3. Discussion

Since our adoption of Rule 63.2(b) in l997, the Commission's caseload has become more complex, in significant part because of California's energy crisis. The Commission must process cases quickly and efficiently to respond to California's energy crisis and to meet statutory deadlines for the completion of proceedings imposed by SB 960, while maintaining its programs for all of the industries and activities regulated under the Public Utilities Code. At the same time, the Commission has a limited number of ALJs available, and this number is further constrained because of the hiring freeze imposed by Executive Order D-48-01.⁵ As a result, we must streamline our procedures to avoid unnecessary delays in processing cases and to utilize our limited ALJ staff wisely. We note that permitting two petitions for automatic reassignment of the ALJ in ratesetting matters may delay our work on a proceeding for over 20 days while issues related to the reassignment of the ALJ are resolved. Issues, such as scheduling and scoping, that we normally begin to address in that initial period following assignment of an ALJ, may well be delayed beyond that period. Finally, the processing of other cases (besides the case where automatic reassignment is requested) could be affected adversely, as replacement ALJs likely must be drawn from among ALJs already carrying large caseloads.

We therefore propose to repeal Rule 63.2(b), thereby ending automatic reassignment of the assigned ALJ in ratesetting proceedings, and to make minor related amendments to Rules 63.2(c) and (d). Since parties may still make peremptory challenges of the assigned ALJ on the grounds specified in Rule 63.3, and may challenge the assigned ALJ for cause pursuant to Rule 63.4, the repeal of Rule 63.2(b) will not deny a fair hearing to parties in ratesetting proceedings.

A copy of the proposed rule changes in strike-out form is attached as Appendix A.