Edison also proposes that the rules be amended to provide for an amnesty period for one year after the effective date of the rules during which the only remedy that could be applied in response to a violation of the rules would be injunctive relief. PG&E would expand the amnesty period to two years. PG&E argues, "The utilities will require some time under these detailed rules to calibrate permitted and prohibited conduct. The constant and hairtrigger resort to adjudicatory proceedings by the [Joint Coalition] and TURN is a drain on resources that could better be put to use resolving problems and competing in the marketplace." SDG&E/SoCalGas state that an amnesty period is only necessary if the Commission were to adopt unreasonable enforcement rules, something which, of course, we will not do.
Several parties oppose providing an amnesty period. Dynergy argues that, if anything, higher penalties should apply during the early years. ORA asserts that to provide an amnesty period would make a mockery of the affiliate transaction rules. The Joint Coalition pleads that the rules must be effective throughout the development of competitive markets.
We have the benefit of responding to this request after the rules have been in effect for more than nine months. Because of the passage of time, the notion of a one-year amnesty period is moot and a longer period appears unnecessary. During the time that the new rules have been in effect, the Commission has not experienced a rush of formal complaints. Moreover, we are concerned that during the transition to a competitive market, many critical affiliate transactions may occur. It would be particularly inappropriate to relax enforcement of the rules during this period. Therefore, we will not adopt an amnesty proposal.
