Constitutional limitations on excessive fines: The Commission will adjust the size of fines to achieve the objective of deterrence, without becoming excessive, based on each utility's financial resources.
Based on AGS' financial statements, filed under seal in this proceeding, we believe that AGS can afford to pay a moderate fine.
We will weigh these factors accordingly when setting the amount of
the fine.
Criterion 4: Totality of the Circumstances
In D.98-12-075, the Commission held that a fine should be tailored to the unique facts of each case. When assessing the unique facts of each case, the Commission stated that it would consider the following factors:19
The degree of wrongdoing: The Commission will review facts that tend to mitigate the degree of wrongdoing as well as facts that exacerbate the wrongdoing.
The public interest: In all cases, the harm will be evaluated from the perspective of the public interest.
The facts of this case indicate that the degree of wrongdoing, though not egregious, was sufficiently serious to warrant a fine. AGS was aware of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and was responsible for filing this report. AGS has stated no valid reason that would excuse its delay in filing the status report. AGS' failure to file the report on time resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of CPSD's resources, which could have been spent on other issues affecting consumers and the public interest. In mitigation, AGS admitted the violation, promptly filed the report after CPSD's request, and, since all of AGS' carrier-customers listed in the second report were certificated, no consumers which receive service from these carrier-customers were harmed by Applicants' failure to file the report on time. These same facts also indicate that the public interest was not significantly harmed by AGS' late filing of the report.
Criterion 5: The Role of Precedent
In D.98-12-075, the Commission held that any decision which imposes a fine should 1) address previous decisions that involve reasonably comparable factual circumstances, and 2) explain any substantial differences in outcome.20 The parties have not cited to any analogous factual situations in prior Commission decisions imposing penalties.
We conclude based on the facts of this case that AGS should be fined $2,500 based on its failure to file the second status report until after CPSD protested this application and filed a data request. The fine we impose today is meant to deter future violations by AGS and other parties. We emphasize that the size of the fine we impose today is tailored to the unique facts and circumstances before us in this proceeding. We may impose larger fines in other proceedings if the facts so warrant.
19 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1016, *76.
20 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1016, *77.
