As a CPUC intervenor in the public interest since 2016, Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) appreciates your informative introduction to CPUC Proceedings. Our website is https://CGNP.org and our GreenNUKE Substack is at https://greennuke.substack.com/ CGNP adds a pair of points to your article.
1. Despite strong interest by the California Legislature in CPUC reform, the CPUC likely remains the most powerful executive branch agency in California. A key challenge is that CPUC Decisions are typically final decisions. There is no guaranteed Appellate review. The top of page 2 of this 2020 article clarifies this point.
CGNP learned this lesson the hard way when we attempted to obtain Appellate review of a 2018 CPUC Decision we opposed. We had excellent factual arguments. We had excellent, experienced legal counsel. Still, we obtained a single sentence from the state court of Appeals declining to review our grievances. The phrase attributed to Lord Acton, "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!" comes to mind.
2. Based on California Public Utilities Code Section 1801, California has the best - developed and established system of intervenor compensation. For details, see this 2021 NARUC Guide, "State Approaches to Intervenor Compensation," Prepared for National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) by FTI Consulting, Inc. December 2021. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/B0D6B1D8-1866-DAAC-99FB-0923FA35ED1E
CGNP and many other intervenors are calling for reforms as many recent intervenor compensation decisions have appeared to be arbitrary and capricious. There are no safeguards for the economic interests of intervenors when a public utility aggressively directly lobbies the CPUC to harm an intervenor.
Gene, thanks again for the pointer. I didn't know that USD had such a reporting effort. I've added it as a link to the doc and I'll read the latest report (Fall 2024) when I can.
Thanks for the details and the extra links, Gene. I want to write a post on how to participate in the proceedings as a member of the public, and on the role that intervenors play. I only know some details, so your links will be very helpful.
From what I can see, the intervenors have a clear role, even if I don't know how influential they are. It is much less clear to me what is the role of the public but I figure the first step is for them to understand how the CPUC operates, thus these posts.
i'll read the California Regulatory Law Reporter article. thanks for the pointer.
Thank you again for your article. You are also welcome, Eduardo. I imagine that many decisions regarding California public utility policy are made by economic elites meeting with each other in corporate board rooms. The CPUC later ratifies these decisions.
My experience is the CPUC is a very insular agency. The CPUC says they desire public input, but they make public participation almost impossible. While there is a public participation tab at the far right of the docket card, I do not think the public comments count for much. The Public Participation hearings I attended did not seem to have much impact.
There is a very steep learning curve to becoming an intervenor. CGNP had to work on it for about a year. However, it still required attending a local hearing and raising a complaint to one of the ALJs in attendance. Later, we were very fortunate to locate experienced counsel who supports our mission. The CPUC seems to favor a few intervenors with generous intervenor compensation. Those intervenors have experienced counsel and tend to support the CPUC positions.
However, an even more difficult agency regarding public input is CAISO. Public input to CAISO seems to be even more marginalized. For some insights into the reasons for a lack of public input, please read Meredith Angwin's 2020 book, Shorting the Grid - The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid. Meredith had a long career at EPRI and is very knowledgeable. She understands the "policy grid."
Turns out there is a page on "Statistics on Open Proceedings". See https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/openproceedings/
Thank you for this very informative thread!
As a CPUC intervenor in the public interest since 2016, Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) appreciates your informative introduction to CPUC Proceedings. Our website is https://CGNP.org and our GreenNUKE Substack is at https://greennuke.substack.com/ CGNP adds a pair of points to your article.
1. Despite strong interest by the California Legislature in CPUC reform, the CPUC likely remains the most powerful executive branch agency in California. A key challenge is that CPUC Decisions are typically final decisions. There is no guaranteed Appellate review. The top of page 2 of this 2020 article clarifies this point.
https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3067&context=crlr
CGNP learned this lesson the hard way when we attempted to obtain Appellate review of a 2018 CPUC Decision we opposed. We had excellent factual arguments. We had excellent, experienced legal counsel. Still, we obtained a single sentence from the state court of Appeals declining to review our grievances. The phrase attributed to Lord Acton, "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!" comes to mind.
2. Based on California Public Utilities Code Section 1801, California has the best - developed and established system of intervenor compensation. For details, see this 2021 NARUC Guide, "State Approaches to Intervenor Compensation," Prepared for National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) by FTI Consulting, Inc. December 2021. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/B0D6B1D8-1866-DAAC-99FB-0923FA35ED1E
CGNP and many other intervenors are calling for reforms as many recent intervenor compensation decisions have appeared to be arbitrary and capricious. There are no safeguards for the economic interests of intervenors when a public utility aggressively directly lobbies the CPUC to harm an intervenor.
Gene, thanks again for the pointer. I didn't know that USD had such a reporting effort. I've added it as a link to the doc and I'll read the latest report (Fall 2024) when I can.
Link is https://digital.sandiego.edu/crlr/
This 2024 USD CPUC Reporter https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3233&context=crlr shows Alice Stebbins as the Executive Director of the CPUC. As you will discover on the next to the last page of the Reporter, Alice Stebbins was terminated in 2020.
For details, see: "She noticed $200M missing from the CPUC, then she was fired, "
By Scott Morris, Published December 24, 2020
https://www.ktvu.com/news/she-noticed-200m-missing-from-the-cpuc-then-she-was-fired
Thanks for the details and the extra links, Gene. I want to write a post on how to participate in the proceedings as a member of the public, and on the role that intervenors play. I only know some details, so your links will be very helpful.
From what I can see, the intervenors have a clear role, even if I don't know how influential they are. It is much less clear to me what is the role of the public but I figure the first step is for them to understand how the CPUC operates, thus these posts.
i'll read the California Regulatory Law Reporter article. thanks for the pointer.
Thank you again for your article. You are also welcome, Eduardo. I imagine that many decisions regarding California public utility policy are made by economic elites meeting with each other in corporate board rooms. The CPUC later ratifies these decisions.
My experience is the CPUC is a very insular agency. The CPUC says they desire public input, but they make public participation almost impossible. While there is a public participation tab at the far right of the docket card, I do not think the public comments count for much. The Public Participation hearings I attended did not seem to have much impact.
There is a very steep learning curve to becoming an intervenor. CGNP had to work on it for about a year. However, it still required attending a local hearing and raising a complaint to one of the ALJs in attendance. Later, we were very fortunate to locate experienced counsel who supports our mission. The CPUC seems to favor a few intervenors with generous intervenor compensation. Those intervenors have experienced counsel and tend to support the CPUC positions.
However, an even more difficult agency regarding public input is CAISO. Public input to CAISO seems to be even more marginalized. For some insights into the reasons for a lack of public input, please read Meredith Angwin's 2020 book, Shorting the Grid - The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid. Meredith had a long career at EPRI and is very knowledgeable. She understands the "policy grid."
https://www.amazon.com/Shorting-Grid-Hidden-Fragility-Electric-ebook/dp/B08KZ51SDP