IV. Authority to Order Injunctive Relief
The Commission's authority to provide injunctive relief is firmly rooted in the California Constitution, the Pub. Util. Code, and case law.
"The Commission is not an ordinary administrative agency, but a constitutional body with broad legislative and judicial powers. The California Constitution, Article XII, Sections 1-6, grants the Commission plenary power over the regulation of public utilities. The Commission has broad authority to regulate public utilities, including the power to fix rates, hold hearings, and establish its own rules and procedures.2 Our reliance in the Interim Decision on Pub. Util. Code § 701 and Consumers' Lobby is well founded. We noted that in Consumers' Lobby, [25 Cal3d at 907] the California Supreme Court recognized that the Commission has equitable jurisdiction, which permits it to issue injunctions: `The commission often exercises equitable jurisdiction as an incident to its express duties and authority. For example, the Commission may issue injunctions in aid of jurisdiction specifically conferred upon it. [citations omitted.]" (See Southern California Edison Company et al., Decision (D.) 01-07-033, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 877 **11-12.)
Verizon argues that only the Commission, and not an individual Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), has authority to issue a temporary restraining order in this instance. We disagree.
An individual assigned Commissioner or ALJ may issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in order to preserve the status quo, subject to its ratification or reversal by the full Commission. (See the California Constitution, Article XII, Section 2 ["Any commissioner as designated by the commission may hold a hearing or investigation or issue an order subject to commission approval."]; see also Pub. Util. Code § 310; Systems Analysis and Integration, Inc. dba Systems Integrated v. Southern California Edison Company, D.96-12-023, 69 CPUC2d 516, 522 [ALJ issued temporary restraining order on November 21 and a preliminary injunction on November 30, and dissolved the injunction on March 21. The Commission issued its decision the following December].) 3
Verizon recognizes some of this authority but argues that it is more appropriate in individual complaints, rather than in the present circumstances, where multiple carriers are affected or broader interests are at stake. We do not find this argument to be a valid distinction here.
The Commission has the authority to order a utility to refrain from doing something that violates the law, i.e., to maintain the status quo after discovery of a likely violations. Because the Commission generally holds meetings twice a month, Verizon's argument would tie the Commission's hands in granting such emergency relief until the full Commission can determine whether to impose a more permanent restraint. Neither law nor logic supports such a result.
2 Citing Consumers' Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Commission (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 905; Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 287, rehearing denied, review denied.)
3 Verizon also believes that an individual ALJ or Commission can only issue a temporary restraining order in the context set forth in D.98-12-075, 84 CPUC2d 155, to enforce our affiliate transaction rules for energy utilities and their affiliates. Under such rules, the temporary restraining order could only stay in effect until the end of the day of the next Commission meeting, under the theory that the Commission can then act on the order. However, in D.96-12-023, cited in the text of this order, the ALJ's orders for temporary injunctive relief concerned issues other than enforcement of the affiliate transaction rules and were for a longer duration.
