The question raised here is whether we should empower our compliance or enforcement staff to issue citations for some types of violations, with specific penalties attached. ORA generally supports the idea, but suggests that the Commission should learn more about the way that the utilities are acting pursuant to the affiliate transaction rules before determining which rules could be enforced in a ministerial manner. PG&E and the Southern California Edison Company (Edison) see merit in developing such a mechanism, while emphasizing that normal due process protections must apply, such as the right to appeal the issuance of a citation. QST Energy Inc. and the Energy Users Forum2 (QST/Energy Users) conceptually endorse traffic tickets as a useful enforcement tool, but point out that such a procedure will not be effective unless it represents only the first step in a discipline process that progressively penalizes further or continuing violations of the rules. The Joint Petitioners Coalition emphasizes that if the Commission were to adopt such a procedure, it should limit its use to violations, such as failure to file a report on time, the discovery of which is a ministerial process.
We are persuaded that a "traffic ticket" or ministerial citation process may be useful if the Commission faces a need to respond to offenses such as the failure to meet certain filing deadlines. However, we agree with ORA that we would benefit from observing the behavior of parties in compliance with the affiliate transaction rules before identifying appropriate infractions to be subject to such a procedure and the fines that should apply. Thus, we will not adopt a "traffic ticket"-style procedure at this time.
2 Energy Users Forum describes itself as an informal, ad hoc group currently consisting of Hewlett Packard, Mervyn's California, Target Stores and TRW, Inc.
