Discussion

This rulemaking was designed to implement the provisions of SB 669 related to the DDTP. However, as the SB 669 Report identifies, there is a fundamental, unresolved issue regarding the administration of the DDTP, namely, whether the approximately 70 DDTP staff members may remain outside of the employ of the state or must become employees of the CPUC or other appropriate state agency. The SB 669 Report seeks legislative guidance on this issue. Depending on the guidance the Commission receives, potential options identified in the Report for the administration of the DDTP are: 1) the staff continue to work for the DDTP Administrative Committee pursuant to a legislatively authorized contract; 2) the staff become CPUC employees; or 3) responsibility for the DDTP is transferred to another state agency.

In light of this fundamental unresolved issue, it makes little sense to pursue this rulemaking. The legislative guidance we receive will likely have a significant effect on the administration of the DDTP. We find it advisable to await clarification from the Legislature before we take any steps to change the governance and administration of the program. It is likely that any steps we might take in this rulemaking would need to be modified or reversed because of subsequent legislation.

Accordingly, we close this rulemaking docket.² Once we have received further guidance from the Legislature, we will open a new docket to address SB 669 and any future legislation that may be enacted.

We appreciate the time and resources that parties have devoted to development of the record in this rulemaking, particularly the contributions of members of the public who addressed the Commission in public participation hearings. To avoid unnecessary duplication, once we open a new docket, we intend to make use of this record as much as possible. In the new docket, the Assigned Commissioner will make a determination of the extent to which we should incorporate by reference portions of the record of this proceeding.

Comments on Draft Decision

The alternate draft decision of Commissioner Lynch in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______________ and reply comments were filed on ______________________.

Findings of Fact

1. This rulemaking was initiated to implement the requirements of SB 669 related to the DDTP, including to explore whether SB 669 mandated or warranted changes to the administration of the program.

2. The SB 669 Report has identified a fundamental, unresolved issue in the interpretation of SB 669 with respect to the administration of the DDTP, namely, whether the approximately 70 DDTP staff members may remain outside of the employ of the state or must become employees of the CPUC or other appropriate state agency.

3. The SB 669 Report requests legislative guidance on this issue.

4. It is likely that any steps we might take in this rulemaking would need to be modified or reversed because of subsequent legislation relating to the administration of the DDTP.

Conclusions of Law

1. It is advisable to await guidance from the Legislature before we take any steps to change the governance and administration of the program.

2. This docket should be closed.

3. Once we have received further guidance from the Legislature, we will open a new docket to address SB 669 and any future legislation that may be enacted.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated ____________________, at San Francisco, California.