Intro to CPUC Proceedings

Most of us know very little about the CPUC Proceedings but they impact us daily

The California Public Utilities Commission

The main agencies coordinating California’s electrification journey are:

• Energy Commission (CEC) - State’s primary energy policy and planning agency

• Independent System Operator (CAISO) - our grid operator (and more)

• Air Resources Board (CARB) - air quality and renewables

• Department of Water Resources (DWR) - emergency procurement authority

• Organization of Energy Infrastructure (OEIS) - risk reduction including wildfires

• The Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) - the topic of this post

The CPUC origins are in the California Office of the Commissioner of Transportation from 1878. Its successor, the Railroad Commission, was added to our Constitution in 1911 and it was renamed the CPUC in 1946. In its current scope, the CPUC regulates electric, natural gas, communications, water, railroad and passenger transportation companies, including autonomous vehicles.

Added: USD regularly reports on the California PUC and other Regulatory Agencies through its California Regulatory Law Reporter.

The CPUC regulates the investor owned electric utilities (IOU) as well as some parts of the Community Choice Aggregators (CCA) and Electric Service Providers (ESP). One notable exception are the Publicly Owned Utility (POU). Altogether, the CPUC covers the large majority of the electricity consumers in Californian (see my old post).

History and Organization

The CPUC is led by five commissioners appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The CPUC is organized in multiple divisions including the Energy Division and the Public Advocates Office.

My main interest lies in the activities of the Electric group within the Energy Division. The Electric group covers a wide set of topics including Building Decarbonization, Electric Rates, Customer Generation, Demand Response and DER Action Plan.

I have been tracking loosely the CPUC for years but I recently decided to learn more about how it operates. This post captures the basics of Proceedings. I plan to write additional posts as I learn more on these and other CPUC topics.

Here are three examples of CPUC Proceedings currently active:

• R.19-01-011 “OIR Regarding Building Decarbonization” - topics include electric panel upgrades (watt diet) and meter adaptors

• R.20-08-020 “OIR to Revisit NEM Tariffs” - this Proceeding drove the transition from NEM 2.0 to NBT and has been recently REOPENED

• R.22-07-005 “OIR to Advance Demand Flexibility through Electric Rates” - discusses the use of rates based on day ahead market values.

These, and many other, proceedings have an impact on us and it behooves us to be educated so we can contribute constructively to the conversation, directly or through groups and representatives.

Basics of Proceedings

The CPUC process is guided by the Rules of Practice and Proceeding (110 pages - no, I haven’t read it). Aside: These rules comprise Division 1, Chapter 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (best browsed through Justia), the same way that the California Building Standards Code is Title 24 of the CCR.

There are 3 categories of CPUC proceedings:

• Judicial - to establish policies and rules affecting regulated entities,

• Ratesetting - to set or investigate rates that utilities charge customers, and

• Adjudicatory - to investigate possible violations of state law or CPUC orders or rules

So far I’ve mostly been looking at the Judicial Ratemaking Proceedings and most of this note relates to them.

The most important Ratesetting Procedures are the General Rate Case (GRC) Proceedings where the utilities can present their case for rates in future years. GRC is in my “to-learn” list.

An Adjudicatory Procedure often arises from a complaint from a customer or a party.

Overall Process

This two pager has a nice summary of the steps involved in a proceeding:

1. An Application is filed with the CPUC and appears in the Daily Calendar. Parties have 30 days to formally protest the Application

2. The Application is categorized (RateSetting, etc)

3. If needed a PreHearing Conference is scheduled ahead of starting the Proceeding

4. A Scoping Memo is issued

5. Next is either a process of written comments and responses, or an Evidentiary Hearing process by formal “parties” to the proceeding

6. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) writes a Proposed Decision as a result of either process

7. Public can provide comments within 30 days (or 90 days if AB-1222 passes)

8. The CPUC Commissioners vote at a Public Meeting

9. An Alternate Proposed Decision can be filed by a Commissioner prior to the vote. In that case, the CPUC’s Commissioners consider both Decisions at the Voting Meeting

10. The Adopted Decision is Implemented

Docket Numbers

A CPUC proceeding is identified by a Docket Number of the form <Letter>.YY-MM-NNN. The letter describes the type of proceeding, the next two digits identify the year, the next two the month, and the last three identify the proceeding within the month. Thus R.20-05-003 corresponds to a Rulemaking proceeding filed May 2020.

A proceeding is assigned an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and a Commissioner; both can change during the duration of the proceeding. A Proceeding can be ACTIVE, CLOSED or REOPENED. CPUC staff contributes to the proceeding in multiple ways including contributing to proposed decisions. Final decisions are taken by the Commission in a Voting Meeting.

Quoting from the CPUC Glossary, here are some Proceeding types:

• A. – Application: A formal, written request by a utility to the PUC to establish or change rates, terms, or conditions of service.

• C. - Case: When placed before the PUC assigned proceeding number, such as C.01-02-003. Note: All the C* Proceedings I’ve seen are Adjudicatory proceedings

• D. – Decision: An opinion or judgment of the PUC that decides the resolution of a proceeding, usually written in the format D.01-02-003. A proposed decision is usually written by a PUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), it is then reviewed and voted upon by the Commissioners.

• GRC – General Rate Case: A proceeding in which the Commission takes a broad, in-depth look at a utility’s revenues, expenses, and financial outlook and considers quality of service and other factors to arrive at just and reasonable rates. These are the major regulatory proceedings that come before the Commission

• I. – Investigation: Used to designate "Order Instituting Investigation (OII)" when placed before the Commission assigned proceeding number, such as I.01-02-003.

• R. – Rulemaking: A proceeding opened by the PUC to consider the creation or revision of rules or guidelines in a matter affecting more than a utility or a broad sector of the industry.

and here are some definitions also from the Glossary

• ALJ – Administrative Law Judge: A PUC staff member who serves as a hearing officer at formal Commission proceedings. An ALJ conducts public hearings, issues subpoenas, questions witnesses, and prepares draft decision and orders for the Commission's consideration

• ECP - Expedited Complaint Procedure: A procedure for quickly handling formal complaint cases involving less than $1,500. The ECP ensures a hearing, without a court reporter, within 30 days after an answer to a complaint is filed. Only the complainant and the answer are heard; the parties represent themselves. A PUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) prepares a Draft Decision, and the final decision is made by the PUC

• GO – General Order: A PUC order that sets standards, procedures, or guidelines applicable to a class of utilities, as distinguished from a decision affecting only a single utility

• OIR – Order Instituting Rulemaking: An investigatory proceeding opened by the PUC to consider the creation or revision of rules or guidelines in a matter affecting more than one utility or a broad sector of the industry. Comments and proposals are submitted in written form. Oral arguments or presentations are sometimes allowed. The PUC's decision is often implemented in a General Order (GO)

• PHC - PreHearing Conference: A formal PUC hearing at which the parties determine the scope and nature of a proceeding and at which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) establishes a schedule for the proceeding

• PPH – Public Participation Hearing: PUC hearings at which statements from the general public are taken

CPUC Website Structure

The CPUC website has a fairly modern section that is human created and curated; in this post I mostly focus on the main CPUC Proceeding database.

Proceedings Database

The CPUC Proceeding database is an Oracle system that is available through a (fairly dated Oracle Apex) webapp. The results of queries can be explored online or they can be downloaded to be manipulated with a spreadsheet tool. There is also a subscription service.

Locate Documents Page

The CPUC produces, publishes, and interacts with, multiple classes of documents. Some are stored in the Proceedings database but others are not. Examples include Meeting Agendas, Advice Letters, News Releases, General Orders, Meetings, Public Utilities Code, etc.

The CPUC website has a Locate Documents page with links to options to retrieve specific documents. There is also an Advanced Search Form that provides a unified search app - in a quick check, the interface is cleaner than the “old” Oracle but the data retrieved seems to lag a bit behind compared to that coming from the individualized tools.

Proceedings Search

The recommended browser to access the Search Page is Microsoft Edge; compatibility with Apple Safari has improved since when I started consulting the CPUC data but Edge still seems to be the safer option.

Below is the UI of the Web App:

The proceeding (docket) number sometimes is written using the character separators, as in “R.19-01-011”, and sometimes not, as in “R1901011”.

The result of a query is a list of proceedings, each with some basic overview and a link to the dockets. In the above case:

From here:

Date: January 31st, 2019
Description: OIR Regarding Building Decarbonization
ALJ: Alberto Rosas
Commissioner: Darcie L. Houck
Status: ACTIVE

The “Assignment Search” field in the search app can be used to explore the proceedings assigned to specific Commissioners and ALJs. For example…

At the time of writing this post, ALJ Alberto Rosas has 4 ACTIVE Proceedings and 18 CLOSED Proceedings. The ACTIVE Proceedings cover water, gas and electric companies. One of the Proceedings is an ECP and another one is an OIR.

A similar query on Commissioner Darcie L. Houck showed 56 ACTIVE, 210 CLOSED and 9 REOPENED Proceedings, 7 of them being ECP and 16 being OIRs.

I did a wider search on all OIRs and retrieved 44 ACTIVE OIRs. It seems that no ALJ is assigned more than one OIR at a time. I don’t see any pattern with Commissioners, they seem to cover OIRs in all fields.

Details on a Proceeding

The docket page for a proceeding provides more detailed information, subscription ability, documents associated with the proceeding, and public comments.

Service List

Each Proceeding has a Service List. This list includes all Parties to the Proceeding and also other Interested individuals in the proceeding. Activity on the Proceeding is communicated to everybody in the Service List (see Certificate of Service below).

The subscription service plays a somewhat similar but informal role.

Public Comments

The public can provide public comments on a proceeding. The comments are visible to anybody. Unlike other queries, it is not possible to filter the public comments but it is possible to download a PDF of all the comments - and you could run something like ChatGPT against it.

My initial interactions with the CPUC were around public comments: I was one of the over 9900 comments to R.20-08-020 on the VNEM/NEMA decision. Some time after that I figured that if I wanted to have a strong opinion, I needed to understand better the arguments and the process.

The public can also provide feedback in person in different meetings. I’ll write about Meetings in another post.

Documents

Rulings, Decisions, Staff Proposals are all types of Documents. Some observations:

• Rulings and Scoping Rulings

  • Rulings are made by the AJL. A common ruling by the AJL is that a given party has “party status” in a proceeding. Another is to accept or deny changes to comments or other minor details

  • Scoping Rulings are made by the Commissioner. Here is one example.

• Proposed Decisions and Decisions

  • Proposed Decisions are made by the AJL and the CPUC notifies every Party in the Proceeding.

  • A Party in the Proceeding can Petition a change on a Proposed Decision.

  • Decisions are made in a Voting Meeting by the Commission. A Voting Meeting has multiple action items; some will be debated and voted individually by the commission but others can be voted as a group by Consent.

• Other Documents including

  • Ex Parte Communications - Some Ex Parte conversations do not need to be reported

  • Compliance Filing - Required reports related to this Proceeding.

  • Comments - Are part of the Proceeding record. Any Party can submit a comment; some comments follow up on other comments.

  • Motions - A request to the AJH or Commissioner. Needs a response.

  • Requests - I’ve only seen these in the context of compensations

  • Petition for Modification - A request to modify a decision. It needs a response as a Decision

  • Rehearing Request - A request to rehear a decision. It needs a response.

Documents and Certificate of Service

When exploring any of the above documents you will end in a web page that has two entries. The actual document and a certificate of service.

A certificate of service just certifies that information has been shared, like this one:

I hereby certify that I have electronically this day served a copy of Decisionmaker Notice of Ex Parte Communication to all known parties by either United States mail or electronic mail, to each party named on the official service list attached in Rulemaking 20-08-020.

Executed on March 25, 2025 at San Francisco, California.

What you are probably interested is “the other” document :)

Here is a “typical” Proposed Decision preamble for a petition from the IOUs and Bloom Energy (see docs). The attachment mentioned in the preamble is the actual Proposed Decision.

TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 20-08-020:

This is the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge Jack Chang. Until and unless the Commission hears the item and votes to approve it, the proposed decision has no legal effect. This item may be heard, at the earliest, at the Commission’s May 15, 2025, Business Meeting. To confirm when the item will be heard, please see the Business Meeting agenda, which is posted on the Commission’s website 10 days before each Business Meeting.

Parties of record may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Commission may hold a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting to consider this item in closed session in advance of the Business Meeting at which the item will be heard. In such an event, notice of the Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting will appear in the Daily Calendar, which is posted on the Commission’s website. If a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting is scheduled, ex parte communications are prohibited pursuant to Rule 8.2(c)(4).

/s/ MICHELLE COOKE

Michelle Cooke
Chief Administrative Law Judge

MLC:abb
Attachment

Comments on a Proposed Decision

Parties have 30 days to submit comments to a proposed decision though AB-1222 (Bauer-Kahan) is proposing to change it to 90 days.

Subscription Service

The Subscription Service can be used by anybody to follow activity on a proceeding. To do this, create an account from the subscription page and then subscribe to activity on a proceeding. Note that the service is a plan HTTP endpoint, not HTTPS, and does not support password or real security. I also had to use MS Edge for some of its functionality.

Next Posts

Hopefully this post provides a basic overview of CPUC Proceedings. I am planning some more posts. Candidates so far include:

• A list of “interesting” ACTIVE Proceedings.

• Overview and information of Voting and other Meetings.

• The basics of GRC.

• A review of CPUC-relaten bills in this year’s legislature.

• Ideally, time permitting, I’ll dig a bit into a Proceeding or two. We will see.