Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 981 - An Act to Amend Section 301 Of, and to Add Section 303.5 To, the Public Utilities Code, Relating to the Public Utilities Commission.

Public Utilities Commission: commissioners: executive employees. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, as defined. The qualifications and tenure of members of the commission are set forth in the California Constitution. Existing law prohibits a commissioner from holding an official relation to or having a financial interest in a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission and… More
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, as defined. The qualifications and tenure of members of the commission are set forth in the California Constitution. Existing law prohibits a commissioner from holding an official relation to or having a financial interest in a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission and requires the commission to adopt an updated Conflict of Interest Code and State of Incompatible Activities. Existing law authorizes the commission to appoint an attorney to the commission to hold office during the pleasure of the commission.

Existing law provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, conflicts of interests of public officials, and lobbying. Existing law prohibits a designated employee of a state administrative agency, any officer, employee, or consultant of a state administrative agency holding a position that entails the making, or participation in making, of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, and a member of a state administrative agency, for a period of one year after leaving office of employment, to act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before any state administrative agency, or officer or employee thereof, for which he or she worked or represented during the 12 months before leaving office of employment, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property.

This bill would prospectively prohibit a commissioner, executive employee of the commission, as defined, or the attorney appointed by the commission, for a period of 2 years after leaving the employment of the commission, from representing, for compensation, any public utility, affiliate of a public utility, or other entity or person regulated by the commission by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before the commission, or officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing commission action. The bill would prospectively prohibit the commission from hiring, as an executive employee of the commission, or appointing as the attorney for the commission, any person who, in the previous 2 years, was an executive officer, as defined, of a public utility subject to the regulatory authority of the commission pursuant to the Public Utilities Act. The bill would prospectively prohibit any person from holding the office of commissioner who, in the previous 2 years, was an executive officer of a public utility subject to the regulatory authority of the commission pursuant to the Public Utilities Act.Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act, the bill’s restrictions on actions that may be undertaken upon leaving the commission would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by a Senate committee on April 30, 2012. 
There have been no votes on passage on this bill.
Other Votes:

An Act to Amend Section 301 Of, and to Add Section 303.5 To, the Public Utilities Code, Relating to the Public Utilities Commission.

SB 981 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, as defined. The qualifications and tenure of members of the commission are set forth in the California Constitution. Existing law prohibits a commissioner from holding an official relation to or having a financial interest in a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission and requires the commission to adopt an updated Conflict of Interest Code and State of Incompatible Activities. Existing law authorizes the commission to appoint an attorney to the commission to hold office during the pleasure of the commission.

Existing law provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, conflicts of interests of public officials, and lobbying. Existing law prohibits a designated employee of a state administrative agency, any officer, employee, or consultant of a state administrative agency holding a position that entails the making, or participation in making, of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, and a member of a state administrative agency, for a period of one year after leaving office of employment, to… More
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, as defined. The qualifications and tenure of members of the commission are set forth in the California Constitution. Existing law prohibits a commissioner from holding an official relation to or having a financial interest in a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission and requires the commission to adopt an updated Conflict of Interest Code and State of Incompatible Activities. Existing law authorizes the commission to appoint an attorney to the commission to hold office during the pleasure of the commission.

Existing law provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, conflicts of interests of public officials, and lobbying. Existing law prohibits a designated employee of a state administrative agency, any officer, employee, or consultant of a state administrative agency holding a position that entails the making, or participation in making, of decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest, and a member of a state administrative agency, for a period of one year after leaving office of employment, to act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before any state administrative agency, or officer or employee thereof, for which he or she worked or represented during the 12 months before leaving office of employment, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property.

This bill would prospectively prohibit a commissioner, executive employee of the commission, as defined, or the attorney appointed by the commission, for a period of 2 years after leaving the employment of the commission, from representing, for compensation, any public utility, affiliate of a public utility, or other entity or person regulated by the commission by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before the commission, or officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing commission action. The bill would prospectively prohibit the commission from hiring, as an executive employee of the commission, or appointing as the attorney for the commission, any person who, in the previous 2 years, was an executive officer, as defined, of a public utility subject to the regulatory authority of the commission pursuant to the Public Utilities Act. The bill would prospectively prohibit any person from holding the office of commissioner who, in the previous 2 years, was an executive officer of a public utility subject to the regulatory authority of the commission pursuant to the Public Utilities Act.Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act, the bill’s restrictions on actions that may be undertaken upon leaving the commission would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Section 301 Of, and to Add Section 303.5 To, the Public Utilities Code, Relating to the Public Utilities Commission.
Author(s)
Leland Yee
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Public Utilities Commission: commissioners: executive employees
Major Actions
Introduced1/23/2012
Referred to Committee
Passed Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications4/17/2012
Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations4/30/2012
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteSenate Committee on Energy, Utilities and CommunicationsDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.4/17/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
7 voted YES 6 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsPlaced on Appropriations Suspense file.4/30/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced1/23/2012
1/23/2012Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
1/24/2012From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 23.
2/02/2012Referred to Com. on E., U. & C.
3/02/2012Set for hearing March 20.
3/14/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U. & C.
3/19/2012Hearing postponed by committee.
3/27/2012Set for hearing April 17.
select this voteVote4/17/2012Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
4/17/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 6. Page 3205.) (April 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
4/20/2012Set for hearing April 30.
select this voteVote4/30/2012Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.
4/30/2012Placed on APPR. suspense file.
5/18/2012Set for hearing May 24.
5/24/2012Held in committee and under submission.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

7 Organizations Supported and 4 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Section 301 Of, and to Add Section 303.5 To, the Public Utilities Code, Relating to the Public Utilities Commission.

7 organizations supported this bill

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Common Cause
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
CALPIRG
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumer Watchdog
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Sierra Club California
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
The Utility Reform Network
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

4 organizations opposed this bill

California Chamber of Commerce
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Public Utilities Commission
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Water Association
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Greenlining Institute
Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (2012, April 13). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office during the 2011-2012 California State Legislature, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$13,625$4,500
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$12,300
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$7,900$12,400
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$8,650
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$14,700$100
Lou CorreaDCA-34$25,300$3,000
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,399$5,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$3,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,650
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$600$8,450
Noreen EvansDCA-2$21,329$2,600
Jean FullerRCA-18$0$10,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$6,900$5,000
Loni HancockDCA-9$61,100$2,000
Tom HarmanRCA-35$9,000$2,000
Ed HernandezDCA-24$27,749$14,396
Bob HuffRCA-29$1,500$18,100
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$3,250
Mark LenoDCA-3$32,250$3,750
Ted LieuDCA-28$57,700$15,400
Carol LiuDCA-21$7,900$5,050
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$7,900$1,800
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$1,000
Fran PavleyDCA-23$98,400$4,500
Curren PriceDCA-26$15,000$8,750
Michael RubioDCA-16$16,600$7,800
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$6,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$104,500$7,500
Tony StricklandRCA-19$4,500$4,500
Juan VargasDCA-40$54,300$7,900
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$0$4,000
Lois WolkDCA-5$15,050$5,000
Rod WrightDCA-25$19,100$9,850
Mark WylandRCA-38$0$1,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$39,000$4,500

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$13,625$4,500
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$12,300
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$7,900$12,400
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$8,650
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$14,700$100
Lou CorreaDCA-34$25,300$3,000
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,399$5,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$3,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,650
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$600$8,450
Noreen EvansDCA-2$21,329$2,600
Jean FullerRCA-18$0$10,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$6,900$5,000
Loni HancockDCA-9$61,100$2,000
Tom HarmanRCA-35$9,000$2,000
Ed HernandezDCA-24$27,749$14,396
Bob HuffRCA-29$1,500$18,100
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$3,250
Mark LenoDCA-3$32,250$3,750
Ted LieuDCA-28$57,700$15,400
Carol LiuDCA-21$7,900$5,050
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$7,900$1,800
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$1,000
Fran PavleyDCA-23$98,400$4,500
Curren PriceDCA-26$15,000$8,750
Michael RubioDCA-16$16,600$7,800
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$6,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$104,500$7,500
Tony StricklandRCA-19$4,500$4,500
Juan VargasDCA-40$54,300$7,900
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$0$4,000
Lois WolkDCA-5$15,050$5,000
Rod WrightDCA-25$19,100$9,850
Mark WylandRCA-38$0$1,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$39,000$4,500

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
State & local government employee unions$707,723
Environmental policy$35,409
Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
Democratic-based groups (but not official party committees) and generic liberal/progressive ones$4,500
Consumer groups$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Water utilities$108,196
Chambers of commerce$88,900
Minority & ethnic groups$14,000
Public official (elected or appointed)$4,100
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range