The Petitioners state that a utility must not be permitted to disclose to its affiliate any information which the utility receives from a nonaffiliated customer; a potential customer, supplier or their agent; or a marketer or other entity. The Petitioners also state that if a utility provides any transportation/transmission or sales/marketing information to the marketing affiliate it should be contemporaneously provided to all potential users, affiliated and nonaffiliated, on its system. The Petitioners suggest a number of disclosure methods and reporting requirements related to this proposed rule.
SCG generally agrees with the Petitioners. DGS/UC/CSU and NAESCO both agree that the rules should provide for nonpreferential access to information.
Vantus points out that adopting Petitioners’ prohibition on disclosure is too broad for it would prohibit the sharing of customer-specific information with an affiliate when the customer has expressly consented to the sharing of information.
Among the more controversial of the Petitioners’ proposals is that the Commission should prohibit the utility from providing leads to marketing affiliates. The proposed rules should also, Petitioners continue, direct the utility to refrain from giving the appearance that the utility speaks on behalf of its affiliate, and the affiliate should be prohibited from trading upon, promoting or advertising its affiliation with the utility. The Petitioners also want the affiliate to be directed to refrain from suggesting it receives preferential treatment due to its affiliation.
SDG&E believes this proposal goes too far. It argues that in a competitive market, customers should receive as much accurate information about gas and electricity suppliers as possible. It points out that for some customers, a marketers’ affiliation with a utility would be a plus, for others it would be a minus. SDG&E further states that the Commission has previously determined that the name and reputation of a utility is not an asset to which ratepayers have a claim. [ SDG&E cites D.95-12-018, slip op. at 24 (citing 27 CPUC 2d at 369).] SDG&E argues that these assets should not be devalued in an attempt to promote competition by artificially fettering utility marketing affiliates. Vantus makes similar arguments, and adds that there should be no prohibition against utility promotion of an affiliate so long as it is not funded by ratepayers and the utility makes it clear that the affiliate is competing with others. Vantus also points out that the Commission has approved joint marketing in the telecommunications market, subject to certain conditions.
Disclosure to affiliates of market information not provided to other market players would unfairly advantage affiliates in marketing their services. Again, our existing rules governing transactions with affiliates include rules governing the disclosure of utility and utility customer information. The proposed rules in R.97-04-011 should prohibit disclosure of utility and utility customer information with the exception of customer-specific information where the customer has consented to disclosure.
We are not prepared at this time, however, to rule on whether the utilities should be prohibited from providing leads to marketing affiliates, or to rule on any prohibition of the affiliates trading upon, promoting or advertising their affiliation with utilities. The proposed rules in R.97-04-011 should address these aspects of disclosure and information sharing.