D. Application of the Facts

1. Operations from August 1 to September 21, 1999

Defendant stipulates that its operations from August 1 through September 21, 1999, a total of 52 days, were the same as prior to August 1, 1999. (Tr. 207.) Defendant also admits that its actions were in violation of D.99-02-068. (OB, p. 2.)

2. Movement from Hotel La Rose to Fifth and Davis

Express contests categorizing this movement as violative of D.99-02-068 (OB, p. 2), though it admits it is a "close question." (OB, p. 6.) Prior to the move Defendant's Hotel La Rose stop was on Fifth Street at Wilson Street. The move to Fifth and Davis Streets was actually a slide of only 200 feet from Fifth and Wilson Street to the middle of the block bordered by Wilson and Davis Streets. Express did change the former sign appended to Hotel La Rose, did abandon the former stop along side of Hotel La Rose, and did move 200 feet east to the stop from which it operated until November 17, 1999. Express also made several attempts to file the proper documents with the Commission to make this new location a part of the official Commission records. (Exh. 3.) There is no evidence that the Commission Staff ever took issue with the new location. In its opening brief Defendant correctly asserts that the only complaint about the new location is by Complainant Airporter. (OB, pp. 6-7.)

The Staff person responsible for the file in question did not know the relationship of the Fifth and Davis Streets stop to the prior location. He testified that had he known he would not have approved the new location. (Tr. 108, 113.)

Attempting to justify its position Defendant argues that the Commission decision ordering cessation of service to Hotel La Rose could have been "...broader, or more finely worded, or even more carefully worded." (OB, p. 17.) It further notes that Staff did not inquire as to the relationship between the two locations, and rhetorically asks how far the move would have to have been.

Undoubtedly our decision could have been written differently. However, we took into consideration that the stipulations signed by Defendant related to a dispute regarding service at Hotel La Rose. The signatories to those stipulations agreed that there would be no service there by Express after July 31, 1999. The only difference between the wording of the stipulations and the Commission's decision cited by Express was use of the word "to," rather than "at." Any claim that it was confused or misled by our decision is not credible, since its first stipulation shows that it operated "to and from" Hotel La Rose after July 31, 1999. Similarly, we are not convinced that Express really believed it complied with our decision when it shifted to what it terms Fifth and Davis Streets. We note that the sign announcing the relocation to 601 Mendocino Avenue effective 11-17-99 was posted at the original location at Hotel La Rose, as well as at the Fifth and Davis stop. (Exh. 1, Tr. 292.) The manager of Hotel La Rose told a staff investigator that the last day of picking up passengers at the hotel was November 16, 1999. (Tr. 147.)

The tariffs and timetables of Express on file with the Commission prior to July 31, 1999 indicated a stop at Hotel La Rose, without a street address. The new filings showed Fifth and Davis Streets as the intended stop, which would seem to indicate a corner location. Nothing within the documents would have alerted the Staff person considering these documents that the proposed stop was in the middle of the same block as Defendant's previous stop. We do not expect our staff to plot every street and address location in every community in this state on a map. Rather, we rely on the integrity of the carriers not to create a false impression, either by omission or commission. (Rule 1.) It seems that such reliance was misplaced here.

Under these circumstances an argument that our decision was somehow unclear is unworthy of consideration. Moreover, it gives us pause regarding any statements by Defendant.

We do not believe that the move to Fifth and Davis Streets complied with the letter or the spirit of D.99-02-068 and the stipulations on which that decision was based. Whether the new location was 100 feet, 200 feet, or 300 feet away does not really control. Passengers would go to the same immediate area for the service they had previously obtained. When the stipulations signed by Express, City and Airporter were presented to the Commission we contemplated good faith compliance. Looking at the pictures in Exhibits 2 and 6 and the testimony surrounding this move we believe that no real change was accomplished. Indeed, it appears to us that this "move" and the related tariff filings were a subterfuge to give the appearance of complying with our order without effecting any real change. We have no hesitation in declaring that D.99-02-068 was not followed for the 56 days between September 22 and November 16, 1999, the dates in which Express stipulated it operated from Fifth and Davis Streets.

Express suggests that less weight be given to the allegations in this complaint because they were brought to our attention by a competitor. (OB, p. 12.) We can and do rely on information given to us by competing carriers, as well as other sources. When this information is confirmed, as in this instance, there is no reason it should be devalued.

3. Free Taxicab Link to Express' Terminal

Defendant maintains that providing free taxi service from various hotels to its newest terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue in Santa Rosa is not a violation of Commission authority. It also asserts that this Commission has no jurisdiction over the taxi company. Complainant agrees, except in so far as the link includes Hotel La Rose, to which service was specifically prohibited by D.99-02-068 after July 31, 1999. (We note the evidence of witness Vrankovecci that Airporter had offered free taxi service at one time. (Tr. 307.))

The taxi rides provided by defendant are promotions. They give visitors staying in local hotels free transportation to defendants terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue. The POD incorrectly concluded that cases interpreting Public Utilities Code Section 226, subdivision (a)'s definition of a passenger stage corporation converts the provision of promotional taxi rides in this instance into passenger stage service such that we must treat the local taxi company as if it were a subdivision of Defendant. (E.g., Re Passenger Charter Party Act (1963) 60 Cal.P.U.C.2d 581, Van Loben Sels v. B.J. Smith (1950) 49 Cal. P.U.C.2d 290). As a result the POD concluded that the carriage of passengers by the local taxi was carriage attributable to Defendant.

This is not the case. Those cases contain a very specific holding: when an unregulated entity, such as a shopping mall or a skating rink offers free transportation to induce customers, it cannot escape the Commission's jurisdiction by providing that service for free. Here, transportation is being provided by local taxi. The service is not free-it is paid for by Defendant as a promotion of its business. There is no question that those taxis are subject to local, not Commission regulation and no entity is claiming that the taxi service is free of regulation merely because the Defendant pays for its passengers to ride in local taxis. Thus these cases are inapposite.

Even if there were a jurisdictional question it would be whether the taxi company has subjected itself to Commission regulation. However, these companies are not parties to this proceeding, and have had no notice of this question. There is also a question about whether this practice amounts to an impermissible discount of Defendants rates, but again we believe lack of notice prevents us from reaching this issue. The question in this proceeding is whether by including the Hotel La Rose in its promotion defendant has violated D.99-02-068. We conclude it has not, because it provides taxi service to a number of hotels on an equal basis. We do not believe that a general, area-wide promotion contravenes D99-02-068, regardless of other problems that might exist.

4. Affirmative Defenses

Express lists several affirmative defenses in its Answer and Amended Answer. It asserts that Complainant Airporter has unclean hands, in that it was deliberately deceitful to Express. This is more in the area of mitigation, which we shall consider shortly.

The assertion that there is another proceeding on this subject matter pending before the Commission is no longer valid. Defendant has since asked that its petition for modification of D.99-02-068 be dismissed.

Express asserted that D.99-02-068 prohibited service after July 31, 1999 only to the Hotel La Rose not from the Hotel La Rose. No evidence was offered by Express to support this defense. Express has since stipulated that it conducted operations both to and from Hotel La Rose, so we need no longer consider this affirmative defense.

Express claims that this complaint is an effort to manipulate the Commission for competitive purposes. For whatever reason the complaint was brought, the facts and the stipulation show that violations of D.99-02-068 did occur. We will not dismiss this matter as mere manipulation by Complainant.

Lastly, Express asserts that there is a violation of Rule 2.1(b) of the Commission's Rules, in that it combines a complaint, a request for monetary sanctions, and a request for suspension of authority. We do not agree that these should be contained in separate documents to comply with Rule 2.1(b). A complaint should include the "exact relief which is desired." (Rule 10.) Inclusion of the requested sanctions (monetary penalty and suspension) in the complaint was entirely appropriate.

5. Mitigation

While admitting to violations of D.99-02-068 Express argues that there were mitigating factors. These will now be considered in the order suggested in Express' Brief of January 19, 2000.

a. There were no reports of safety issues raised regarding the unauthorized continued service at Hotel La Rose.

We agree. However, this merely states that during the time that it was operating at Hotel La Rose in violation of the Commission order Express conducted the safe operations that we expect of every carrier.

b. There have been no complaints from the traveling public with respect to the unauthorized service at Hotel La Rose and the subsequent service at Fifth and Davis Streets.

Again we agree. Express provided satisfactory service to an unauthorized location. Express then goes on to assert that the only complaint was from a competitor who "squatted" at Express' established stop at the Santa Rosa Airport. This is not mitigation. The fact that a competitor brought the complaint, no matter if or where he "squatted," does not make the violation of a Commission order less egregious. It does not make a move to an adjoining location under the guise of a new address less deceptive.

c. Public convenience was never affected.

If Defendant is referring to the convenience of the riders, it is true that they were not inconvenienced, since Defendant unlawfully continued identical operations until September 22, 1999. After that time the customers who approached the stop from Wilson Street walked an extra 200 feet. The passengers approaching from Davis Street walked 200 feet less. If Defendant is referring to convenience as established by the Public Utilities Commission exercising its statutory obligation to regulate passenger stage corporations, this was a clear violation or our orders and thus the public convenience was affected.

Express states that it expected some "modest" relief from the order that it cease service at Hotel La Rose. It neglects mentioning the relief that it already obtained. Express was operating without authority at the time D.99-02-068 was issued. Excusing an existing unlawful operation and permitting it to extend from February through July is more than "modest" relief. Express' arguments that it underestimated the difficulty in locating a new stop is Express' problem, not ours. Lack of assistance from City, another argument offered by Express, does not impress us. One files with a permitting authority (as with this Commission) without any guarantee of success.

Again, Defendant tries to minimize the seriousness of its actions by pointing to what it characterizes as worse practices of Complainant. Without ruling on any lapse by Airporter, we remind Express that we are not here to bring airport shuttle service to its lowest common denominator.

d. There were no complaints from the City of Santa Rosa concerning continued service at Hotel La Rose after July 31, 1999.

Defendant asks us to infer that City would have taken part in this controversy if it were unhappy with the continuing violation of D.99-02-068. One could just as easily infer that City expected the Commission to enforce its own order, and thus there was no need to expend City taxpayer dollars. We do not say this is the reason that City did not participate-merely that this is an equally valid inference. We choose not to speculate.

e. Express has had a clean record with the Public Utilities Commission for almost twenty years.

We congratulate Express on this record. We are disappointed that it spoiled that record with the initial unauthorized operation at Hotel La Rose in 1998 and its unseemly conduct since that time.

f. Express never intended to stay at the Hotel La Rose beyond July 31, 1999, but was the victim of unfortunate circumstances.

Defendant cites the fact that City lost its first application for a Use Permit on property it proposed to buy. On reapplication City notified Express that the permit would not be granted. This was certainly a setback. The search for a new location was complicated by the stipulation with City not to use curbside locations without City's approval, though Defendant's general manager stated Express never obtained City's approval for the Fifth and Davis Streets stop. (Tr. 296.) (Express states that this same condition was not enforced by City against Airporter. Since there was no stipulation between Airporter and City against such use, we are at a loss to determine what to do with this unsupported information.) Express further states that City has not extended much willingness to help Express provide transportation. (OB, p. 9.) How this circumstance provides mitigation is not clear, since we do not know of any duty on the part of City to help Defendant or any other carrier to meet its obligations to this Commission.

Defendant also reminds us that when it realized it would have trouble obtaining another location by July 31, 1999, it contacted the Commission Staff, and formally applied for interim relief (by Petition for Modification) to continue operating at Hotel La Rose in May, 1999. It asserts that not until two days before the deadline did it learn that interim relief was unlikely. When interim relief was sought in May 1999, the parties to D.99-02-068 were entitled to 30 days to file a response to that petition. (Rule 47(f).) Two protests were filed, and a hearing in this contentious matter was required. Since only the Commission can modify a Commission order (Pub. Util. Code § 1708; Rule 47(h)), it is not reasonable to expect modification to be generated within the short time frame available. Rule 47(i) is clear in proclaiming that a petition for modification does not stay or excuse compliance with provisions of a decision. Thus, the contact with Commission Staff and filing of a petition for modification does not excuse failure to comply with a Commission order. These actions can be considered to show that Defendant was attempting to keep the Commission alerted to an impending problem.

We acknowledge the pressure that was facing Express. We do not sympathize with its reaction to that pressure, which was to continue unauthorized operations as if there were no requirement to cease, and then move 200 feet down the same block and file misleading tariffs and pretend this was compliance with D.99-02-068.

We have previously considered arguments of Defendant that might mitigate any imposition of penalty. We must now consider an item from the record that might be considered as aggravating Defendant's misconduct.

We have already alluded to the shift from Hotel La Rose to what Defendant informed the Commission was Fifth and Davis Streets. Pictures in Exhibit 2 show that the actual bus stop is in the middle of the block, not the corner. Documents filed with the Commission contain the following statement,

No indication is given that the move is in the same block, and only 200 feet away. No indication is given that the stop is not on the corner of Fifth and Davis Streets, rather than in the middle of the block. When combined with the quoted statement we believe that there has been a conscious effort to deceive the Commission.

6. Penalty

We must now discuss what penalty is appropriate in this case. In so doing we hearken to D.99-02-068. After stating that Defendant had been operating outside the scope of its certificate and filed tariff from the time it began service at Hotel La Rose we stated:

With these words in mind we shall consider a situation where there is an admitted violation of our order from August 1, 1999 through September 21, 1999, sham compliance from September 22, 1999 until November 16, 1999, and sponsorship of free taxi service as a bridge from Hotel La Rose and other hotels in Santa Rosa to its new terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue in Santa Rosa. This service was continuing on December 10, 1999, the last date of evidentiary hearings.

In its Opening Brief Defendant urges us not to order a suspension or revocation of its operating authority. (Pp. 11-14.) There is no evidence that the public could continue to be adequately served if Defendant's operations were suspended or revoked. Therefore, we will not put the public service at risk. However, there is no doubt that a financial penalty is appropriate for the unlawful operation that has been performed by Defendant. According to Public Utilities Code Section 2107, each violation of a Commission order subjects the violator to a penalty of no less than $500 and no more than $20,000. Section 2108 makes each day of a continuing violation a separate offense.

In arriving at the appropriate penalty we are guided by the principles set forth in D.98-12-075. The first consideration is the severity of the offense. There was a continuing deliberate violation of the Commission's order in D.99-02-068, as well as the agreement made between Defendant and Airporter and City. This was combined with deception. It ended at the convenience of Express, not because of some obligation it felt to comply with our order.

In addition, the utility did nothing to prevent the violations. Indeed, both the company owner and its general manager were aware of the need to stop service at Hotel La Rose by a date certain. Neither the utility nor its officers did so, even though warned in D.99-02-068 of the serious consequences that could befall it should it engage in future unauthorized operations. In fact, Express made a conscious decision to simply ignore the decision.

When Express encountered difficulties in obtaining location that would allow it to cease service at the hotel, it requested modification of D.99-02-068 to extend its operations at Hotel La Rose. Express did not obtain the requested relief within the time it wanted, and in the words of its general manager, ". . . we opted to stay put and not leave the Hotel La Rose." (Tr. 287.) Then it made a short move that would barely be recognized by the public and filed with the Commission as if this were compliance.

Finally we must consider the proportionate effect of the penalty given the financial resources of Defendant. The financial statement of Express is not in the record. We are aware that this is not a major, publicly held utility. Its owner testified that it had 63 employees, and that 50 were on full-time. (Tr. 163.) Thus, we believe that an appropriate penalty for the period from August 1, 1999 through September 21, 1999 is $500 per day, for a total of $26,000. This is the minimum fine, and is appropriate for a smaller company. We further believe the appropriate penalty for the sham move to and operation from "Fifth and Davis Streets" for 56 days is $500 per day for a total of $28,000. In discussing the record in this matter we have not mentioned many other problems that were raised. These include possible violation of D.99-02-068 for operations within one-half mile of a stop of Airporter and operations without the proper documentation on file with this Commission and the numerous rate and other regulatory issues connected with free taxi service. Parties should not interpret this lack of discussion as approval of Express' actions. We have focused on the clear-cut problems with Defendant's Hotel La Rose operations.

Although we fine defendant the minimum amount, the penalties imposed by this decision are substantial. Under the circumstances we shall permit Defendant to make payments on a monthly installment over three years. Monthly payments are to be made payable to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and received by the Executive Director on the first of each successive month commencing with the first month after the effective date of this decision.

7. Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision (POD)

Express filed a timely appeal to the POD. Matters raised in this appeal will now be considered.

Defendant points to the incorrect advice it received from the Staff in 1997 pertaining to its operating authority. Express was aware that there was a problem with this advice in July 1998. (Tr. 294.) This was affirmed in February 1999, when the Commission stated, "Lest there be any doubt, that opinion was and is wrong." (D.99-02-068, p. 4.) The Commission allowed Express to continue its unauthorized service until the end of July 1999, when it agreed with City and Airport to discontinue the service. The Staff advice has already been considered in D.99-02-068, which granted defendants reprieve and is not a proper grounds to changing this order.

Express " . . . remains troubled by the apparently unwillingness of the Commission to make any effort whatsoever to provide even temporary relief . . . " (Appeal p. 6.) This conveniently overlooks the five and one-half months' relief obtained by Express by D.99-02-068. Defendant finds it "vexing" that the ALJ did not acknowledge that the Commission has the power to take appropriate action with regard to a petition for modification. (Appeal p. 6.) Refusal to grant a petition for modification can be an appropriate action. Disagreement with Defendant on the proper course of action may be vexing or troubling, but has not been shown to be erroneous.

Express complains that the POD accepts hearsay testimony from a staff investigator concerning a statement of the manager of Hotel La Rose. (Appeal pp. 13-14.) Rule 64 indicates that technical rules of evidence need not be applied so long as the substantial rights of the parties are preserved. Hearsay evidence is accepted in Commission proceedings when supported by other evidence or when a responsible person would rely on it in the conduct of serious affairs. (Landmark Communications, Inc., D.99-01-029, pp. 4-5.) The statement of the manager that service to his hotel ceased on November 16, 1999 is reliable. The manager can be assumed to know of services available to his hotel. What is more, it is corroborated by the sign posted by Defendant and described on page 3 of this decision. No error has been committed.

The effect of this testimony is not to show there was no change of location, but that the change was inconsequential. Thus there was no compliance by Express with D.99-02-068, as stated in Conclusion of Law 2.

Defendant asserts that the POD is in error when it states that the sign referred to in the preceding paragraph was affixed to Hotel La Rose and not the 5th and Davis stop. The record shows that it was placed at both locations. (Tr. 292.) We have adopted this correction.

Defendant points to the POD determination, based on Exhibit 16, that there were 15 instances of use of a taxi to bring passengers to Express' new terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue. The POD assesses a penalty of $500 for each of these rides. While not arguing that any of these instances of free transportation were legal, Defendant correctly indicates that only six rides were from or to Hotel La Rose. (Tr. 215.) However, we do not reach this issue because we conclude that no violation resulted from the free taxi promotion.

Defendant takes three principal issues with the POD with regard to fines.

1) Deterrence

Defendant assures us that a fine is not needed to deter Express from further violations, since it now has its terminal. Fines imposed on a utility for disregarding Commission orders also work as a deterrence to other utilities that might otherwise contemplate improper courses of action. In this decision, we find the utility the statutory minimum and see no basis to reduce the fine further.

2) Financial resources

Express asserts that the lack of financial information in the record has led the Commission to impose a penalty that is more than a Defendant can afford. This decision determines that Express should only be fined the statutory minimum, based on the fact it is not a large operation.

3) Comparative penalties

Defendant presents several instances where the Commission has taken lesser action against utilities. For instance, it describes Prime Time Shuttle International, Inc. (1996) D.96-08-034, 67 CPUC2d 437, wherein a carrier received a fine of $100,000, but was told that if it complied with the terms of the order up to 50% of the fine could be waived. Defendant failed to note that D.96-08-034 was reissued by D.96-08-044. All references to waiver of any of the $100,000 fine were deleted by this corrected decision. Rehearing was denied. (D.96-10-077, 69 CPUC2d 76.) Other matters mentioned by Defendant do not involve a direct violation of a specific Commission order and various attempts to disguise that violation.

In any event, The penalty this decision imposes takes into consideration the size of the company and is well within the statutory right of the Commission. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2107 the Commission may impose a penalty of between $500 and $20,000 for each offense. This decision imposes the minimum set forth in Section 2107. This decision also allows Defendant to pay this fine in monthly installments.

8. Response to Appeal and Changes from Proposed Decision

Complainant Airporter filed a timely response to Defendant's appeal and its motion to set aside submission. Complainant points to statements in the motion that the evidence which Defendant now wishes to present was not offered because Defendant thought there was already sufficient evidence on those points. Complainant asserts that since the material was available, it should have been timely offered. We agree that the material need not be submitted. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2 the Commission must provide a statement explaining changes from the proposed decision. In this case our Decision changes the finding of the proposed decision regarding the severity of the fine that should be imposed for continuing service at the Hotel La Rose between August 1, 1999 and September 21, 1999. Our decision also concludes that legal authority does not support the conclusion that promotional taxi rides amount to service that contravenes D.99-02-068. These conclusions were reached after review of the record and Defendant's appeal, and reflect the fact that we have a different view of the legal and other principles that are to be applied to the facts of this case from that of the Presiding Officer. We note that our reasoning is explained in the body of this decision.

Findings of Fact

1. Complainant is a passenger stages corporation operating an airport shuttle between Santa Rosa and SFO.

2. Defendant is a passenger stage corporation operating in direct competition with Complainant.

3. Under the terms of stipulations between Complainant and Defendant and between City and Defendant, adopted by the Commission in D.99-02-068, Defendant was permitted to operate at Hotel La Rose through July 31, 1999.

4. Defendant continued to provide this same service at Hotel La Rose through September 21, 1999, 52 days after it was required to cease.

5. The record does not disclose any formal request by Defendant to either Complainant or City to amend the stipulations that formed the basis of D.99-02-068.

6. Defendant moved from its location at Hotel La Rose to what it termed Fifth and Davis Streets on September 22, 1999.

7. The Fifth and Davis Streets location was only 200 feet east of the Hotel La Rose location.

8. The Fifth and Davis Streets location was in the middle of the block and on the same side of the street as the prior location at Hotel La Rose.

9. Defendant attempted to file tariffs and timetables showing the Fifth and Davis Street location.

10. These tariffs indicated that the move was in compliance with a Commission decision.

11. No indication was given to the Commission that the move was merely 200 feet down the same street at which Defendant had previously had its stop.

12. The Staff person in charge of reviewing the filing testified that he would not have approved a filing had he known that the location of the proposed stop.

13. Defendant continued serving at Fifth and Davis Streets through November 16, 1999. This totals 56 days of operation at this location.

14. Commencing November 17, 1999, Defendant moved its operations to 601 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa.

15. Commencing November 17, 1999, Defendant began a radio promotion advertising free taxi rides from Hotel La Rose and other hotels in Santa Rosa to Defendant's new terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue.

16. In mitigation, before 1998 Defendant operated for many years with a clean record at the Commission.

Conclusions of Law

1. From August 1, 1999, through September 16, 1999, Defendant admittedly violated the provisions of D.99-02-068 and the stipulations with Complainant and City that formed the basis of that decision by continuing identical service at Hotel La Rose. This violation lasted for 52 days.

2. Defendant's move to what it called Fifth and Davis Streets did not comply with the order of D.99-02-068.

3. Defendant attempted to disguise its move from the Commission by claiming it was made to comply with the Commission's orders.

4. The Commission requires that carriers will not attempt to deceive the Commission, either by outright false statements or by half-truths.

5. Defendant continued to operate at what it terms Fifth and Davis Streets for 56 days.

6. Defendant's move to 601 Mendocino Avenue did comply with D.99-02-068.

7. Defendant's promotional action of offering free taxi rides from various hotels, including Hotel La Rose, to its new terminal at 601 Mendocino Avenue did not amount to service that contravened D.99-02-068.

8. Commission decisions holding that free passenger stage service is regulated by the Commission when the party providing the service receives a benefit are designed to ensure that passenger carriers do not escape regulation. Here, passengers are carried by a regulated passenger stage corporation and local taxi service and there appears to be no basis to invoke these provisions.

9. Even if those provisions were invoked, they would apply to the taxi companies who are not parties to this proceeding and had no notice of these claims.

10. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 2107 and 2108 we conclude that Defendant should be penalized in the amount of $500 for each day it violated the Commission order in D.99-02-068 by remaining at Hotel La Rose. This penalty totals $26,000.

11. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 2107 and 2108 we conclude that Defendant should be penalized in the amount of $500 for each day it operated from what it refers to as Fifth and Davis Streets. This penalty totals $28,000.

12. In light of ongoing violations by Defendant as of the date of the close of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, today's decision should take effect immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Sonoma County Airport Express (Defendant) is penalized in the amount of $54,000 for violations of the orders of this Commission and its attempts to disguise these actions from the Commission.


2. Thereafter, Defendant shall make monthly payments to the Commission of $1,500 on the first day of each month or a period of 36 months.

3. Payment shall be sent to the Executive Director of the Commission and made payable to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.

4. Defendant's motion to set aside submission is denied.

5. This proceeding is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated July 20, 2000 , at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page