WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 1222

Public utilities: judicial review.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rebecca Bauer-Kahan

Extends writ review window to 90 days, creates a presumption favoring proposed CPUC decisions, and bars ratepayer recovery of utilities’ costs for judicial or federal review.

In committee: Held under submission.
#publicutilities #judicialreview
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 1222

AB 1222 — Public utilities: judicial review (Bauer‑Kahan) — Bill summary

Status: Introduced Feb 21, 2025. Last action: In committee — held under submission (May 23, 2025). Referred to Utilities & Energy, Judiciary, and Appropriations committees; passed out of earlier committees (April 23 and April 29) on party-line votes noted in the history.

Purpose / intent

AB 1222 makes three principal changes to Public Utilities Code procedures governing review of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decisions and the treatment of litigation costs by investor‑owned electric and gas utilities: (1) lengthen the window to seek appellate writ review of CPUC decisions; (2) create a legal presumption favoring a proposed decision issued in a CPUC proceeding when the final decision departs from it; and (3) prohibit electric and gas corporations from recovering from ratepayers costs associated with seeking federal or state judicial review or seeking relief at a federal agency (and require tracking of those costs).

Key provisions

  • Time to seek writ of review (amendment to Section 1756)

    • Extends the standard 30‑day filing period to 90 days in which an aggrieved party may petition the Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court after the CPUC denies rehearing or issues a rehearing decision.
    • Retains the existing 120‑day rule where rehearing was granted but no decision on rehearing has been issued.

  • Presumption in challenges to final decisions that deviate from proposed decisions (new Section 1757.2)

    • When a petition challenges a final CPUC decision on the ground that it substantially deviated from a proposed decision (typically a proposed decision by a CPUC administrative law judge), the court must presume the proposed decision is valid and lawful.
    • The final decision will be deemed arbitrary and unlawful unless the CPUC rebuts the presumption by demonstrating to the court that the deviations were necessary to comply with state or federal law.

  • Recovery of review/litigation costs by electric and gas corporations (new Section 748.8)

    • Prohibits the CPUC from authorizing an electric or gas corporation to recover from its ratepayers costs associated with seeking judicial review of a CPUC decision in state or federal court or requesting relief from a CPUC decision at a federal agency.
    • Requires each electrical and gas corporation to track such costs.
    • Directs the CPUC to review compliance with this prohibition in general rate cases or other appropriate proceedings.

Who is affected

  • Electric and gas corporations (investor‑owned utilities): cannot pass certain appellate/federal review costs to ratepayers and must track those costs.
  • Ratepayers: may not be charged for utilities’ costs of seeking judicial or federal review under CPUC authorization.
  • Parties challenging CPUC decisions (utilities, consumer groups, other regulated entities): gain a longer (90‑day) period to file a writ; however, petitions alleging that final decisions materially deviate from proposed decisions face a rebuttable presumption favoring the proposed decision.
  • CPUC and appellate courts: administrative and substantive adjustments to review practice and evidentiary burdens when deviations occur.
  • Local agencies/school districts: bill notes it creates a state‑mandated local program (criminal provision implications are discussed below), but also states no state reimbursement is required under Article XIII B, Section 6 (see fiscal/legal notes).

Procedural / fiscal notes

  • The bill adds criminal‑law related phrasing by being part of the Public Utilities Act, which triggers state‑mandated local program language. The bill states no state reimbursement is required under the California Constitution because applicable costs fall within exclusions tied to crimes/infractions.
  • Committee actions: referred Feb 24; amended Apr 21; moved through U. & E. and JUD committees (April), re‑referred to Appropriations and placed on suspense file; held under submission in Appropriations as of May 23, 2025.

Potential impacts (practical effects)

  • Extending the filing deadline to 90 days gives litigants more time to prepare appellate petitions and may increase the number of petitions filed.
  • The new presumption in favor of proposed decisions may constrain the CPUC’s discretion to materially change proposed decisions unless it can justify deviations as legally necessary, potentially increasing successful challenges to final orders that depart from ALJ proposals.
  • Prohibiting cost recovery for judicial/federal review could change utilities’ decisions to pursue federal litigation or appeals, and shifts the financial burden of such actions away from ratepayers (utilities would absorb these costs unless authorized elsewhere).
  • The tracking requirement increases administrative reporting in utilities’ rate cases.

For further detail, consult the bill text (added/ amended Sections 748.8, 1756, and new Section 1757.2 of the Public Utilities Code) and the committee analyses on the bill file.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.