A comparative study of the administrative procedure of the Public Utilities Commission of the state of California

165 Pages·08.62 MB·English

by  Boren, James Harlam

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
QF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School
The U niversity of Southern C alifornia
In P a rtia l Fulfillm ent
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Economics
W
James Harlan Boren
June 1950
UMI Number: EP44697
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP44697
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
Ec *s~o ZJ
This thesis, written by
JAMES„MRMN..BOREN.......................
under the guidance of hX.s.— Faculty Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been
presented to and accepted by the Council on
Graduate Study and Research in partial fulfill­
ment of the requirements for the degree of
.................MASTER OF ARTS..............................
............................
Dean
________
Faculty Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM AMD DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . 1
The problem ....................... 1
Statement of the problem . ..................... . 1
Importance of the s tu d y ............................. 2
D efinitions of terras u s e d ..................................... 5
O rganization of the remainder of the thesis ^
Major sources of data ........................ . 3-®
IT. . OFFICIAL ACTION BY THE COMMISSION.............. 13
1 ^
In stig atio n of o ffic ia l action ........................
1_8
Types and forms of complaints . . ...................
21
A pplications...............................................
OR
I I I . ESTABLISHMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . .
29
Public u tility statu s ................................................
31
Conclusiveness of ju risd ictio n al findings .
31
Summary and conclusion...............................................
IV. REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE AND HEARING........................... 34
Capacities served by commissions........................ 35
Summary and conclusion. ........................ 42
V. SCOPE OF THE HEARING............................................... 44
Amendment of pleadings..................................... 45
Amendment of pleadings in C alifornia . . 46
Amendment of pleadings in New York. . . . 47
iv
CHAPTER
Amendment of pleadings in Wisconsin . . . 48
Amendment of pleadings before the F.P.C. 49
Summary and co n c lu sio n .......................................... 52
VI. PREHEARING CONFERENCES ................................................. ,55
Contributions of the conferences. . . . . . 56
Procedure of the Federal Power Commission . 57
Summary and co n clu sio n s............................ 59
VII. THE HEARING..............................................................................
Consolidation of proceedings.................................
Oral testim ony and cross-exam ination. . . .
Oral argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Cooperative procedure of the F.P.C. . . . . 70
Summary and co n clu sio n s........................................... 77
V III. RULES OF EVIDENCE................................................................ 80
F le x ib ility of commission procedure . . . . 81
Admittance of hearsay as evidence . . . . . 83
Informalism not a cause of invalidation . . 87
Ju d icial n o t i c e ..................................... S£L
Summary and co n clu sio n s........................................... 93
IX. ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION DECISIONS . . . . . 95
General procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
New York procedure.......................................................... 96
Wisconsin procedure .................................. . . . . 97
V
CHAPTER
Federal Power Commission procedure . . . . 98
C alifornia procedure and contempt power. . 99
Summary and c o n c lu s io n s ............................ 192
X. FINALITY OF COMMISSION DECISIONS............... 104
Rehearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
P etitio n for rehearing ............................ . 105
Procedure in rehearing ...................................... 106
C alifornia procedure. . ............................. 108
New York procedure..................................... 108
Wisconsin procedure . . . . . . . . . . 109
Federal Power Commission procedure . . 110
Reasons for rehearing ........................ I l l
Appeal and review ............................. 113
Issue of ju risd ic tio n . .................................. 114
Review upon commission re c o rd .............. 115
Precedence of public u tility actions . . HO
Mixed questions of law and fact . . . . . 12°
Presumptive v a l i d i t y ................................... H 2
Requirements of ’’reasonableness” . . . . . HO
Summary and conclusion ........................................... 132
XI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . ............................. 135
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX.............................................................................................. 152
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. The purpose of th is
study is to present a survey and an appraisal of the
adm inistrative procedure employed by the Public U tilitie s
Commission of the State of C alifornia. The appraisal is
based prim arily upon a comparative analysis of the procedure
employed by the sta te commissions of C alifornia, Wisconsin,
and New York, and the Federal Power Commission.
The survey of the procedure employed by these
adm inistrative agencies has been approached in somewhat the
same chronological order as would present its e lf in the
actual conduct of a formal proceeding or disposition of a
complaint or application. This type of organization best
indicates the relationship of the part to the whole, and
is believed to lend its e lf toward a clearer and more
concise presentation.
Qne of the major problems which arises from any
consideration of adm inistrative procedure is th a t of the
satisfactio n of procedural due process of law. This
involves the fle x ib ility of adm inistrative procedure, the
admission of evidence, the requirement of notice and
hearing, and the fin a lity of commission determ inations on
questions of fact and law.
The problem at hand is , therefo re, one of analyzing
the procedure of the four adm inistrative ageneies in the.
lig h t of adequacy and equity. Under the term adequacy
w ill f a ll the comparison of the four general procedures
and the degree to which they sa tisfy the requirem ents
held to be necessary for the protection of the public
u tility company on the producer’ s side and the general
public on the consumer’s side. Under the companion
divisio n of equity, the emphasis is upon the satisfactio n
of due process of law from the procedural standpoint. This
procedural due process of law, which is based upon what is
held to be due and proper, presupposes an equitable
solution to disputes. The adm inistrative procedure u tiliz e d
by the four commissions under study w ill be examined in
the lig h t of the general principles of procedural due
process th a t have been developed in the ju d icial and
adm inistrative trib u n als.
Importance of the study. A dm inistrative agencies
were, in p art, brought in to being as a re su lt of the
combined pressure of time and d etail upon le g isla tiv e
o ffic ia ls. I t became increasingly d iffic u lt in the
form ulation of the numerous statu tes to an ticip ate and
3
provide for the many detailed situatio ns which arise from
the enforcement of the laws. The re su lt was the
establishm ent of adm inistrative agencies.
With the growth of adm inistrative agencies there
has been an accompanying development of adm inistrative
law. Landis, in giving h is statement re la tiv e to the rise
of adm inistrative law, has commented:
H istory recites th a t law, as adm inistered by the
courts, can become stagnant and rig id . I t was th is
th at led in English jurisprudence to the rise of
equity, to the creation of a new series of judges,
of chancellors, whose consciences would be the guide
to th e ir decisions and ?/ho had not only the authority
but the duty to disregard the formalisms of law . . .
I t is a sim ilar set of conditions and sim ilar needs
th at have given b irth in the la s t century to the new
type of adm inistrative agency. The inadequacies of
the old procedure to meet the claim s, the lack of any
power in the ju d ic ia l branch of government to in itia te
proceedings, the delays attendant upon formalism, the
want of th at type of specialized application th at
makes for expertness, these are the basic causes for
adm inistrative law.-*-
Equity and effectiveness of public u tility regulation
therefore require the m odification of the formal and
technical rules of procedure which are ch aracteristic of
the ju d ic ia l process. The manner and degree of m odification
as measured by the dual standard of effectiveness and
•*-James M. Landis, l,The Development of the
A dm inistrative Commission,” An Address before the Swarth©re
Club of Philadelphia, February,27, 1937♦ Included in
A dm inistrative Law: Cases and Comments. Walter Gellhorn,
p .7.
equity are of major importance. The variation as well as
the points in common in the adm inistrative procedure of the
sta te commissions of C alifornia, Wisconsin, and New York,
plus that which is evidenced in the practices of the
Federal Power Commission w ill he compared and analyzed.
Facts are of major concern in public u tility
regulation, and the commissions are not bound as are courts
of law to acquire th e ir inform ation e n tire ly from the
2
evidence of w itnesses. The adm inistrative agencies have,
therefore, adopted more lenient and flex ib le procedures in
arriving at the fa c ts. Such fle x ib ility of procedure
fa c ilita te s the performance of th e ir d u ties, while a t the
same time the ferretin g out of the true facts p ertinen t
to p artic u lar investigations aids in the form ulation of
ju st and equitable decisions.
Thus, two generally irreconcilable concepts, ju stic e
and expediency, join together in calling for the evolution
of adm inistrative agencies and the body of rules by which
they are bound.
Overburdened le g isla tu res turned to the employment of
adm inistrative bodies as a tool with which to f a c ilita te
the adm inistration of certain technical areas of the law.
^State v. State Public Service Commission. 95
Washington 376