Consistency with Precedent Sample Clauses

Consistency with Precedent. The Commission has described the role of precedent as follows: Penalties are assessed in a wide range of cases. The penalties assessed in cases are not usually directly comparable. Nevertheless, when a case involves reasonably comparable factual circumstances to another case where penalties were assessed, the similarities and differences between the two cases should be considered in setting the penalty amount. The ACO is reasonable when compared to the outcome of another Commission proceeding. CPED considered the facts of this matter with a recent Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) deposits case (Resolution UEB-012) for which the 11 Enforcement Policy, p. 19. Resolution UEB-016 DRAFT April 24, 2025 Commission adopted a final resolution on April 6, 2023. In Resolution UEB-012, the Commission approved the settlement agreement between SoCalGas and CPED for improper collection of residential and small business deposits during the COVID-19 customer protection period and after the issuance of D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, which eliminated deposits for residential customers. Under Resolution UEB-012, SoCalGas agreed to pay a total of $2.7 million at shareholders’ expense. Of that amount, nearly $2.1 million was paid to customers who were improperly charged a deposit. The parties allocated $213,725 to SoCalGas’ Gas Assistance Fund and $400,000 in penalties payable to the State of California’s General Fund. The total number of Bolt’s affected customers is only a fraction compared to SoCalGas’ violations, which billed 33,115 residential and small business customers deposits for establishment or reestablishment of service from May 7, 2020 through April 21, 2021, and 16,709 of these customers paid the deposit. Furthermore, ▇▇▇▇’s case has additional mitigating factors, such as the contention that ▇▇▇▇’s unlawful billing of ETFs stemmed from a difference in interpretation of tariff rules and the fact that ▇▇▇▇ has already voluntarily refunded and foregone all lawfully collected ETFs in a show of good will and to prevent any further alleged violations. As such, the CPED believes the penalty imposed in this case is reasonable and is in proportion to the harm caused by ▇▇▇▇’s actions.