Thus, in determining if the settlement is consistent with the law, we must weigh the individual settlement amounts against the factors that the Commission is required to evaluate in assessing a fine. Forgoing Revenues, Making Adjustments, and Making Payments to the State General Fund, the City of San Carlos, and the City of San Bruno To determine if this sum of $96.5 Million is reasonable, we must look at Commission precedent in other similar proceedings which is, unfortunately, scant. As this Commission observed in Decision Affirming Violations of Rule 8.4 and Rule 1.1 and Imposing Sanctions on Southern California Edison Company, “Commission precedent in imposing sanctions for ex parte violations has ranged from relatively minor fines, or none at all, to requiring training on ethics and the Commission’s ex parte rules, to mere admonishments.” Prior to December of 2015, the largest penalty imposed for violating the ex parte rules was imposed on PG&E for $1,050,000, coupled with the requirement that PG&E’s shareholders fund a ratemaking disallowance (estimated at approximately $72 million) in reparation to ratepayers of a significant portion of the revenue requirement that would have been collected during the fivemonth delay caused by PG&E’s actions. On December 8, 2015, the Commission issued D.1512016 (Decision Affirming Violations of Rule 8.4 and Rule 1.1 and Imposing Sanctions on Southern California Edison Company), wherein SCE received a fine of $16,740,000 ($190,000 [eight ex parte violations]; $16,520,000 [continuing Rule 1.1 violation calculated at $20,000 x 826 days]; and $30,000 [for a second Rule 1.1 violation].) Compared with similar ex parte violations in other proceedings, it appears that PG&E’s agreement to forgo $63,500,000, to make a GRC adjustment of $10,000,000, to pay $12,000,000 to the State General Fund, and to pay $12,000,000 to the Cities of
Thus, in determining if the settlement is consistent with the law, we must weigh the individual settlement amounts against the factors that the Commission is required to evaluate in assessing a fine. Forgoing Revenues, Making Adjustments, and Making Payments to the State General Fund, the City of San Carlos, and the City of San Bruno To determine if this sum of $96.5 Million is reasonable, we must look at Commission precedent in other similar proceedings which is, unfortunately, scant. As this Commission observed in Decision Affirming Violations of Rule 8.4 and Rule 1.1 and Imposing Sanctions on Southern California Edison Company, “Commission precedent in imposing sanctions for ex parte violations has ranged from relatively minor fines, or none at all, to requiring training on ethics and the Commission’s ex parte rules, to mere admonishments.” Prior to December of 2015, the largest penalty imposed for violating the ex parte rules was imposed on PG&E for $1,050,000, coupled with the requirement that PG&E’s shareholders fund a ratemaking disallowance (estimated at approximately $72 million) in reparation to ratepayers of a significant portion of the revenue requirement that would have been collected during the fivemonth delay caused by PG&E’s actions. On December 8, 2015, the Commission issued D.1512016 (Decision Affirming Violations of Rule 8.4 and Rule 1.1 and Imposing Sanctions on Southern California Edison Company), wherein SCE received a fine of $16,740,000 ($190,000 [eight ex parte violations]; $16,520,000 [continuing Rule 1.1 violation calculated at $20,000 x 826 days]; and $30,000 [for a second Rule 1.1 violation].) Compared with similar ex parte violations in other proceedings, it appears that PG&E’s agreement to forgo $63,500,000, to make a GRC adjustment of $10,000,000, to pay $12,000,000 to the State General Fund, and to pay $12,000,000 to the Cities of