5. DRA's Motions
5.1. DRA's Request to Review CalWater's Failure to
Comply With D.03-03-037
DRA has requested that the Commission look into whether CalWater should be fined for failure to comply with D.03-03-037 with respect to maintaining the waiting list for Coast Springs.
Public Utilities Code Section 702 requires every public utility to obey and comply with every order, decision, direction or rule of the Commission. The Commission considers such violations serious and may sanction the violator.
As noted above, D.03-03-037 provided specific directions to CalWater on establishing a waiting list. One of those requirements was that only the names of applicants who submitted written applications should be placed on the waiting list. Contrary to this directive, CalWater placed the names of four individuals and Parcel K who had not submitted applications on the waiting list. CalWater explains that it placed some customers without submitted applications on the waiting list, because they were elderly or had strokes, and wanted to work with them rather than remove them from the list. CalWater does not justify why Parcel K was placed on the waiting list without an application.
CalWater was aware that D.03-03-037 required that any revisions or exception to the adopted standard procedures would require CalWater to obtain Commission approval, yet it failed to do so, and applied different standards to the persons on the waiting list. The procedure in D.03-03-037 was established to ensure that the application and the approval process are fair and transparent.31 CalWater's actions jeopardize that goal.
There is additional concern with CalWater's treatment of the waiting list. One of the directives of D.03-03-037 is that "each list must at a minimum identify the applicant, the location to be served, and the date a written application was received." Yet, CalWater seems to misinterpret that by arguing, "There is no D.03-03-037 requirement or CalWater requirement that application return dates be noted on the waiting list."32 We find that CalWater's waiting list does not comply with D.03-03-037 and as such CalWater is in violation of that order. However, after reviewing CalWater's response to the errors in the waiting list, we find that CalWater's failure to follow Commission order was not deliberate. When considering the totality of circumstances in this case, we do not believe a monetary fine is warranted at this time.33 Instead, we order CalWater to follow the directions of D.03-03-037 and correct its waiting list promptly. We caution CalWater that a similar violation in the future will result in a monetary fine.
In its response to the proposed decision, CalWater seeks guidance from the Commission on how to place Parcel K development with respect to the waiting list. Specifically, CalWater asks the Commission to clarify whether it is required to file for exemption from the moratorium to serve Parcel K ahead of others in the waiting list and under what conditions. CalWater states that developers are generally governed by Tariff Rule 15 in lieu of a written application for individuals. CalWater also cites D.89-12-020 and D.06-01-005 where the Commission considered requests for exceptions to serve certain developers ahead of other prospective customers.
In those decisions, parties petitioned the Commission to modify the moratorium decisions to consider exceptions for certain developers with access to their own water supplies. We cannot determine in this proceeding if Parcel K should be granted a similar exception. CalWater may file a petition to modify to seek Commission authorization for exception for Parcel K development. CalWater may also contact the water division for questions regarding Tariff Rule 15.
5.2. DRA's Request for Commission Review of
CalWater's Procedures
DRA filed a motion on October 3, 2007 requesting, among other things, that the Commission review CalWater's procedures for handling personal customer information and consider if remedial measures are appropriate. DRA's concern was caused by the release of confidential customer information that was attached to CalWater's opening brief. The confidential customer information, including customers' social security numbers was released publicly when CalWater electronically served its brief on the service list. After CalWater was notified by DRA of the release of the information, it asked all the parties to delete the electronic filing, redacted the confidential customer information from its filing, and resubmitted it. An Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling dated October 3, 2007 ordered CalWater to file a declaration providing the status of its effort to inform the affected individuals, which CalWater filed on October 10, 2007. CalWater's declaration indicated that it had notified all the affected individuals of the situation in writing via Federal Express and offered to provide credit monitoring services to minimize the possibility of identity theft.34
CalWater's release of customer information was inadvertent but caused by failure to have adequate safeguards to protect the privacy of the information contained in customers' service applications. Although CalWater took immediate action to remedy the problem, the release of the confidential information was the result of careless practices. An investigation of CalWater's business practices would be beyond the scope of this proceeding, but such issues are appropriate for GRC proceedings. We reject DRA's motion without prejudice here, and order CalWater to present in its next GRC the procedures it follows and the methods it uses to protect customer information.
31 See D.03-03-037, p. 11.
32 CalWater Reply Brief, p. 15.
33 See D.98-12-075.
34 See Declaration of Lynne P. McGhee (Oct. 10, 2007), p. 4.
