Administrative Law Division GMAP Presentation Bob Wallis Ann Rendahl June 12, 2006

1. Administrative Law Division GMAP Presentation Bob Wallis Ann Rendahl June 12, 2006

2. Administrative Law Division – Who We Are • Staff: • Chief Administrative Law Judge • Four Administrative Law Judges • Two Support Staff • $ 761,144 Budget (7/05-6/06): • Salaries & Benefits ( $ 636,710) • Personal Services Contracts ($ 40,000) • Rent ($ 41,394) • Travel & Training ($ 6,692) • Court Reporters ($ 34,000) • Other Purchases ($ 2,078)

3. Administrative Law Division • Mission: Manage the UTC’s legal business by: • Managing cases and conducting hearings • (Will soon include delegation activities) • Guiding the rulemaking process • Mediating disputes and facilitating workshops • Scheduling events and publishing calendars • Educating UTC personnel and others

4. Breakdown of ALD Salary Expense 2005

5. Breakdown of ALD Time on Dockets 2005

6. Educating Others Value: - Improves attorney and staff performance in agency proceedings - Shares expertise of UTC judges * * * CLE Presentations: • Nat’l Judicial College – Fair Hearings, Manila, Philippines (Bob) – Complex Adjudication (Dennis) –Utility Regulatory Adjudication (Dennis) • Network of Adjudicative Agencies Program –(Dennis - Co-Chair) – Complex Adjudication (Ann & Bob) • WSBA / Admin. Law Section – Admin. Proc. Act CLE (Bob Co-Chair) – CLE for Beginning Lawyers (Bob) Fall Forum Presentations: • Effective Presentation (Ann & Dennis) •Nuts & Bolts of Rulemaking (Karen) Bench Bar Programs: •Procedural Rules & Rulemaking Process - Seattle • Best Practices for Attorneys & ALJs - Olympia

7. Mediating / Helping with Settlement Value: Reduces expenses for the parties and the agency Improves relationships between parties. * * * 2005 – Dispute between PacifiCorp & Columbia Rural Electrification Association –WUTC v. Weyerhaeuser (PG-040984) –WUTC v. Inland Telephone Co. (UT-050606) –Puget Sound & Pacific RR – Moon Rd. (TR-041729) 2006 – Network Essentials & Bigdam.net v. Grant County PUD (UT-051602 & UT-051742) - Kayak Estates (UW-051444) - PacifiCorp Rate Case (UE-050412 & UE-050684)

8. Facilitating Discussion Value: - Organizes and structures discussion - Allows others to focus on issues, not process * * * General Workshops: –Least Cost Planning (UE-030311) – Telecom Symposium (UT-050978) –Transmission: GridWest & TRIG –Low Income Energy Assistance Rulemaking Workshops: – ETC Rulemaking (UT-053021) –Procedural Rules (A-050802) –Interconnection Rules (UE-051106) –Bidding Rules (UE-030423) –Decoupling Rulemaking (UG-050369) –Auto Transp. Rates Rulemaking (TC-060177)

9. Scheduling Events & Publishing Calendars • Support staff work with Commissioners’ assistants to schedule • hearings for ALJs and Commissioners, briefings and • rulemaking workshops. (See flow chart) • Support staff maintain electronic calendars tracking adjudicative cases, Commissioner schedules, and rulemaking schedules: • Active Cases Report (Posted to Online Library weekly) • Rulemaking Status Report (Posted to Online Libraryweekly) • Commission Calendar (Posted to Online Library weekly) • ALD Calendar (Internal use – distributed weekly) • Case Calendaring System (Updated daily via Lotus Notes)

10. Scheduling Events & Publishing Calendars

11. Managing Proceedings & Caseload • ALD is responsible for: • Cases suspended at open meetings • Contested transportation applications • Formal complaints & petitions for enforcement • Petitions for declaratory orders • Commission initiated enforcement proceedings • Railroad petitions • Guiding rulemaking proceedings

12. Managing Proceedings & Caseload • ALD is responsible for cases across all industries: • Energy (Electric and Gas) • Telecommunications • Solid Waste • Water • Transportation (Buses, HHG, Ferries) • Safety ( Pipeline and Railroad)

13. ALD Caseload by Industry – 2003 to May 2006

14. ALD Hours Spent by Industry ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006

15. ALD Hours Spent by Industry ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006

16. ALD Caseload by Case Type – 2003 to May 2006

17. ALD Hours Spent by Case Type ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006 1968 1905 1307

18. ALD Hours Spent by Case Type ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006

19. Comparison of UTC Staff Time ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006

20. Comparison of UTC Staff Time in Hours ALD Dockets2003 to May 2006

21. ALD Current Caseload - June 8, 2006 12 Total = 46 Cases

22. ALD PERFORMANCE MEASURES • Timeliness of Issuing Initial Notices of Hearing • Timeliness of Entering Prehearing Conference Orders • Timeliness of Entering Interim Orders • Timeliness of Entering Initial Orders (ALJs) • Timeliness of Entering Final Orders (ALJs & Commissioners) • Overall ALD Timeliness of Managing Cases • Delay in Processing Cases & Continuances

23. ALD Timeliness of Initial Notice of Hearing • Measure: Seven calendar days to issue initial notice of hearing. • Note: Measurement begins when ALD receives the case, e.g., suspension order or case clears the docket. • Strategic goal: Reducing regulatory burden by starting the process quickly, ensuring due process. • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • Average time is 26 calendar days, while the median time is 14 days. • Delay in issuing notices is due, in part, to: - requests by staff or parties for time to discuss settlement; - the need to coordinate schedules; - ALD caseload priorities. • Some reasons for delay are not easily found in RMS docket entries. • Next steps: • ALD now issues notices setting conferences promptly, but will set the date for conferences to allow time for negotiations as the parties request. • ALD has removed some of the delays in assigning cases and issuing notices. • ALD will review data in January 2007 to assess the effectiveness of these changes.

24. ALD Timeliness of Prehearing Conference Orders • Measure: Seven calendar days to enter an order following the prehearing conference. • Strategic goal: Providing reliable, responsive information and process to stakeholders (regulated companies, customers, other parties). • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Next steps: • Improve and streamline data collection process using RMS. • Continue efforts to consistently enter prehearing conference orders promptly after the hearing. • Discussion: • Average time to enter a prehearing conference order is sevencalendar days, while the median is six days. • Issuing the orders promptly provides parties a record of the schedule for the proceeding, other procedural guidelines, and contact information for other parties.

25. ALD Timeliness of Interim Orders • Measure: Seven calendar days to enter procedural orders and 21 calendar days to enter dispositive orders. • Strategic goal: Providing reliable, responsive information and process to stakeholders (regulated companies, customers, other parties). • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • ALD entered 146 procedural orders in 60 cases in an average of six calendar days, and a median time of four days. • ALD entered 104 dispositive orders in 36 cases in an average of 17 calendar days and a median time of 10 days.

26. ALD Timeliness of Initial Orders • Measure: 45-60 calendar days to enter an initial or final order. • Note: Measurement begins after last day of hearing, or last filed brief. • Strategic goal: Providing reliable, responsive information and process to stakeholders (regulated companies, customers, other parties). • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • On average, ALD entered initial orders within 29calendar days and a median time of 21 days, with only three of 26 orders entered over 60 calendar days. • Administrative Procedure Act requires initial and final orders entered within 90 days (RCW 34.05.461(8)(a)). • A prompt and efficient process shows stakeholders the UTC is responsive to the need for efficient resolution of disputes. • Next steps: • Identify areas or activities that consume time in the process through ALD data. • Evaluate reasons for outliers, e.g., workload conflicts, and address causes for exceeding measure. • Work towards consistently entering initial and final orders within 60 calendar days of triggering event.

27. Timeliness of Entering Final Orders • Measure: 45 to 60 calendar days to enter a final order after an initial order. • Note: Measurement begins after answer to petition for review is filed or due. • Strategic goal: Providing reliable, responsive information and process to stakeholders (regulated companies, customers, other parties). • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • On average, ALD worked with the Commissioners to enter a final order within 24 calendar days after the answer was filed or due, in 132 cases. • Five orders of 132 cases were entered in over 90 calendar days, and ten orders were entered over 60 days. • Administrative Procedure Act requires initial and final orders entered within 90 days (RCW 34.05.461(8)(a)). • Next steps: • Work to further streamline process for commissioner review of initial orders. • Continue consistently entering final orders within 60 calendar days of triggering event. • A prompt and efficient process shows stakeholders the UTC is responsive to the need for efficient resolution of disputes.

28. Overall Timeliness of ALD and Delay • Measure: Days from event triggering notice of hearing to final order or order on review, less delay initiated by UTC or parties. (Evaluative measure). • Strategic goal: Assist ALD in measuring overall management of proceedings and responsiveness to stakeholders. • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • On average, ALD works with the Commissioners to enter final orders within 220calendar days, and 197 days after removing delay. • The parties or the UTC initiated delay in 62 of 133 cases, with parties initiating delay in 57 cases and the UTC initiating delay in 16 cases. • Without considering delay, only 17 of 133 cases exceeded one year. Excluding delay days, only 12 of 133 cases exceeded one year. • Next steps: • Work to track Commission, ALD and party initiated delay in the process through RMS and ALD data. • After first request for continuance, evaluate requests for continuances critically to determine if it will cause delay.

29. Continuances in Commission Proceedings • Measure: Comparison of party initiated continuances granted to continuances requested. • Strategic goal: Providing reliable, responsive information and process to stakeholder (regulated companies, customers, other parties). • Data source: UTC Records Management System. • Discussion: • Evaluating continuances and delay will assist in measuring ALD’s responsiveness to parties and caseload management. • Parties usually request delay to engage in settlement discussions or to extend filing deadlines. Many requests to extend deadlines do not affect the overall case schedule. • Delay can be beneficial if it results in settlement. • The Data: • Of 135 requests by parties for continuance in 57 cases, ALD denied five requests. • In cases where parties request delay, the average delay is 55 days. • In 16 of 133 total cases, the Commission ordered continuances due to Commission scheduling conflicts or caseload.

30. As of June 1, 2006 Employee Ev-past Ev-future Ev-trng PD Karen Caille 6/05-6/06 16-Jun 6/04-6/05 Y N Margret Kaech 11/05-11/06 13-Dec 11/04-11/05 Y N Administrative Law HR Report Card 5 total staff Dennis Moss 11/04-11/05 11/05-11/06 10-Nov Y N N Ann Rendahl 10/04-10/05 10/05-10/06 Training Plan 100% 4-Oct Y 1-Oct Y Kippi Walker 10/04-10/05 10/05-10/06 Future Goals 100% Y 1 PDs Evaluations 5 ALD Staff 5 Ev-past 5 Ev-future 4 Evals-trng 100% Completed New Position 20% Descriptions Measure: ALD Staff Evaluations • Measure: Status of ALD staff evaluations. • Strategic goal: 100% of evaluations completed on time • Data source: Human Resources. Discussion: 100 % of evaluations, training goals and future goals completed on time. Next Steps: Work to finalize position descriptions and training plans.

31. NEW RULEMAKING PROCESS • UTC started the Rulemaking Process Improvement Project in 2005 • to improve the rulemaking process. • Key Facts: - Possible to complete rulemakings in 1 year. • - Approximately 5 FTE per year spent on rulemakings. • - Long delays between events (e.g., CR-101 and CR-102). • Key Findings: - Leadership, project scope are key elements to success. • - Measuring and reporting progress keeps project on track. • - Stakeholders want more “two-way” dialogue about rules. • - Practice of presenting rulemakings at open meetings no • longer useful.

32. NEW RULEMAKING PROCESS • RECOMMENDATIONS • Plan and scope rulemaking projects for completion in 1 year • Report on progress monthly (SMT reports) • Core competencies for team leads and smaller teams • Summarize and respond to stakeholder comments • Explain reasons for changes in rule drafts • Replace open meeting process with rules meetings • Involve Commissioners in process and to resolve issues

33. RULEMAKING PERFORMANCE MEASURES • Complete rulemaking within 1 year • (Service of CR-101 notice to entering adoption order) • Allow time for comments on CR-101, CR-102, SBEIS notices • (At least 30 days from service of notice) • Keep rulemaking on track • (No more than 60 days between major events)

34. RULEMAKING PERFORMANCE RESULTS • 17 rulemakings started since January 2005. • 10 of 17 are complete – all within 1 year. • The seven open rulemakings will likely conclude in 1 year. • UTC allowed over 30 days for comments after notices in 15 of 29 instances. • UTC allowed more than 60 days to elapse between major events in 4 of 17 cases.

35. RULEMAKING PERFORMANCE

36. BREAKDOWN OF TIME • SPENT ON RULEMAKING 2005

37. THANK YOU • to • Jeffrey Showman • Kippi Walker • Margret Kaech • Karen Caillé • Chris Rose • Gene Eckhardt • Jody Flynn