STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
June 15, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN INVESTIGATION 99-06-036
This proceeding was filed on June 15, 2001, and is assigned to Commissioner Loretta Lynch and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jeffrey O'Donnell. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Jeffrey O'Donnell.
Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.
Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.
/s/ LYNN T. CAREW
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:sid
Attachment
ALJ/JPO-POD/sid
PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 6/15/2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Investigation into Commonwealth Energy Corporation's Operations and Practices in Connection with Providing Service as an Electricity Service Provider under Registration No. 1092, Respondent. |
Investigation 99-06-036 (Filed June 24, 1999) |
E. Gregory Barnes and Paul A. Szymanski,
Attorneys at Law, for San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, interested party.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, by Kevin McSpadden
and Kenneth A. Ostrow, Attorneys at Law, for
Commonwealth Energy Corporation, respondent.
Carol A. Dumond, Attorney at Law, for the Consumer
Services Division.
I. Summary
In this investigation, the Commission sought to determine whether Commonwealth Energy Corporation (Commonwealth) violated Public Utilities Code Sections 394.5(a) and 394.25(b)(1).1 These code sections require that terms and conditions of service be clearly communicated to customers, and that utilities not make material misrepresentations to customers when soliciting the customers' business.
In this opinion, we adopt a settlement between our Consumer Services Division (CSD) and Commonwealth. The settlement provides for, among other things, $219,500 in fines, approximately $649,000 in restitution to customers who received and paid supplemental bills, and reimbursement to the Commission of $37,000 in audit costs.
