The Petitioners request the Commission create a penalty for violation of the standards of conduct. They argue that as long as a utility adopts and enforces the standards of conduct, it and its affiliated marketers should be permitted to market energy services in competition with other suppliers in the utility’s service territory. If the utility or the affiliate is found by the Commission to have failed to comply with the standards, the Petitioners argue that the penalty should be that the marketing affiliate is thereafter prohibited from marketing in the utility’s service territory. DGS/UC/CSU agrees that special penalties for violations of the standards should be established. However, it argues that less severe penalties should also be available to ensure less severe infractions are appropriately addressed.
PG&E argues that the proposed "one strike, you’re out" penalty is extreme, inequitable, and arguably beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction to impose. While arguing that the specific penalty proposed by Petitioners is not within the power of the Commission, Vantus recognizes that the Commission must have the discretion to remedy noncompliance with its rules and policies. SDG&E points out that the Public Utilities (PU) Code already provides for monetary penalties for violation of Commission orders (' 2107) and for prohibited transactions with an affiliated company (' 798). [ PU Code ' 798 applies only to payments to or received from subsidiaries and affiliates.]
Since we have penalty authority in place and we want standards of conduct ready for implementation no later than January 1, 1998, we will not include penalty
provisions specific to violations of the standards of conduct in the utility/affiliate standards rulemaking.