1. 1 My First 275 Days at the California Public Utilities Commission Karen Clopton Chief Administrative Law Judge October 6, 2009

2. 2 ALJ Division Guiding Statements

3. 3 Just, reasoned, efficient, and innovative resolution of matters in a manner that ensures due process and respects the dignity of all participants. ALJ Division Vision

4. 4 ALJ Division Mission The ALJ Division provides a neutral forum that ensures fair, reasoned, and efficient dispositions of proceedings and embraces new technology and work practices to continually improve our procedures.

5. 5 ALJ Division Values Integrity, trust, and mutual respect Respect for transparent process that embraces justice, independence, adherence to law, and due process Wisdom and expertise are explicitly valued Openness to change, adaptability, resilience, and optimism Open and constructive information flow Collegiality and appreciation for each member of ALJ Division’s contributions Continual striving to do the best job possible Commitment to foster the professional development and job satisfaction of all members of the ALJ Division Commitment to public service

6. 6 Formal v. Informal Decision-making ALJ Division oversees most of the formal process, including several hundred active applications, complaints, rulemakings, investigations, and petitions Legal Division oversees the appellate process, beginning with applications for rehearing Industry Divisions approve tariffs and programs through informal filings called “advice letters”

7. 7 “Soup to Nuts” Process Review Preliminary Report and Recommendations Presented May 21, 2009 to Commission

8. 8 The Charge: President Peevey’s “Renewed Vision” message to the CPUC staff on January 28, 2009 stated the goal as: “ Continuing the streamlining and reinvention of our processes. We’re moving more quickly now than before, but too often I think we rely on process not just to gather information and give everyone their day in court, but as a way of delaying the tough choices. Our new Chief ALJ will lead a soup-to-nuts review of our processes, and make recommendations for change.”

9. 9 Information Gathering To implement President Peevey’s Challenge, information was gathered from: Focus Groups Meetings Written comments Other feedback

10. 10 Stakeholders Focus Groups We held a series of five focus groups on February 25-27 and invited: Consumer advocates Intervenors The Division of Ratepayer Advocates Conference of California Public Utility Counsel Former Commissioners Utility representatives On February 18, the ALJ Division tested the focus group methodology and discussion areas with the 40 ALJs.

11. 11 The Charge of the Focus Groups Explore new ideas to improve Streamline and Clarify CPUC Processes in order to promote greater efficiency transparency and integrity in processing our cases

12. 12 Two Fundamental Recurring Themes Emerged Transparency Accessibility

13. 13 Summary of Recommendations 1) New Agenda Format 2) Create Subject Matter Compendiums 3) Working Groups

14. 14 How the Agenda Works Now The Commission votes on items in its public business meeting and puts out an agenda 10 days in advance of that meeting. Each agenda item includes: –the relevant proceeding/Advice Letter information –assignment information (Commissioner, Administrative Law Judge, Examiner) –a brief description of the proposed disposition of the matter –a link to the proposed decision or draft resolution –a history of the item on the agenda (holds) –any relevant statutory rules that govern comments on the item Links to the proposed decisions and draft resolutions are updated if those documents are modified.

15. 15 Example of Current Agenda Format 31 [8317] R06-05-028 - Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motion to review the Telecommunications Public Policy Programs. In 2006, the Commission opened this Rulemaking to evaluate California’s universal service public policy programs in light of the competitive forces that had irrevocably changed how consumers purchase communication services. The Commission recognized that "business as usual" monopoly regulatory practices around traditional voice telephone were not sustainable in a competitive communication marketplace with various types of carriers with different technologies competing. Through this Rulemaking, the Commission set out to reform California LifeLine in order to ensure high-quality communication services were affordable and widely available to all. This decision recognizes significant technological and regulatory changes in the telecommunications industry and the flexibility of the statutory structure underlying the Moore Universal Telephone Service Act, which we now refer to as the California LifeLine Program (California LifeLine). The decision reviews the current state of California LifeLine including how, absent change, the fund will grow by more than 60% to almost $500 million over the next few years. The decision recognizes that the current methodology is not in the best long-term interest of consumers and reviews the options for change. The decision “de-links” California LifeLine from the AT&T basic rate structure in order to ensure ongoing compliance with Section 874 of the Public Utilities Code, and determines that a Specific Support methodology is the best option to continue to meet the goals of the Moore Act and our overall universal service goals. The decision sets a Specific Support discount at 55 percent of the highest basic rate of the state’s communications companies without regard to the telecommunication provider or technology of service selected. This has the advantage of providing each customer the same support amount and may provide greater flexibility to low income customers to select services beyond basic residential landline phone service, including voice services from cable providers or from wireless communications services. Such an approach acknowledges the range of providers of voice communications services beyond traditional landline telephones, and enhances technology neutrality by allowing a LifeLine customer to choose the provider that best meets his or her unique needs. The initial California LifeLine discount under the revised methodology will be $12.20 effective on January 1, 2010. The decision also expands the LifeLine program to include data services for consumers that receive wireless equipment through the Commission's Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP). Customers who meet the eligibility requirements for both the DDTP and California LifeLine programs can apply their California Lifeline discount to data services provided by carriers. The decision clarifies that wireless carriers may be reimbursed by California LifeLine for providing discounted service to customers, and modifies the income-based criteria to match the low income energy program (CARE) income-based criteria on an interim basis pending the outcome of the review the CPUC is conducting of the interim CARE income-based criteria. Finally, the decision eliminates extra payments to carriers for administration, bad debt, and to make-up for forgone federal support. This proceeding is closed. (Comr Chong - ALJ Bushey) Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment. Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Quasi-Legislative. Agenda 3232, Item 52 4/16/2009 (Grueneich); Agenda 3233, Item 33 5/7/2009 (Grueneich) http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Cyberdocs/AgendaDoc.asp?DOC_ID=382542

16. 16 Recommendation 1: New Agenda Format Create a new template for the Agenda that is –Visually Bolder –Simpler –Clearer –More Concise –Easier to Read Effectively communicates the purpose, possible outcomes, and estimated costs of the proposed action.

17. 17 Example of New Agenda Format

18. 18 Recommendation 2: Create Compendiums Compile searchable subject matter Compendiums reflecting the outcome of –Decisions –Rule-Makings –Resolutions –Policy Guidance Currently, the CPUC maintains its decisions in a serial decision format by docket number Initial focus on subjects of high public and policymaker interest

19. 19 Recommendation 3: Working Groups Create three small working groups from diverse perspectives to address decision-making process issues that might require statutory initiatives including: Public Access, Participation and Accommodation, Public Notices, Intervenor Compensation Program; Ex Parte and Proceeding Categorization Rules; and Practice and Procedure modifications with a focus on identifying opportunities for improving initial case management, calendaring, scheduling and utilization of ADR.

20. 20 Timeline for Implementation Timeline for Implementation Agenda Description Changes over next 90 days New Format rollout by end of year Compendium releases Pilot Project: Solar Compendium September 2009 Water Conservation Rate Design Compendium December 2009 Energy Procurement Compendium June 2010 Energy Efficiency Compendium December 2010 Working Group Formation (7-9 members of Diverse Constituencies ie. Consumer Groups, DRA, Regulated Entities, CPUC Staff) Reports and Recommendations due by November 2009

21. 21 Ordering Paragraphs Stand Alone Uniform Language of Obligation Ensure Better Compliance Facilitate Compendium Building

22. 22 Electronic-Filing Prior filing system was paper based with about 7500 filings each year

23. 23 How are we doing? E-filing opened to all users in September 2006: 15% of all documents e-filed In 2008: Nearly 8000 filings were accepted, with 88% received electronically. February 2009: 90% of documents were e-filed. Goal is to have all supporting documents e-filed by February 2010. Goal is to introduce e-filing for advice letters by 2010.