Report 2016-104 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2016-104: California Public Utilities Commission: It Should Reform Its Rules to Increase Transparency and Accountability, and Its Contracting Practices Do Not Align With Requirements or Best Practices (Release Date: September 2016)

Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should amend state law to direct the CPUC to adopt a standard that requires commissioners to recuse themselves from proceedings if a person who is aware of the facts may reasonably question whether a commissioner is able to act impartially.

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2020, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #2 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that the choice of a vendor is sufficiently justified and that the vendor represents the best value, the CPUC should explain in its final decision how the vendor was the most qualified in all cases when the CPUC does not competitively select the vendor it directs utilities to contract with.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

To ensure a specific vendor is not named in a CPUC decision, the CPUC's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Division has implemented best practice language into their onboarding training program, known as Jumpstart, that all newly hired ALJs are required to complete.

Specifically, a slide in the JumpStart training module on Anatomy of a Decision now includes direct and clear language to not include a specific vendor in their decisions and all third-party contracting goes through the state's competitive bidding process.

These JumpStart modules are routinely updated (with training last provided in February 2022) and are stored on the ALJ Division's SharePoint site for new and experienced judges to reference the training materials. At a minimum, these trainings are conducted at least once per year but can be conducted multiple times a year depending on ALJ's hiring cycles.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Resolved

The CPUC provided evidence demonstrating the training it describes. To the extent that its decisions no longer order utilities to contract with named vendors, we consider this issue resolved.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

CPUC continues to follow State procurement statutes, regulation and CPUC contracting policies, to inform and guide evaluation of proposals that are awarded by the CPUC. Also, CPUC recommends that the utilities comply with all state laws when procuring a contractor. The CPUC does not recommend that the utility select a contractor other than the most qualified contractors.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The CPUC has not indicated a change to its practices or policies in response to our recommendation. Although the CPUC states that it only selects the most qualified contractors when recommending that a utility select a contractor, that statement alone does not address the recommendation to explain in specific decisions how it made the determination that the selected vendor was the most qualified if the vendor was selected through a process other than a competitive one.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

CPUC procurement practices follow State procurement statutes, regulations, and its own internal contracting policies, for all CPUC owned goods and services. An exception to this is where an Investor Owed Utility (IOU) is directed by the CPUC to enter into a contract for a particular service, typically as a part of an administrative adjudication. In this situation, since the IOU is not a public entity, it is not required to follow State procurement statutes and regulations, or even CPUC contracting policies, unless required as a part of the order directing the contract. Where an IOU is running a competitive solicitation that is being evaluated by CPUC staff, CPUC staff use State procurement statutes, regulation and CPUC contracting policies, to inform and guide evaluation of proposals. "Best Value" or "Most Qualified" is not always the selection standard required in a particular solicitation. Typically, award is made to the most responsive and responsible bidder, as determined by either the "highest scoring" or "lowest cost" evaluated proposal, as measured against the RFP requirements. This process results in contracts that are in the best interest of ratepayers and the State of California.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Our audit found that the CPUC could have better justified its choice of a contractor that it required energy utilities to hire and, had it done so, it could have avoided the appearance of improper influence in its proceedings. Accordingly, we recommended that the CPUC explain how vendors it does not select through a competitive process are the most qualified. By declining to implement this recommendation, the CPUC is not taking all the steps it could to guard against the appearance of improper influence in contractor selection.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

No change, as the Commissioners already considered this issue, as set forth in a prior follow-up response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

Will not Implement. The Policy and Governance Committee did discuss this issue at one of their meetings and decided that it was not necessary to establish a formal rules change to address the requirement of competitive bidding in vendor selection and directed Legal and ALJ Division staff to follow the applicable contracting requirements. Therefore, this issue has been addressed and resolved. Please let me know if you need anything further.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We find it puzzling that the CPUC asserts that this issue has been addressed and resolved. Aside from referencing a discussion related to this issue and a directive to follow existing requirements, it is not clear that the CPUC has taken any action to address our recommendation. Our audit found that the CPUC could have better justified its choice of a contractor that it required energy utilities to hire and, had it done so, it could have avoided the appearance of improper influence in its proceedings. Accordingly, we recommended that the CPUC explain how vendors it does not select through a competitive process are the most qualified. By declining to implement this recommendation, the CPUC is not taking all the steps it could to guard against the appearance of improper influence in contractor selection.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge hope to prepare the issue for referral by the end of the year.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The General Counsel and Chief Administrative Law Judge hope to prepare the issue for referral by the end of the year

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The General Counsel and the Chief Administrative Law Judge will be referring this to the Policy and Governance Committee to adopt a formal policy.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The General Counsel and the Chief Administrative Law Judge will be referring this to the Policy and Governance Committee to adopt a formal policy.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should amend state law to direct the CPUC to adopt rules for ex parte communications between CPUC commissioners and interested parties that include the following:

-A requirement for CPUC commissioners to disclose any ex parte communications in which they participate, in addition to the existing requirement for interested party disclosure. This disclosure should occur within the same time frame as the interested party disclosure.

-A requirement that commissioners' disclosures include a description of the commissioners' communications and their contents.

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2020, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #4 To: Public Utilities Commission

To avoid the appearance of inappropriate relationships, the CPUC should adopt a policy to prohibit commissioners from accepting gifts from regulated utilities and energy companies and free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities and other parties with financial interests in CPUC proceedings.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

As stated in our previous responses, Commission management continues to believe that the Commission is in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements, including Public Utilities Code section 303. Section 303 states that CPUC commissioners "may not hold an official relation to, nor have a financial interest in, a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission." As such, management respectfully declines to take further action regarding this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

As stated in our previous response, Commission management continues to believe that the Commission is in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements, including Public Utilities Code section 303. Section 303 states that CPUC commissioners "may not hold an official relation to, nor have a financial interest in, a person or corporation subject to regulation by the commission." As such, management respectfully declines to take further action regarding this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

Commission management believes that the Commission is in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and other requirements. After further consideration, management respectfully declines to take further action regarding this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we explained in our comments on the CPUC's one-year response to this recommendation, the CPUC adopted a change to its commissioner code of conduct that encourages commissioners to consider whether the acceptance of a gift of travel, lodging, or meals would give an appearance of an inappropriate relationship with a regulated utility, organizations with significant ties to a regulated utility, or other persons with financial interest in commission proceedings. However, the code of conduct's encouragement to consider appearances is not fully aligned with our recommendation. Specifically, our recommendation directed the CPUC to prohibit gifts of any kind from regulated utilities and energy companies and to prohibit free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities or other interested parties. The CPUC's new code of conduct falls short of this standard.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

Per CPUC's earlier management response, we believe we are already in compliance. However, based on CSA's response, the CPUC is working on an evaluation of recommendations to substantiate CPUC's compliance, and therefore, requests an extension for the additional evaluation

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

As we explained in our comments on the CPUC's one-year response to this recommendation, the CPUC adopted a change to its commissioner code of conduct that encourages commissioners to consider whether the acceptance of a gift of travel, lodging, or meals would give an appearance of an inappropriate relationship with a regulated utility, organizations with significant ties to a regulated utility, or other persons with financial interest in commission proceedings. However, the code of conduct's encouragement to consider appearances is not fully aligned with our recommendation. Specifically, our recommendation directed the CPUC to prohibit gifts of any kind from regulated utilities and energy companies and to prohibit free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities or other interested parties. The CPUC's new code of conduct falls short of this standard.

The CPUC also notes in its response that it is requesting additional time to substantiate its compliance. As part of our follow-up of recommendations that have not been fully implemented, we report annually on the progress of auditees in implementing those recommendations. However, an auditee may continue to update us in the interim on a recommendation's implementation status whenever it believes that it has made significant progress on addressing the recommendation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

The Commission approved this change to the Commissioner Code on Conduct on August 10, 2017.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

As we explained in our comments on the CPUC's one-year response to this recommendation, the CPUC adopted a change to its commissioner code of conduct that encourages commissioners to consider whether the acceptance of a gift of travel, lodging, or meals would give an appearance of an inappropriate relationship with a regulated utility, organizations with significant ties to a regulated utility, or other persons with financial interest in commission proceedings. However, the code of conduct's encouragement to consider appearances is not fully aligned with our recommendation. Specifically, our recommendation directed the CPUC to prohibit gifts of any kind from regulated utilities and energy companies and to prohibit free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities or other interested parties. The CPUC's new code of conduct falls short of this standard.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The Commission approved this change to the Commissioner Code on Conduct on August 10, 2017.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

As we explained in our comments on the CPUC's one-year response to this recommendation, the CPUC adopted a change to its commissioner code of conduct that encourages commissioners to consider whether the acceptance of a gift of travel, lodging, or meals would give an appearance of an inappropriate relationship with a regulated utility, organizations with significant ties to a regulated utility, and other interested persons with financial interest in commission proceedings. However, the encouragement to consider appearances is not fully aligned with our recommendation. Specifically, our recommendation directed the CPUC to prohibit gifts of any kind from regulated utilities and energy companies and free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities or other interested parties. The CPUC's new code of conduct falls short of this standard.

1-Year Agency Response

The Commission approved this change to the Commissioner Code on Conduct on August 10, 2017.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The CPUC adopted a change to its commissioner code of conduct that encourages commissioners to consider whether the acceptance of a gift of travel, lodging, or meals would give an appearance of an inappropriate relationship with a regulated utility, organizations with significant ties to a regulated utility, and other interested persons with financial interest in commission proceedings. However, the encouragement to consider appearances is not fully aligned with our recommendation. Specifically, our recommendation directed the CPUC to prohibit gifts of any kind from regulated utilities and energy companies and free travel from organizations with significant ties to regulated utilities or other interested parties. The CPUC's new code of conduct falls short of this standard.

6-Month Agency Response

This recommendation was referred to the Policy and Governance Committee on October 7th by the Executive Director, Tim Sullivan. The referral was for the Commission to adopt a policy concerning out-of-state travel for Commissioners that is paid for by non-profits or other entities with ties to regulated entities.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation was referred to the Policy and Governance Committee on October 7th by the Executive Director, Tim Sullivan. The referral was for the Commission to adopt a policy concerning out-of-state travel for Commissioners that is paid for by non-profits or other entities with ties to regulated entities.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation for Legislative Action

The Legislature should amend Public Utilities Code section 632 to clarify that its provisions related to the Attorney General apply to the CPUC regardless of Government Code section 11041 and Public Utilities Code section 307.

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Legislature did not take action in the 2021-2022 legislative session to address this specific recommendation.

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2021, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of September 22, 2020, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Senate Bill 19 (Hill, Chapter 421, Statutes of 2017) adds Section 633 to the Public Contract Code to provide that the provisions requiring CPUC to comply with specified requirements regarding contracts for consultant or advisory services do not apply to contracts for legal services and requires the CPUC to notify the Attorney General when contracting for legal services by attorneys who are not employees of the CPUC.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #6 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that its contracting practices align with state requirements and best practices, the CPUC should update, distribute, and follow its contracting procedures manual. The manual should identify specific responsibilities for both contracts office staff and project managers, and it should provide specific guidance about the processes the CPUC will employ to do the following:

-Fully justify civil service exemptions.

-Conduct market research for exempt contracts.

-Fully support the need for additional funding.

-Ensure that it does not change the scope of work too significantly from the original.

-Monitor contractor performance against criteria included in its contracts.

-Avoid sole-source contracts when it is able to solicit competitive bids for services.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

CPUC updated it's current Policy and Procedure Manual to clearly explain what is needed to support the need for additional funding when an amendment is requested.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

The Contract Manual and toolkits was completed by the hired Contractor. Tools have been provided to buyers for utilization. CPUC management will have an ongoing review of these tools to ensure they stay relevant and up to date with current contracting requirement. Also to make sure they're streamlined, clear, and support consistent standards of practice. In addition, CPUC management is planning to expand the training provided to project managers to help them better understand the contracting processes and needs.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC's contracting manual provides guidance to its staff in almost all of the problem areas we identified during our audit. To fully implement our recommendation, the CPUC should ensure that its staff are provided guidance on fully supporting the need for additional funding when they propose amendments to contracts.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

CPUC Contracts and Procurement staff and management have been working with Contractor to develop the contracting manual. First review has been completed. Second review of manual along with accompanying "tool-kits" are being written, to clearly identify roles and responsibilities of Proejct Managers vs Contracts Analysts throughout the contracting process. 19130b, justification, amendment justification are incorporated into the updates.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

CPUC has hired a Contractor. Tasks include development of contracting manual. Contracts are initiated by Program by submitting Contract Request Form (CRF) with detailed description of contract and signed by BCO, Supervisor, and Project Manager. Additional justification memo- explaining compliance/exception to 19130b and draft scope of work are required "starter documents" for project to be assigned to a Contracts Analyst to work with Project Manager. Amendments (for funds and/or time) are initiated by Program submitting (CRF) with detailed description of request and signed by BCO, Supervisor, and Project Manager. Additional amendment justification answering 5 questions related to why amendment is requested, what work has already been done, and whether project will be completed upon end of amendment. documents are required prior to assignment to Contracts Analyst to work with Project Manager.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

As we explained in our comment on the CPUC's one-year response to this recommendation, our recommendation directed the CPUC to update its contracting manual to address several deficiencies we found in its contracting practices. The CPUC's response indicates that it has not yet developed such a manual. Most of the additional activities it describes, such as the use of a contract request form, are practices we observed that the CPUC engaged in during the time period we audited. Despite these practices, we still found deficiencies in the way the CPUC contracted for services. We did note that the CPUC contracts office is requesting answers to five questions related to contract amendments that pertain to concerns we expressed about how the CPUC added funds to contracts through amendments and made changes to the original contract scope of work through an amendment.

1-Year Agency Response

CPUC has hired a Contractor. Tasks include development of contracting manual. Contracts are initiated by Program by submitting Contract Request Form (CRF) with detailed description of contract and signed by BCO, Supervisor, and Project Manager. Additional justification memo- explaining compliance/exception to 19130b and draft scope of work are required "starter documents" for project to be assigned to a Contracts Analyst to work with Project Manager. Amendments (for funds and/or time) are initiated by Program submitting (CRF) with detailed description of request and signed by BCO, Supervisor, and Project Manager. Additional amendment justification answering 5 questions related to why amendment is requested, what work has already been done, and whether project will be completed upon end of amendment. documents are required prior to assignment to Contracts Analyst to work with Project Manager.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Our recommendation directed the CPUC to update its contracting manual to address several deficiencies we found in its contracting practices. The CPUC's response indicates that it has not yet developed such a manual. Most of the additional activities it describes, such as the use of a contract request form, are practices we observed that the CPUC engaged in during the time period we audited. Despite these practices, we still found deficiencies in the way the CPUC contracted for services. We did note that the CPUC contracts office is requesting answers to five questions related to contract amendments that pertain to concerns we expressed about how the CPUC added funds to contracts through amendments and made changes to the original contract scope of work through an amendment.

6-Month Agency Response

The contract office has just recently filled three positions with contract staff, but they still need training. CPUC will be hiring a vendor to assist with the contract manual, improvement of processes, and recommendations for improvements.

CPUC has made strides in multiple areas such as; 1) Justifications of civil service exemptions by emailing requirements to project managers to justify and describe efforts made to out state or governmental agencies,2) Market Research for exempt contracts requiring justification requests, market research and fair and reasonable evaluations, 3) Fully support need for additional funding by replying to list of questions,4) Review of SOW by Contract analyst with each amendment, 5) Avoid sole -source contracts by using NCB Justification if/when sole source is considered and ensuring project managers do market research.

Training of contract managers will begin in April and continue until all project trainers have been trained and they understand the responsibility of contract monitoring while being a project manager.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The CPUC indicates that it has not yet developed a contracting manual and plans to hire a vendor to assist it with the preparation of that manual. In the interim, the CPUC asserts that it has made progress in several of the problem areas that we identified in our report. Although it demonstrated that its contract analysts have communication with project managers about some of these areas, the CPUC has not yet demonstrated that it has an effective control environment that ensures overall contract compliance.

60-Day Agency Response

CPUC is preparing to provide all project managers training and instructions on how to prepare contracts according to the State Contracting Manual. This will include further instructions on the civil service exemptions, market research for exempt contracts, requirements for amendments, sole source contracts and monitoring of contracts. In addition, the contracts and procurement office initiated checklists in June of 2016 to ensure compliance with the State Contracting Manual and continue to use these for review of completed contract and procurement work. The CPUC contract staff will continue its work on a contract manual and has set a completion date for April, 2017.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #7 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that its contracting practices align with state requirements and best practices, the CPUC should provide immediate refresher training to its contract analysts and contracts office manager, and establish a regular schedule of annual training for them to attend.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

A Master Training Schedule Sheet has been implemented, and includes tracking of existing trainings taken, and scheduling of future trainings to be taken by each Buyer. Schedule includes instructions for scheduling and follow up expectations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

The Contract Analysts have completed the DGS CalProcurement and Contracting Academy certificate program. Staff are encouraged to attend a minimum of 2 courses each year to maintain current skill sets, trainings taken are monitored in the internal shared drive and on CalPCA's portal. However, training will continue as new analysts are hired.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC did not provide evidence that it has a training schedule for its contracts office staff or contracts office manager. Although it is encouraging to see that the CPUC reiterates its encouragement for staff to attend a minimum of two courses per year, a stronger approach would be, as we recommend, to preplan the classes that staff must attend in the form of a schedule.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

Pilot Contract Management, Contract Eval training was provided to Energy Division project managers. More training to be scheduled. Contracts and Procurement staff are required to take Certification courses from DGS' CalPCA training academy; Certified staff must continue to take at least 2 courses per year - new or refresher. All have been completed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC did not provide evidence that it has a training schedule for its contracts office staff or contracts office manager. Further, it has not provided evidence that its staff attended the training that the CPUC claims.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

Contract training was provided to over 60 contract managers in October.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC states that it has provided training to its contract managers, not the individuals to whom our recommendation pertains: its contract analysts and contracts office manager. As we explained in our comment on the CPUC's most recent response to this recommendation (the one-year response), the CPUC provided evidence that its contracts office staff have attended some relevant training and professional development events. However, the CPUC has still not provided any evidence that it has established a regular schedule of training for its contracts office staff or contracts office manager.

1-Year Agency Response

The contractor and the contract office will be providing training on both October 9th and October 11th for all contract managers.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC provided evidence that its contracts office staff have attended some relevant training and professional development events. However, the CPUC has still not provided any evidence that it has established a regular schedule of training for its contracts office staff or contracts office manager.

6-Month Agency Response

The contract staff has been attending training both by webinar and by attending training in Sacramento. All contract analysts are registered with CalPCA training system which offers more than 12 classes including a 5 Day Basic Certification Class. The Contract Manager maintains copies of training history and encourages all staff to periodically attend classes and webinars.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

As indicated in its 60-day response, CPUC recently hired new contract analysts. As of this six-month response, CPUC demonstrated that its staff were receiving some training related to state contracting requirements. However, it has not developed a formal training plan for these staff or its contracts office manager that goes beyond May 2017. Further, records it provided indicate that it has not provided refresher training to one of its contract analysts. Although CPUC asserted that it plans to have staff attend webinars and trainings on an ongoing basis, it should develop a formal plan to do so and indicate the specific training sessions that staff will attend.

60-Day Agency Response

CPUC is hiring for three positions in the contract office, two vacancies and one approaching retirement. Once all staff has been hired, the Contract and Procurement Supervisor will develop a training plan for all staff. The goal is to ensure all staff will attend the required training needed for certification by DGS.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #8 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that its contracting practices align with state requirements and best practices, the CPUC should designate a limited number of project managers for each division at the CPUC, and provide those individuals with training on the CPUC's processes related to contracting, including how to monitor progress of a contractor's work.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Administrative Services Division's Procurements & Contracts (P&C) Section has implemented the following:

1. P&C Handbook (corrected from Manual) - Was completed and is currently in the internal P&C Shared drive. This was provided to internal P&C staff, disseminated to external CPUC staff over during the Annual P&C Training and has been added to the external facing SharePoint Site which went live August 2022.

2. Training - External P&C Training began on April 6th, 2022 and ended on June 29th, 2022. This training will occur annually each spring. Each division and all current Contract Managers/Requestors received invites to the training and 193 CPUC staff members have attended the training as of July 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

The Procurements & Contracting (P&C) Section of the CPUC is currently revising the P&C Manual for department wide consumption and updating training to address the Division & Contract Manager (CM)/Project Manager (PM) roles, responsibilities, requirements & statement of work development. We will also be requiring all CM/PM staff to take training & establishing Service Level Agreements with each Division that will outline the number of CM/PM for that division, roles, responsibilities & requirements that must be adhered to.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

CPUC has developed a PM training that will be offered starting Nov-Dec 2020 and continue until all current and prospective PMs are trained. Initially planned to being April 2020; but this was delayed due to COVID-19.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

The CPUC will expand training to all Contract managers. CPUC will work on establishing a reasonable timeframe for completion.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

The agency has taken a variety of steps in response to this recommendation, while recognizing balancing the need to have the right technical expertise engaged with contract management tasks. In addition, Energy Division has hired an AGPA to act as a liaison with the agency's Contracts Office. The AGPA has received training from the California Procurement and Contracting Academy at DGS and will be taking additional trainings in the future, such as Scope of Work development and Contract Management training. The AGPA will explain contracting rules and processes to Energy Division's contract managers, and will support them in preparing Contract Packages. The AGPA has also established tracking systems to monitor the progress of establishing, amending and administrating Energy Division contracts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

In its follow-up response from the prior year, the CPUC indicated that the majority of contract managers are in the Energy Division. In addition to the efforts it describes in this current response, the CPUC will need to take similar action pertaining to its other divisions that use contractors for their projects.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The majority of contract managers are in the Energy Division. The Executive Director and the Energy Director are spinning off an Administrative Unit within Energy to handle the contracting needs of the Division. This had not begun as of yet but is set to begin within the next couple of months.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Executive Director and the Division Directors will be working on a plan to eliminate the need for too many contract managers.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

Training for all project managers will be done covering the next two months and on an on-going basis. CPUC is continuing to try and develop a strategy with the Division Directors for limiting the number of project managers and better coordination with the contracts office.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Commission continues to develop its model for limiting the number of project managers within the divisions.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #9 To: Public Utilities Commission

To ensure that its contracting practices align with state requirements and best practices, the CPUC should implement a supervisory review by the contracts office manager of proposed contracts and contract amendments to occur before contracts and amendments go to vendors for signature.

1-Year Agency Response

The contracts office has implemented the contract request form for completeness upon receipt. This covers the following: dates, term, description of work, justification, proposed method of acquisition and works with the Project Manager to complete packaged before contract is assigned. Contract Manager reviews the package prior to contractor signature, submittal to Executive Directors and Deputy Executive Director as outlined on the compliance form.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

6-Month Agency Response

The contracts office has implemented the contract request form for completeness upon receipt. This covers the following: dates, term, description of work, justification, proposed method of acquisition and works with the Project Manager to complete packaged before contract is assigned.

Contract Manager reviews the package prior to contractor signature

Contract Manager review the package prior to submittal to Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director.

These steps are outlined on the Non-IT Personal and Consultant Service Contract Review and Compliance Form.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The CPUC has not demonstrated that it is completing supervisory review of contracts before sending them to vendors for signatures. It did not provide sufficient documentation to support its claims that the contracts office manager is performing these reviews.

60-Day Agency Response

The contracts manager and prior branch supervisors have been reviewing contracts prior to submission for approval by Deputy Executive Director review.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

The CPUC states that its contracts manager is reviewing contracts prior to executive approval. However, this process is not the same as our recommendation, which states that the CPUC should implement a supervisory review of contracts and contract amendments before they go to a vendor for signature. We reviewed examples of recent CPUC contracts and contract amendments and found that the supervisory review the CPUC conducts is not occurring before the vendor signs the contract or contract amendment agreement. Therefore, this recommendation is still pending implementation.

Recommendation #10 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should update its general policy on responding to California Public Records Act requests so that the policy aligns with state law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

As set forth in the June 12, 2018 scoping memo in R.14-11-001, Phase 2B of the proceeding addressed the types/categories of documents that can be presumptively designated as confidential for the purposes of Public Records Act requests. On Sept. 3, 2020, the Commission issued D.20-08-031, which closed the proceeding and declined to adopt additional confidentiality matrices. Instead, the Commission adopted baseline showings a submitter must make to enable consideration of confidential treatment of critical infrastructure information, including showings that the information is not customarily in the public domain, could allow a bad actor to attack/compromise a critical utility facility, or discusses vulnerabilities in such a facility.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

On February 11, 2019, the Commission issued D.19-01-028, the Phase 2A decision adopting a revision to General Order 66-D regarding audit, inspection, investigation and enforcement matters. This decision adds a new section to General Order (G.O.) 66-D setting forth a process in audit, inspection, investigation, and enforcement matters by which Commission staff can expedite regulated entities' submission of information to the Commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

In October 2017, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 17-09-023 in Phase 2A of R.14-11-001, adopting General Order 66-D and administrative processes for submission and release of potentially confidential information, including in response to Public Records Act requests. In Phase 2B of the proceeding, the Commission is focusing on substantive claims of confidentiality for information submitted to the Commission. The Commission held a March 29, 2018 workshop to explore these issues, with the goal of developing standard confidential treatment for certain categories/types of information submitted to the Commission. The eventual adoption of these so-called "confidentiality matrices" will help Public Records Act staff in the Legal Division to more efficiently respond to records requests that request confidential information.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

In rulemaking(R)14-11-001 the Commission continues to examine its procedures for responding to requests pursuant to CA Public Records Acts and will adopt policies that align with state laws.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

In rulemaking(R)14-11-001 the Commission continues to examine its procedures for responding to requests pursuant to CA Public Records Acts and will adopt policies that align with state laws.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

In rulemaking(R)14-11-001 the Commission continues to examine its procedures for responding to requests pursuant to CA Public Records Acts and will adopt policies that align with state laws.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

In rulemaking (R.) 14-11-001 the Commission is currently examining its procedures for responding to request pursuant to CA Public Records Acts and will adopt policies that align with state laws.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #11 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should develop and follow procedures to regularly track and review California Public Records Act requests it has not fully responded to and determine whether it can provide information.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

"Since January 2018, the PRA team has replaced its full time attorney and added two paralegals to the staff. The new attorney has largely taken over the duties of the prior attorney, including the processing of new requests and subpoenas, communicating with staff to locate documents and determine responsiveness, processing e-mail document searches, interfacing with outside requestors and counsel, and administrative duties, such as assigning work to other attorneys.

The two paralegals maintain all files related to PRA requests and subpoenas and track all related deadlines, including emailing and calling attorneys to insure that deadlines are being met. The paralegals contact staff for updates with regards to both new and legacy requests, prepare templates and reports, and provide feedback about how to streamline processes. They also follow up via email with staff to facilitate document collection. Under the direction of the assigned attorney the paralegals may contact requesters to request clarifying information regarding overly broad or unclear requests. Paralegals also process resolutions for the release of investigatory records. Since the last update to the State Auditor in September 2017, the PRA team has reduced the number of open legacy/LIR requests by over 50%: from 47 to 22 (including 4 closed by outside counsel). Consequently, where in 2017 there was a net backlog of 56 requests, this year the team has been able to close 10 more requests than have been opened, despite being on pace to have 34 more requests opened this year over last. The median number of days needed to close has held steady at 10 days as well, signifying that we are making strides to close requests in a timely manner."

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

As we explained in the May 2017 phone call with the State Auditor, we have a skeleton administrative staff available to monitor attorneys' work on assigned records requests. Legal Division's PRA team has been without administrative assistance since December 2016. Prior to December, two legal analysts (i.e. paralegals) were assigned to the PRA team. Both of those positions have been vacant since December 2016, despite efforts to fill them. One of the individuals became an attorney, but has only able to work on PRA requests on a part-time basis, devoting most of that time to the substantive work of responding to PRA requests. Because of the large PRA workload, she has limited time to remind other attorneys to complete their legacy requests.

Despite these staffing limitations, we established a procedures document regarding legacy requests. Pursuant to that procedure, the above-mentioned attorney (because we have no legal analysts) requests a status report from assigned in-house attorneys every two weeks. If assigned attorneys fail to provide an update, she informs the supervising AGC (which has not occurred since development of the protocol). See procedures document and examples of records showing attorneys contacted, attachments 11-A and 11-B. We have also requested our outside counsel to provide a status report of open legacy requests every two weeks. See, e.g., 9/1/17 status report and 9/15/17 status report, attachments 11-C and 11-D.

In addition, per the State Auditor's specific request in the May 2017 phone call, we tracked the monthly closures of legacy requests so that the State Auditor can see what has been closed over time and what remains open. See list of open/closed legacy PRA requests, attachment 11-E. Monitoring of PRA requests submitted after May 2016 occurs through NextRequest, as described in an earlier response above.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC repeats the response to this recommendation that it submitted as part of its one-year response. Accordingly, our assessment remains unchanged. Specifically, the procedures document that the CPUC refers to appears to have been created recently. It suggests that the procedures have only been followed twice so far. However, the procedures do not address elements we believe are important, such as when and how to make the determination that a partial or complete response to a request is ready.

1-Year Agency Response

"As we explained in the May 2017 phone call with the State Auditor, we have a skeleton administrative staff available to monitor attorneys' work on assigned records requests. Legal Division's PRA team has been without administrative assistance since December 2016. Prior to December, two legal analysts (i.e. paralegals) were assigned to the PRA team. Both of those positions have been vacant since December 2016, despite efforts to fill them. One of the individuals became an attorney, but has only able to work on PRA requests on a part-time basis, devoting most of that time to the substantive work of responding to PRA requests. Because of the large PRA workload, she has limited time to remind other attorneys to complete their legacy requests.

Despite these staffing limitations, we established a procedures document regarding legacy requests. Pursuant to that procedure, the above-mentioned attorney (because we have no legal analysts) requests a status report from assigned in-house attorneys every two weeks. If assigned attorneys fail to provide an update, she informs the supervising AGC (which has not occurred since development of the protocol). See procedures document and examples of records showing attorneys contacted, attachments 11-A and 11-B. We have also requested our outside counsel to provide a status report of open legacy requests every two weeks. See, e.g., 9/1/17 status report and 9/15/17 status report, attachments 11-C and 11-D.

In addition, per the State Auditor's specific request in the May 2017 phone call, we tracked the monthly closures of legacy requests so that the State Auditor can see what has been closed over time and what remains open. See list of open/closed legacy PRA requests, attachment 11-E. Monitoring of PRA requests submitted after May 2016 occurs through NextRequest, as described in an earlier response above.

"

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

The procedures document that the CPUC refers to appears to have been created recently. It suggests that the procedures have only been followed twice so far. However, the procedures do not address elements we believe are important, such as when and how to make the determination that a partial or complete response to a request is ready.

6-Month Agency Response

Legal Division's Public Records Office opened a new online portal called "NextRequest" (https://cpuc.nextrequest.com/) to receive and track all incoming records request.Requesters submit online requests and receive a private and secure portal to track their requests (see page 1 of attached Appendix for screenshots of the live portal);An immediate e-mail is issued to the Public Records Office containing a tracking number and indicating the 10-day, statutorily-based due date ;Automated daily reminders of "Overdue and Due Soon" requests are e-mailed to assigned staff with tracking numbers, past-due production dates, and future due dates Automated daily "Notification Digests" are e-mailed to the Public Records Office, and Internally available color-coded tracking flags indicate to staff whether a records request is closed (black), open (blue), due soon (yellow), or overdue (red) The Public Records Office team also utilizes NextRequest to generate real-time status reports containing critical oversight data. NextRequest's reporting system provides the team with a running tally of current open, due soon, and overdue records requests in a straightforward, color-blocked format. To address partially resolved PRA requests, the Public Records Office team adjusts a request's due date in NextRequest to match the anticipated production date communicated to the requester in a previous determination letter. Adjusting the due date allows for effective tracking of open, due soon, and overdue requests using the NextRequest reporting system, and, when combined with daily automated alerts, reminds staff to forward records to requesters in a timely manner, maintaining consistent rolling productions as necessary. Additional efficiency metrics available in NextRequest include a snapshot of cases opened and closed during a customizable timeframe, and the average number of days that it took assigned staff to complete the cases closed within that window.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC provided evidence that it is is regularly following up on California Public Records Act requests to which it has not yet fully responded. However, it has not memorialized these steps in a procedure document that describes, for example, when a request merits follow up to determine if responsive records can be provided to the requester. Additionally, the CPUC has not demonstrated that it is sufficiently addressing legacy requests that are not included in its new NextRequest system but to which it may be able to provide partial or full responses.

60-Day Agency Response

The CPUC agrees with this recommendation, and has established the following procedures to regularly track records requests. In May 2016, the Legal Division's Public Records Office opened a new online portal called "NextRequest" to receive and track all incoming records requests which includes these features; Requesters submit online requests and receive a private and secure portal to track their requests; An immediate e-mail is issued to the Public Records Office containing a tracking number and indicating the 10-day, statutorily-based due date; Automated daily reminders of "Overdue and Due Soon" requests are e-mailed to assigned staff with tracking numbers, past-due production dates, and future due dates; Automated daily "Notification Digests" are e-mailed to the Public Records Office, providing a snapshot of all case activity within the past 24 hours; and Publicly available color-coded tracking flags indicate to staff and the public whether a records request is closed (black), open (blue), due soon (yellow), or overdue (red).These processes have streamlined the Public Records Office's response management and tracking methods in a manner consistent with the State Auditor's recommendations. Finally, the Commission has a 2017-18 Budget Change Proposal (BCP) currently pending before the Department of Finance, in which Legal Division requested additional attorney and legal analyst staff for the Public Records Office team. Legal Division will assign one of the attorney positions to oversee the tracking and management of incoming and outstanding records requests and follow up with assigned Legal Division staff to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines. The attorney will provide bi-monthly status reports to the supervising Assistant General Counsel.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Although the CPUC provided a detailed explanation of its new processes related to California Public Records Act requests, it did not submit any supporting evidence to demonstrate that it has taken any of the steps it described or that it has developed related procedures as the recommendation directs. Further, the CPUC's response does not clearly indicate how the CPUC tracks the status of records requests that it received before implementing its new tracking system but has not yet fully resolved. Finally, during our audit we identified an instance in which the CPUC delayed sending responsive records to a requester. At the time of our audit, the head of the CPUC's legal division's public records office stated that the CPUC did not closely oversee the staff member assigned to respond to that request. It is not clear from the CPUC's response how the CPUC is ensuring that a similar lapse in response time does not occur again.

We look forward to CPUC addressing these areas and providing supporting documentation in its next response.

Recommendation #12 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should use its contract database to track the procurement method for each contract.

1-Year Agency Response

CPUC is scheduled to be a part of the last wave of Fi$Cal implementation, July 2018. The contract office currently uses the FI$CAL System to track procurement methods as well as the current contract management system. The SCPRS FI$CAL system does track procurement by type. Initial steps for evaluating expaneded database tracking are nder way.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

6-Month Agency Response

CPUC is working with their IT team to ensure the contract database system can track the procurement method adequately.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The CPUC Information Technology Branch are currently working to incorporate the procurement method into the contract record management system which records all of the contract information.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #13 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should update its regulations to require parties joining a proceeding by filing a protest or response to an application or petition, or by filing comments in response to a rulemaking proceeding to fully disclose their interests in the proceeding.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

As stated in our prior responses, this recommendation by CSA has been thoroughly vetted by CPUC's management. Since this recommendation is not supported by any legal criteria nor have there been any issues attributable to the need for more specific disclosures of financial interest, the CPUC has determined that the recommendation will not be implemented.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted previously, our recommendation would address an inconsistency in the CPUC's rules for disclosure of interests in a proceeding. Although we found that parties generally self-disclosed their interest in proceedings, entities that become a party by filing a protest or response to an application or petition or by filing comments in response to a rulemaking are not subject to any requirement to disclose their interest in the proceeding. Therefore, we continue to believe that this recommendation is warranted.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

As stated in our prior responses, this recommendation by CSA has been thoroughly vetted by CPUC's management. Since this recommendation is not supported by any legal criteria nor have there been any issues attributable to the need for more specific disclosures of financial interest, the CPUC has determined that the recommendation will not be implemented. To require more specific disclosure of financial interests would represent a significant policy and administrative change that the CPUC has no evidence is needed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted previously, our recommendation would address an inconsistency in the CPUC's rules for disclosure of interests in a proceeding. Although we found parties generally self disclosed their interest in proceedings, entities that become a party by filing a protest or response to an application or petition or by filing comments in response to a rulemaking are not subject to any requirement to disclose their interest in the proceeding. Therefore, we continue to believe that this recommendation is warranted.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2020

We have evaluated the recommendation and CPUC compliance, and continue to believe that nothing must be changed in the Rules of Practice and Procedure to be in compliance.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted previously, our recommendation would address an inconsistency in the CPUC's rules for disclosure of interests in a proceeding. Although we found parties generally self disclosed their interest in proceedings, entities that become a party by filing a protest or response to an application or petition or by filing comments in response to a rulemaking are not subject to any requirement to disclose their interest in the proceeding. Therefore, we continue to believe that this recommendation is warranted.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

Per CPUC's earlier management response, we believe we are already in compliance. However, based on CSA's response, the CPUC is working on an evaluation of recommendations to substantiate CPUC's compliance, and therefore, requests an extension for the additional evaluation

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

The CPUC's response indicates that it will not implement this recommendation. However, the CPUC also notes in its response that it is requesting additional time to substantiate its compliance. As part of our follow-up of recommendations that have not been fully implemented, we report annually on the progress of auditees in implementing those recommendations. Nevertheless, an auditee may continue to update us in the interim on a recommendation's implementation status whenever it believes that it has made significant progress on addressing the recommendation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

Will not implement.The CPUC will not implement this recommendation. The CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure require each person or entity proposing to participate in a proceeding to disclose their interest in the proceeding, which includes the factual and legal contentions they propose to make as well as their more general interest in the proceeding. "Interest" in the CPUC's Rules is broader than financial interests and serves the Commission's administrative law functions by ensuring that a person or entity has reason to participate in a proceeding. To require more specific disclosure of financial interests would represent a significant policy and administrative change that the CPUC does not presently feel is needed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

Our recommendation would address an inconsistency in the CPUC's rules for disclosure of interests in a proceeding. Although we found parties generally self disclosed their interest in proceedings, entities that become a party by filing a protest or response to an application or petition or by filing comments in response to a rulemaking are not subject to any requirement to disclose their interest in the proceeding. Therefore, we continue to believe this recommendation is warranted.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The P&G committee has been engaged in reforming the Rules of Practice & Procedure to conform them to statutory changes brought about by SB 215 (Hill 2016). That effort has lasted from January to the present, and we have not yet completed the CPUC and OAL rulemaking processes. P&G may be able to take this issue up in a next phase of rules reform beginning in 2018. As noted in the original response, it represents a significant policy change.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The P&G committee has been engaged in reforming the Rules of Practice & Procedure to conform them to statutory changes brought about by SB 215 (Hill 2016). That effort has lasted from January to the present, and we have not yet completed the CPUC and OAL rulemaking processes. P&G may be able to take this issue up in a next phase of rules reform beginning in 2018. As noted in the original response, it represents a significant policy change.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The recommendation has been referred to the Policy and Governance Committee for April. This change constitutes a large change in Commission policy and could potentially require a change in the rules of practice and procedure.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation was referred to the Policy and Governance Committee on October 11th by the Executive Director, Tim Sullivan. Compliance with this recommendation requires rules affecting what parties participating in our proceedings must file. This would constitute a major change in Commission policy and could potentially requires a change in the rules of practice and procedure.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #14 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should ensure that it has accurate information about who is required to file statements of economic interests and then verify that all such persons file those statements when required.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

The CPUC is reviewing all classifications which are required to file Form 700s forms and working with the FPPC to establish limitations in the existing classifications. CPUC does have a current list of classifications and tracks all filings by names and classifications to ensure all people required to file prepare and turn in to the filing officer a form 700 annually, upon hire and departure. In addition , the CPUC will be contracting with a vendor to file all of these electronically

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The CPUC is reviewing all classifications which are required to file Form 700s forms and working with the FPPC to establish limitations in the existing classifications.

CPUC does have a current list of classifications and tracks all filings by names and classifications to ensure all people required to file prepare and turn in to the filing officer a form 700 annually, upon hire and departure.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC repeats the response it provided to this recommendation in its one-year response. Accordingly, our assessment remains the same. The CPUC provided evidence that it has identified all persons who are required to file statements of economic interest. However, it did not provide us evidence that it has been tracking the submission of those statements to ensure that all relevant staff file them.

1-Year Agency Response

The CPUC is reviewing all classifications which are required to file Form 700s forms and working with the FPPC to establish limitations in the existing classifications.

CPUC does have a current list of classifications and tracks all filings by names and classifications to ensure all people required to file prepare and turn in to the filing officer a form 700 annually, upon hire and departure.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

The CPUC provided evidence that it has identified all persons that are required to file statements of economic interest. However, it did not provide us evidence that it has been tracking the submission of those statements to ensure that all relevant staff file them.

6-Month Agency Response

CPUC has built a database that tracks who is required to fill out a Form 700 and track the compliance of this requirement.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The CPUC established a new policy that its filing officer should compile a list of all employees who are required to submit a statement of economic interest. However, that policy does not address how the CPUC will address the concerns we discussed in our report, namely that the filing officer relied on information to identify required filers that was sometimes inaccurate. Further, the CPUC did not submit evidence that it created a database to track the individuals required to complete statements of economic interest.

60-Day Agency Response

The Filing Officer will be communicating with legal staff to ensure all staff required to fill out the Form 700's are listed in a database for tracking purposes. In addition, the Filing Officer will use this database to ensure all required filers turn their forms in timely. This includes sending updates to Directors and the Executive Director regarding those that are non-compliant.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #15 To: Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC should update and follow its retention policy for economic interest disclosures so that it is aligned with state law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

CPUC had established a Records Retention Policy and implemented a Partially completed- CPUC-wide process that has resulted in 100% compliance with the annual Form 700 filings.(See attached written policy). The Form 700s and Ethics certifications are currently collected by designated staff and tracked via a manual, non-automated system that is also designed to meet the requirements for the retention of disclosures of economic interests. To streamline this manual process, the CPUC is reviewing options for electronic storage of disclosures of economic interests in an effective and efficient manner. CPUC is working on an electronic solution no later than September 2019 and will submit substantiation of full implementation

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The CPUC updated its records retention policy, and it now aligns with the requirements of state law. Provided that it follows this policy, the CPUC will have fully addressed our recommendation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

The CPUC has a retention policy and is working to ensure compliance with DGS requirements. The PUC was in 100 % compliance with all annual form 700s this year. In addition, PUC is working to procure software that will allow automatic electronic software will be able to document and store all the Form 700s and Ethics certifications enabling better tracking and electronic filing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The CPUC did not provide evidence of its document retention policy that aligns with the requirements in state law for the retention of disclosures of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The CPUC has a document retention policy in draft format and is now working with the Divisions to establish compliance with the the requirements for form 700s so our policy aligns with best practices.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The CPUC is currently adopting an agency wide document retention policy which will include the requirements for form 700s so our policy aligns with best practices.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

CPUC is retaining all documents completed regarding statements of economic interest.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As stated in our report, the required retention period for statements of economic interests is seven years.The CPUC did not submit evidence to support its statement that it is now retaining all documents related to completed statements of economic interest. Further, it did not provide evidence that it updated its retention policy.

60-Day Agency Response

The Legal Office is currently reviewing the requirement for filing statements of economic interests and verifying what the requirement is for the CPUC employees. This will include updating the retention policy for economic interest disclosures so it aligns to state law.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

All Recommendations in 2016-104

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.