Amended
IN
Assembly
June 18, 2014 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 18, 2014 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
June 19, 2013 |
Amended
IN
Senate
May 08, 2013 |
Amended
IN
Senate
April 08, 2013 |
Introduced by Senator Hill |
December 19, 2012 |
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 some electrical corporations would be required to create a peer review committee, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
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.
(b)The commission may establish an advisory committee to evaluate whether a research and development project meets the guidelines described in subdivision (a). The advisory committee, if established, shall be composed of persons who meet all of the following requirements:
(1)Be independent of the person proposing the project.
(2)Be independent of the persons conducting the proposed project, if different from those persons proposing the project.
(3)Be knowledgeable in the field of endeavor to which the proposed project pertains.
(4)Be
(a)On or before July 1, 2016, an electrical corporation with more than 100,000 customer accounts shall, in consultation with the National Research Council, create a peer review committee to evaluate whether a research and development project proposed in an application for the inclusion of expenses for research and development in rates pursuant to Section 740 meets the guidelines in Section 740.1 and to evaluate all of the following technical aspects:
(1)The overall scientific or technical merits of the proposed project.
(2)The extent to which the same or similar project could be performed by entities that the electrical corporation does not select.
(3)The appropriateness of the level of requested funding in comparison to other projects by similarly experienced individuals using similar facilities performing in similar timeframes and circumstances.
(4)The likelihood that the proposed project can be accomplished within the proposed time and budget by the investigators or the technical staff, given their experience and expertise and available resources.
(b)The peer review committee shall have a membership of no more than nine persons.
(c)The composition and policies of the peer review committee described in subdivision (a) shall ensure that the evaluation of an application shall be performed by persons who meet all of the following requirements:
(1)Be independent of persons submitting the proposed project that is included in the application.
(2)Be independent of persons conducting the project, if different from those persons proposing the project.
(3)Be knowledgeable in the field of endeavor to which the proposed project pertains.
(4)Be free of any financial or other interest that could significantly impair the ability of the person serving on the committee to be objective or that could create an unfair competitive advantage for a person or organization.
(d)The commission shall, upon appropriation by the Legislature, reimburse the electrical corporation for costs incurred by the electrical corporation in consulting with the National Research Council and in creating and
operating the peer review committee from the Energy Resources Programs Account.
(e)The commission shall not approve the inclusion of expenses incurred by a research and development project in electricity rates pursuant to Section 740 for a proposed project that is not supplemented by a written evaluation from the peer review committee. In a decision to approve the inclusion of expenses incurred by research and development projects in electricity rates pursuant to Section 740, the commission shall make findings on how the written evaluation by the peer review committee informed the decision, including aspects of the proposed projects in which the opinion of the commission differs from the opinion of the peer review committee.
(f)The requirement for a written evaluation pursuant to subdivision (e) may be waived by the commission for a proposed project listed in an application
submitted to the commission if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1)Substantial funding for the project is contingent upon approval by a state or federal agency.
(2)Funding for the project may be awarded by the state or federal agency only after a review by persons who meet the criteria in subdivision (c).
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.