COM/SK1/ham
MAILED 05/04/2004
Decision 04-04-065 April 22, 2004
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Investigation Into Southern California Edison Company's Electric Line Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Practices. Southern California Edison Company, Respondent. |
Investigation 01-08-029 (Filed August 23, 2001) |
(See Appendix A for Appearances.)
OPINION FINDING VIOLATIONS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
I. Summary.................................................................................... 2
II. The Order Instituting Investigation (OII).......................................... 3
III. Underlying Policy Dispute Between the Parties.............................. 4
IV. Summary of Parties'Positions.......................................................4
A. CPSD 4
B. Edison 5
V. Procedural Background..................................................................7
VI. The General Orders.......................................................................8
A. GO95 8
B. GO 128 9
C. GO 165 9
VII. Edison is Required to Comply with Commission GOs; the Commission has Inherent Power to Give a Utility Notice of a Violation and an Opportunity to Cure it Before Imposing Fines................................. 10
VIII. The Role of a Maintenance Priority System in This Investigation....19
IX. High Voltage Signs.................................................................. 22
X. Edison's Defenses........................................................................ 24
A. Nondelegable Duty 24
B. Employees' Violation of GOs 26
C. GO 165 Does not Shield Edison from GO 95 or 128 Violations 27
D. Inspection Intervals 28
E. Subjectivity of CPSD Inspectors 29
F. Former CPSD Staff's Interpretation of the GOs 30
G. Achievable Standards 31
H. GO Violations 32
I. Violations of GO 165 32
1. Identification of Unsafe Conditions 32
2. Period Between Inspections 34
3. Scheduling and Performing Corrective Action 34
J. Alleged Rule 1 Violations 35
XII. Sanctions................................................................................... 38
A. Summary 38
B. CPSD's Recommendations 39
C. Edison's Response 39
D. Discussion 40
1. Severity of the Offense 40
2. The Utility's Actions to Prevent, Detect, and Disclose and Remedy a Viol. 41
3. Need for Deterrence 42
4. Totality of the Circumstances in Furtherance of the Public Interest 42
5. The Role of Precedent 43
6. Constitutional Limitations on Excessive Fines 44
7. Penalty 44
XIII. Appeal of Presiding Officer's Decision.......................................44
A. Summary of the Appeals 45
B. Discussion 48
1. Jurisdiction 48
2. The Term "Violation" 48
3. New Construction Standards 50
4. Edison's Maintenance Priority System 51
5. Litigation Risk 53
6. GO 165 Inspection Intervals 54
7. Penalties 54
8. Due Process 57
9. Rulemaking 57
XIV. Comments on the Proposed Decision..............................................58
XV. Assignment of Proceeding............................................................61
Appendix A
Appendix B
OPINION FINDING VIOLATIONS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS
I. Summary
In this investigation, the Commission examined Southern California Edison Company (Edison) electric line construction, operation, and maintenance practices during 1998 through 2000. This decision fines Edison a total of $656,000 primarily for 30 violations of the Commission's General Order (GO) 95 and GO 128 specifying the requirements for the construction, operation, and maintenance of overhead and underground utility systems. The decision fines Edison $20,000 for each of these violations. In each of these cases, we conclude that Edison either knew or should have known of the violation and failed to cure it in a timely fashion. It also fines Edison $1,000 for each of 56 violations of GO 165 for Edison's failure to identify unsafe conditions.
This decision does not fine Edison for 4,721 observed violations of the GOs that Edison remedied promptly once the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) brought the violations to Edison's attention. Both Edison and CPSD agree that it is impossible for a utility to keep its distribution system in perfect compliance with the safety GOs, and that at any given time, there will be multiple violations on a utility's system. The penalties we assess are intended to encourage Edison to focus its immediate resources and efforts on preventing GO violations wherever possible and finding and curing them in a timely fashion and with regard to the potential harm associated with failure to cure.
Thus, for each GO violation involving serious potential harm that Edison failed to cure in a timely fashion we have assessed the maximum penalty of $20,000, as provided by Pub. Util. Code § 2107. In assessing whether a particular violation involved potential serious harm, we have looked in most cases to harm that actually occurred. We also assess $1,000 for each violation concerning Edison's failure to identify safety GO violations in its detailed inspection. We have not assessed penalties for the remaining GO violations because Edison had a maintenance priority system in effect during the relevant period and promptly remedied the GO violations as required by CPSD; moreover, CPSD did not demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Edison's GO violations compromised the system's safety or put the violations in any context.
