V. Implications of Disclaimer Modification on PG&E Penalty
In D.98-11-026, rehearing denied in D.99-03-025, the Commission assessed a $1,680,000 penalty against PG&E for allowing its affiliate, PG&E Energy Services, to issue a printed advertisement that did not comply with the legibility requirements for disclaimers as set forth in Rule V.F.1. Although the advertisement in question contained the entire text of the required disclaimer, it was not plainly legible as required by the Rules.2 This penalty consists of $17,500 for each of the 20 violations associated with the March 16, 1998 "High Voltage" advertisement and $19,000 for each of the 70 violations associated with the remaining advertisements. (PG&E ran the same advertisement in various publications at various times.) At the time PG&E ran the advertisements and the Commission assessed this penalty, the Commission had not revised the disclaimer requirement for SDG&E and SoCalGas.
After the Commission issued D.99-09-033 modifying the disclaimer as to SDG&E and SoCalGas, the Commission issued D.99-09-074. This decision reopened the instant rulemaking/investigation to consider the possible implications that D.99-09-033 may have on the PG&E penalty issues, ordered briefing, and stayed D.98-11-026 and D.99-03-025 pending the outcome of the reopening of the PG&E penalty proceeding.3
2 We found PG&E violated Rule V.F.1 in D.98-04-029, and requested further information before we assessed the penalty in D.98-11-026. In D.98-04-029, we also gave further guidance on what is "clearly legible" under Rule V.F.1. 3 PG&E filed a petition for writ of review of D.98-11-026 and D.99-03-025 in the California Supreme Court. PG&E simultaneously filed a petition for writ of review before the California Court of Appeal, essentially raising the same claims in both petitions. On June 9, 1999, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling denying the Commission's motion to dismiss PG&E's petition for writ of review. It also denied the Commission's request that the Court consider the merits of PG&E's petition in light of the Commission's answer before the California Supreme Court, and ordered briefing in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 58(b). Neither the California Court of Appeal nor the California Supreme Court had acted on PG&E's petitions as of the issuance of D.99-09-074, and they were subsequently dismissed without prejudice in light of our reopening this proceeding.
