Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.

CPUC Mulls Unconstitutional Compliance Plan: Frontier

Frontier Communications said proposed enforcement of California conditions on its bankruptcy reorganization would violate the law and the Constitution. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) said the plan needs revision. Commissioners plan to consider draft resolution T-17734 at their Aug. 19…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.

meeting to adopt the enforcement program set out in the CPUC’s spring OK (see 2104150059). "Frontier is committed to complying” with the settled decision’s “requirements that focus on improved service quality and is actively taking affirmative actions to achieve compliance so that no penalties for noncompliance would apply,” the carrier said in comments emailed to the A.20-05-010 service list Thursday. The draft resolution “unlawfully expands the scope of the Decision, deprives Frontier of due process, undermines the extensively negotiated and carefully crafted settlements, imposes unsupported and excessive penalties, and threatens Frontier’s ability to deliver the restructuring’s significant benefits to California consumers,” it said. One proposed penalty for outages would allow monthly fines between $1 million and $15 million, depending on severity, but California law allows maximum penalties of $100,000 per violation or $3 million monthly, Frontier said. The draft’s penalties would violate the "excessive fines clause" of the Eighth Amendment and due process protections of the 14th Amendment, it said. TURN said the CPUC’s conditional OK was clear on delegating authority to staff “to develop a meaningful and effective enforcement mechanism that includes penalty authority beyond what the Final Decision and Settlements Agreements crafted,” but it didn’t give staff authority to change terms of the decision or agreements.