for these purposes, to increase the funding paid to a regional center for the regional center's operating budget by 10%, and to increase funding to enable the regional center and the regional center's purchase-of-service vendors to fund certain costs related to minimum wage requirements. The bill would also require the department to develop a 10-year financial sustainability plan to ensure that the state's community-based developmental services system effectively serves all individuals with developmental disabilities. (2) Existing law establishes specified rates to be paid to certain service providers and the rates to be paid for certain developmental services. Existing law requires that rates to be paid to other developmental service providers either be set by the department or negotiated between the regional center and the service provider. This bill would increase the rates established by existing law by 10%, as specified, and would require a 10% increase to the rates set by the department and the rates negotiated between regional centers and service providers, as specified. (3) Existing law requires an entity that receives payments between $250,000 and $500,000 per year from one or more regional centers to obtain either an independent audit or independent review report of its financial statements and requires an entity that receives payments that are equal to or more than $500,000 per year to obtain an independent audit. Existing law exempts payments made using usual and customary rates for services provided by regional centers from these requirements. This bill would instead require an entity to obtain only an independent review report of its financial statements relating to payments made by regional centers if it receives payments between $250,000 and $2,000,000 from one or more regional centers and would authorize these entities to apply for, and require the regional center to grant, a 2-year exemption from this requirement if the regional center does not find issues in the prior year's independent review report that have an impact on regional center services. The bill would also require an entity to obtain an independent audit of its financial statements relating to payments made by regional centers if it receives payments that are equal to or more than $2,000,000 and would authorize these entities to apply for, and require the regional center to grant, a 2-year exemption from the audit requirement if the prior year's audit resulted in an unmodified opinion, an unmodified opinion with additional communication, or a qualified opinion with issues that are not material and pervasive. The bill would require a regional center to notify the department of any exemption it grants to an entity that receives a qualified opinion report. The bill would also exempt social security benefit payments from these requirements.