To effectuate unbundling, the utilities will need to change their customer bills to provide adequate information to customers about their energy choices and the services they are receiving. The parties agree that the information should be clear and avoid confusion. Generally, the utilities proposed billing formats in consideration of these objectives, although the extent of information the utilities proposed to provide was the subject of some dispute. The utilities emphasized that modifying their billing systems will require substantial time and effort. Edison in particular urges a simple bill format and warns the Commission that it may be unable to program its billing system in time if complex changes to the system are required.
We appreciate the utilities’ concerns regarding the timing of billing format changes. Below, we propose certain minimal bill format changes which should be implemented January 1, 1998 and require the utilities to provide additional detail over time. As a practical matter, we do not believe most customers will require the most detailed level of information proposed here in the immediate future. As competition in energy markets takes hold, customers will require more and better information, which our adopted schedule will accommodate.
All three utilities propose to reduce rates to residential and small commercial customers by 10% beginning January 1, 1998. By ruling dated January 31, 1997, the assigned ALJ determined that the Commission would consider methods for doing so in this proceeding. The reduction is one condition of the utilities’ ability to recover stranded investment through the CTC.
All of the utilities propose to implement the rate reduction as a bill credit. SDG&E proposes to provide a bill credit to eligible customers. PG&E proposes to reduce all unit charges by 10%, a proposal SDG&E believes may be difficult to administer. TURN proposes that the utilities be required to charge the entire discount to the CTC in order to assure that customers receive the full benefits of the reduction intended by AB 1890. Consistent with TURN’s recommendation, PG&E will account for the reduction as CTC. ORA states it is satisfied with the utility proposals with the modifications PG&E made in its supplemental testimony.
We will adopt the utility proposals to reduce eligible customers’ bills by 10% and to account for the bill credit as reduced CTC for direct access customers, the credit will be applied to a customer’s bill under its otherwise-applicable schedule before the bill is reduced by the PX cost.
Bills must provide pricing information which will permit customers to make reasoned choices between energy suppliers. ORA and Farm Bureau observe that PX prices must be included on customer bills in order for customers to evaluate competitors’ bids.
PG&E proposes that for direct access customers served with the use of statistical load profile and with full service customers, the price that appears on the bill will be the average PX prices for the month. For direct access customers, the prices will be based on the hourly PX price and the hourly-specific loads for each customer.
Recognizing that settlement prices from the PX will not be available for 60 days, PG&E proposes that customer bills estimate the PX price and be subject to a true-up the following month. PG&E also proposes that the Commission reconsider this approach if it does not appear to accomplish Commission objectives.
Edison proposes to include the PX energy price it paid during the billing cycle, based on the customer class load profile. Direct access customers would also show a credit for customer-specific avoided energy costs based on the PX energy price. SDG&E proposes providing customers the option of receiving PX price information, arguing that TURN/UCAN’s proposal to provide all customers the price and emission profile of all energy sources will create too much confusion.
ORA recommends that SDG&E’s bill include the PX price.
We adopt the proposals of Edison and PG&E and direct SDG&E to include PX pricing information on its bills, either in the format presented by Edison or PG&E. As SDG&E proposes, customers should be provided additional information whenever the utility has the information.
DOD proposes that the utilities be required to unbundle rates for various rates elements, including transmission, distribution, public benefit program costs, nuclear decommissioning costs, demand-side management (DSM), CTC, and PX expenses. The Energy Commission would require a similar level of detail, observing that AB 1890 stated an intent that the utilities provide separate charges for transmission, distribution, transition costs, environmental costs, and low-income program costs.
TURN/UCAN also recommend that the components of the CTC be identified on bill inserts. The categories are uneconomic nuclear generation, uneconomic fossil fuel generation, uneconomic purchased power contracts and "other." The percentage of the charges for each of these categories would be determined based on the outcome of Phase 2 of the CTC proceeding (Application (A.) 96-08-001, et al.).
CAL-SLA propose that Edison and PG&E follow SDG&E’s lead and (1) provide customers with the option of a detailed or simple bill, (2) separate the PX price from the CTC on each bill, and (3) include the "Reed Schmidt Footnote" on each bill, which explains that the generation charge is based on the costs of purchases through the PX which are subject to competition and which would inform the customers that electricity may be purchased from another supplier. CAL-SLA suggests that if PG&E and Edison are unable to implement sound billing information practices by January 1, 1998, they should be ordered to do so no later than June 1, 1998. ORA generally supports CAL-SLA’s recommendations.
PG&E would not go this far in unbundling rates. As discussed earlier, PG&E is not prepared to unbundle rates on January 1, 1998. Edison objects as well, arguing that listing such items as CTC and nuclear decommissioning charges do not enhance the customer’s ability to compare value. Edison also observes that providing such information is costly.
We believe customers are entitled to information about the services and investments for which they are paying. We balance this view with the cost of providing such information and the confusion it can create for customers who simply want to pay their bills with the confidence that they correctly identify the services received. We adopt the recommendations of parties who suggest that bills should separately identify the following components: energy, transmission, distribution, CTC, public purpose programs and nuclear decommissioning costs. These rate elements should be fully unbundled consistent with the functional rate tables presented by PG&E in Appendices 4A and 4B in Exhibit 1. We also adopt the Reed Schmidt Footnote. The utilities shall therefore include on their bills an easily-identified explanation of the PX price as follows: "This charge is based on the weighted average costs for purchases through the Power Exchange. This service is subject to competition. You may purchase electricity from another supplier." We reject proposals to go further at this time. In order to provide the utilities adequate time to identify these charges, we will direct them to include the charges on bills no later than June 1, 1998. Prior to the date of unbundling, the utilities shall provide information regarding PX prices.
ORA proposes that the utilities periodically provide information on resource mix and environmental characteristics of electricity purchases. TURN/UCAN propose a similar type of information but with considerably more detail regarding emission profiles for various resources, consistent with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions’ (NARUC’s) Resolution No.17. SDG&E objects to intervenor proposals to provide such information.
We believe the type of information TURN/UCAN and ORA would have the utilities offer with regard to air emissions is important and useful. Nevertheless, we do not believe all customers will find it useful. We will direct the utilities to collect the data required to provide the information to customers who request it and provide the information annually in a bill insert. Utility bills should notify customers that the information is available beginning January 1, 1999. The Energy Commission notes in its comments that the utilities will need to obtain the information from the ISO/PX. While we cannot here order the ISO/PX to track the information, we urge them to do so. If they do not, the utilities should notify the Executive Director of their inability to provide the associated customer information.
Footnotes are bracketed and in blue