1. D.97-05-040 adopted a series of direct access policies and rules.
2. D.97-05-040 ordered the UDCs to file their DAIPs, along with their pro forma tariffs.
3. The joint DAIP of PG&E, SDG&E and Edison was filed on July 1, 1997.
4. Separate DAIPs were filed by PacifiCorp, Sierra Pacific and SCWC.
5. Separate pro forma tariffs and service agreements were filed by PG&E, SDG&E and Edison on July 15, 1997.
6. Interested parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on the DAIPs and the pro forma tariffs and service agreements.
7. A workshop was held on August 7 and 8, 1997, to address the pro forma tariffs and service agreements.
8. On August 22, 1997, the Workshop Report was submitted and served on the workshop participants.
9. The Alliance's proposed statewide tariff and service agreement, and a draft of proposed direct access tariff and service agreement for PG&E and Edison, were attached to the Workshop Report.
10. In their joint comments to the Workshop Report, the Alliance and SDG&E agreed to a set of proposed direct access tariffs.
11. In their separate comments to the Workshop Report, PG&E and Edison attached their respective revised direct access tariffs.
12. As a result of the ongoing discussions between the UDCs and the Alliance, PG&E and Edison filed separate revised direct access tariffs and service agreements on October 15, 1997.
13. The proposed direct access tariffs and service agreements describe the specific terms and conditions by which market participants will be allowed to participate in direct access.
14. The Workshop Report described the outstanding issues, and the areas in which the parties were able to reach consensus.
15. Even though the UDCs were made aware that changes to the electric industry were going to occur, the UDCs did not know to what extent their existing customer information systems would have to be revised.
16. Changes of the kind contemplated by the electric restructuring decisions cannot be accomplished over several days or months.
17. Since the revised tariffs of PG&E and Edison use the joint tariff of SDG&E and the Alliance as their foundation, the joint tariff proposal is the point of reference for all the tariff changes adopted in this decision.
18. PG&E and Edison now refer to the FTA as the TTA.
19. The affiliate transaction guideline pertaining to non-discrimination in the treatment of affiliated and non-affiliated ESPs is expressed in the joint tariffs in Sections B.(2)(a) and B.(2)(b).
20. No affiliate transaction rules have been adopted yet in R.97-04-011.
21. D.97-05-039 permits competition for metering and billing services.
22. Non-discretionary services are those services for which the Commission determines that there are insufficient providers to ensure customer choice.
23. Incremental costs include both non-recurring and recurring costs.
24. Service fees should be based on recurring costs.
25. The proposed fees for discretionary and non-discretionary services are contained in the rate schedules that appear in Table 1.
26. PG&E and Edison have adopted the position taken by SDG&E that PU Code Section 370 requires a written agreement only when the consumer is not using the utility's facilities for direct access.
27. The annual fee imposed upon the utilities pursuant to PU Code Sections 401, 404, and 431 is to be collected by the utility from its customers and subscribers.
28. The decisions of the Commission are subject to appellate review.
29. PU Code Section 394.2(b) permits residential and small commercial customers to proceed with a complaint against an ESP in either a civil action or by filing a complaint with the Commission.
30. PU Code Section 394.2(b) provides that the Commission's authority shall not be expanded to include an award of any damages other than reparations.
31. SDG&E may use the DASR form of PG&E or Edison, or it may file a motion to adopt its own DASR form.
32. A customer should be provided with as much advance notice as possible of a DASR filed on its behalf.
33. PU Code Section 395 provides for a three-day cooling-off period in which residential and small commercial customers have a right to cancel a contract for electric service.
34. The verification procedures sets forth in PU Code Section 366.5 ensure that residential and small commercial customers act knowingly and willingly when they switch providers.
35. A DASR for a residential or small commercial customer should not be submitted to the UDC until three days after the verification required by PU Code Section 366.5 is performed.
36. A DASR should not be submitted if the customer has canceled its agreement in accordance with PU Code Section 395.
37. If a DASR has been submitted and the customer cancels its agreement, immediate steps should be taken by the ESP and the UDC to cancel the DASR.
38. PU Code Section 391(d) states that larger commercial and industrial customers are sophisticated energy consumers that have adequate civil remedies and are adequately protected by existing commercial law.
39. Larger customers are likely to enter into some type of contractual arrangement with the ESP for direct access.
40. If a larger customer wants to switch to another provider, the customer just needs to arrange to have a valid DASR submitted in the next DASR processing period.
41. A 10-day wait before essential electric service can begin at a customer's new location is unreasonable.
42. To implement direct access, interim decisions regarding metering are needed until the Commission can issue its decision on those underlying issues.
43. Customers should be entitled to their own meter data.
44. Ordering paragraph 1 of D.97-05-039 specifically stated that PG&E, SDG&E, and Edison shall provide three billing options to competing retail energy services companies.
45. D.97-05-039 does not require ESPs to offer more than one billing service option to their customers.
46. An ESP may offer its customers the choice of one or more billing options.
47. The full consolidated ESP billing option is a means of allowing qualified ESPs to calculate the UDC charges instead of having the UDC calculate those charges.
48. The issue of full consolidated ESP billing was never raised or discussed in the unbundling of revenue cycle services.
49. D.97-05-039 recognized that energy suppliers could provide consolidated electric bills.
50. Full consolidated ESP billing shall be permitted for all three UDCs.
51. Bill-ready billing is when the ESP's charges are provided to the UDC in a bill-ready format that requires no computation by the utility.
52. Rate-ready billing requires the ESP to supply rate schedules to the UDC, which the UDC then applies to the customer's usage to compute the ESP's charges for the consolidated bill.
53. Billing adjustment rules should be in place before direct access begins.
54. PG&E's purchasing of accounts receivable may dissuade ESPs from using the UDC's consolidated billing service, and force the ESP to provide its own billing system.
55. Appendix B contains the Commission-approved ESP service agreement.
56. PU Code Section 1702 specifically provides for a complaint process against a public utility.
57. A final determination as to whether EDI is the proper format for transferring billing data information will be addressed in the decision regarding the workshop on meter and data communication standards.
58. System limitations can lead to delays in implementing direct access or can be used to frustrate the Commission's direct access efforts.
59. The proposed change in Rule 15 to the net revenue figure impacts the overall cost that a customer must pay to obtain a new service extension.
60. D.97-08-056 stated that there was inadequate information to undertake any changes to the line extension rules, and that such a change should be deferred to R.92-03-050.
61. Since PacifiCorp, Sierra Pacific, and SCWC have sought exemptions from certain provisions of AB 1890, it would be unfair to have them adopt the direct access tariff and service agreement contained in Appendix A and B.
62. Due to certain constraints that are particular to the three smaller utilities, certain billing and metering tariff provisions may need to be different.
63. The direct access tariff provisions which the three smaller utilities relied on to formulate their DAIPs and proposed tariffs have changed substantially from the time the DAIPs were first filed.
This Web page was produced using a Beta version of HTML Transit 3.0