PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENERGY DIVISION					RESOLUTION E-3639
JANUARY 6, 2000

RESOLUTION

Resolution E-3639.  Southern California Edison Company  (Edison) Requests Authorization to Continue Offering Its Existing Products And Services.  This resolution conditionally approves Edison’s Advice Letter 1286-E and allows Edison to continue its newspaper subscription solicitation service as a pilot program pending disposition of a further advice letter filing by the company.

By Advice Letter 1286-E, Filed On January 30, 1998.

______________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

In Advice Letter 1286-E, Southern California Edison Company (Edison) submits descriptions of its existing product and service offerings and categorizes the offerings as either tariffed or nontariffed.  Edison also requests authorization to continue offering these products and services.  The Joint Petitioners Coalition (JPC) filed a protest against Edison’s advice letter.  Edison’s advice letter only partially complies with the requirements set forth in Rule VII.F of the Affiliate Transaction Rules and is therefore conditionally approved.  This resolution also finds that Edison’s newspaper subscription solicitation service that is provided to the Los Angeles Times does qualify as an existing service and Edison may continue to offer it as a pilot program for six months pending the outcome of a further advice letter filing.

BACKGROUND

The Commission issued Decision (D.)97-12-088 which established its Affiliate Transaction Rules (Rules).

In response to several petitions for modification of the Rules, the Commission issued Decision (D.)98-08-035, which modified some of the Rules established in D.97-12-088.

Rule VII.F addresses existing utility products and services, tariffed and nontariffed.  Rule VII.F states in part,

	 “No later that January 30, 1998, each utility shall submit an advice letter describing the existing products and services (both tariffed and nontariffed) currently being offered by the utility and the number of the Commission decision or advice letter approving this offering, if any, and requesting authorization or continuing authorization for the utility’s continued provision of this product or service in compliance with the criteria set forth in 
Rule VII.  This requirement applies to both existing products and services explicitly approved and not explicitly approved by the Commission.”

On January 30, 1998 Edison filed Advice Letter 1286-E pursuant to Rule VII.F.  

On September 17, 1998 Edison filed its first periodic report covering the period between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998 pursuant to Rule VII.H.   Rule VII.H requires periodic reporting by the utilities of their nontariffed products and services.  The reports must include descriptions of the types and quantities of the offered products and services, the costs allocated to and revenues derived from categories of products and services, information on the proportion of relevant utility assets used to offer each category of products and services.

On March 15, 1999 Edison filed its second periodic report covering the period between July 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998 pursuant to Rule VII.H.

This resolution does not address Edison’s compliance with Rule VII.H, but acknowledges that Edison has filed the periodic reports.

On March 29, May 17, and July 28 1999, Edison responded to Energy Division staff data requests regarding Advice Letter 1286-E.  On July 30, 1999, Edison and the Energy Division participated in a videoconference call to discuss the advice letter further.

NOTICE

In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public was given by filing and keeping the Advice Letter open for public inspection at the Edison’s corporate headquarters.  
Copies of the filing were furnished to the Interested Parties on an attached service list and on the OIR.97-04-011/OII.97-04-012 service list.   Public notice of the advice letter was made by publication in the Commission calendar.

PROTEST

The Joint Petitioners Coalition (JPC) filed a protest to this Advice Letter on March 19, 1998.

Edison filed a Response to JPC’s protest on March 26, 1998.

DISCUSSION

The subsequent subsections address each objection raised by JPC.  The Energy Division found deficiencies in the advice letter, which are addressed at different points in this section.  The discussion also focuses on Edison’s newspaper solicitation service with the Los Angeles Times.
  
Descriptions of Products and Services Categories

Nontariffed Products and Services

The JPC asserts that Edison’s advice letter is deficient because the categories of products and services are  “broad” and “vague”.  The JPC cites Edison’s category of “Miscellaneous Services” as an example of how Edison’s categories are not consistent with the requirements of Rule VII.  The JPC cites Sections B and H of Rule VII as examples of the level of detail expected for descriptions of product and service categories.

Edison responds by noting that the advice letter provides adequate descriptions of the products and services for each category that it lists.  Edison states that the category, “Miscellaneous Services” is described in the advice letter as “paper recycling; tariff sheet sales; training, technical certification, conferences and seminars; and cafeteria and vending machines.”   Edison asserts that each of the 28 nontariffed categories listed in the advice letter contain detailed descriptions of the products and services.

Rule VII.B.1 defines “Category” as “factually similar group of products and services that use the same type of utility assets or capacity.  For example, ‘leases of land under utility transmission lines’, or ‘use of a utility repair shop for third party equipment repair’ would constitute a separate product or service category.” Rule VII.H.2 pertains to the periodic reports the utilities must file regarding their nontariffed products and services.  This rule requires the periodic reports to provide “a description of the types and quantities of products and services contained within each category (so that, for example, ‘leases for agricultural nurseries at 15 sites’ might be listed under the category ‘leases of land under utility transmission lines’…).”  While Rule VII.H.2 provides an example of a description, the rule pertains specifically to the periodic reports that the utilities are required to provide for nontariffed products and services.  AL 1286-E is not Edison’s periodic report and therefore should not be evaluated according to the requirements of Rule VII.H.2

Edison provides 12 tariffed categories (Attachment A to Advice Letter 1286-E) and 28 nontariffed categories (Attachment B) in Advice Letter 1286-E.  Most of the category titles and the descriptions attached to each category are similar to the examples provided in Rule VII.B.1.  However, there are at least four nontariffed categories that do not meet the definition of “category” as defined in Rule VII.B.1.  This rule requires that a category of products and services use the same type of utility asset or capacity and that the products and services are factually similar.  The following nontariffed categories listed by Edison use various types of utility assets or capacities and are factually dissimilar:

1.	Customer Account Management Services for Non-ESPs (pg. B-5)  (Includes bill calculation, processing and presentation, meter reading, payment processing, credit and collections, phone center services, and other field services for entities such as municipalities, water utilities, cable TV companies, and waste disposal providers.)

2.	Use of General Facilities (pg. B-2) (Includes parking, vehicle storage, meetings/training, office space and placement of communications equipment, attachments, conduit and cable.) 

3.	Inspection, Operation and Maintenance, Modification, Upgrade, Removal, and Repair of Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Related Facilities and Equipment (pg. B-7) (Includes inspection, calibration and testing consultation services, financial and regulatory software and systems, and Health Physics consultation and services to name a few.)

4.	Miscellaneous Service (pg. B-9) (Includes paper recycling, tariff sheet sales, training, and cafeteria and vending machines.)

The four categories do not comply with the definition of “category” in Rule VII.B.1, and are therefore too broad as alleged by the JPC.  For example, the Customer Account Management Services for Non-ESPs category clearly contains different types of utility assets, ranging from the phone center to meter reading personnel to the bill processing and payment personnel.   These broad categories of nontariffed products and services require modification by paring them down so that they comply with the definition established in Rule VII.B.1.  The protest of the JPC is granted on this issue.

Rule VII.C.4

Rule VII.C.4. describes five criteria that nontariffed products and services must meet in order to be offered for sale by a utility.  The five criteria are:

a.	The nontariffed product or service utilizes a portion of a utility asset or capacity;

b.	Such asset or capacity has been acquired for the purpose of and is necessary and useful in providing tariffed utility services;

c.	The involved portion of such asset or capacity may be used to offer the product or service on a nontariffed basis without adversely affecting the cost, quality or reliability of tariffed utility products and services;

d.	The products and services can be marketed with minimal or no incremental ratepayer capital, minimal or no new forms of liability or business risk being incurred by utility ratepayers, and no undue diversion of utility management attention; and

e.	The utility’s offering of such nontariffed product or service does not violate any law, regulation, or Commission policy regarding anticompetitive practices.  

Rule VII.F requires the utility to submit as part of its advice letter a request for authorization or continuing authorization for the utility’s provision of existing products and services “in compliance with the criteria set forth in Rule VII.”  Edison states that all of its nontariffed products and services listed in the advice letter comply with criteria (a), (b), (c), and (e).  Edison also states that it is reviewing its nontariffed offerings to determine whether they comply with criteria (d), and should any of its offerings not comply with criteria (d), it shall modify the offering to bring it into compliance, or cease the offering altogether.  Edison also notes that it has filed a Petition to Modify criteria (d) and (e), and to the extent that the Commission modifies these criteria, Edison will correct its offerings.

Edison’s advice letter identifies the correct criteria (Section C.4.a through e) for existing nontariffed products and services, but provides only general statements in regards to its compliance with the criteria.  From its filing, it appears that Edison believes that providing simple representations about its offerings are sufficient in complying with Rule VII.F.  

Edison’s attempt at complying with Rule VII.F is inadequate.  Providing general representations of compliance with the criteria in Rule VII falls short of the level of effort envisioned by the Commission.  Rather than simply stating its compliance with the criteria, the utilities are required to demonstrate their compliance with the criteria.  In D.98-03-035, the Commission stated,

“According to Rule VII.F, a utility must request by advice letter filing continued authorization to provide existing product and service offerings, and must demonstrate (italics added) that the continued provision of this product or service complies with the criteria set forth in Rule VII.”  (P. 20.)

To demonstrate means to show, illustrate or explain how a product or service offering specifically complies with each criterion.  As part of a revised filing, Edison should demonstrate its compliance with all the criteria for each nontariffed product and service it offers.  Such demonstrations could include, argument, data, and other facts and evidence of compliance, but should not be merely a restatement of the Rules.

For subsections (a) and (b) of Rule VII.C.4, Edison should identify the asset or capacity that is being utilized and the purpose of that asset or capacity in providing tariffed utility products and services.  For subsection (c), Edison should summarize how the affected asset or capacity does not adversely affect the cost, quality or reliability of tariffed utility products and services.  For subsection (d), Edison should summarize why it can market the product or service with minimal or no incremental ratepayer capital, why there is minimal or no new forms of liability or business risk for ratepayers, and why there is no undue diversion of utility management attention.  

For subsection (e), Edison should provide a general discussion of the competitiveness of the relevant market, and the impact of the utility’s presence on the competitiveness of that market. The discussion can include the number and size of the incumbent firms, how easy it is for competitors to enter the market, the relationship of the prevailing price to the cost of the product, and the impact of the utility on these factors.  

The JPC raises a related concern by asserting that Edison has filed a Petition for Modification to one of the five conditions (subsection d) and that Edison admits in AL 1286-E that it is unable to comply with the rule.  In light of this, the JPC suggests that the Commission refrain from approving the advice letter until Edison demonstrates compliance. 

Edison responds that it has unambiguously stated its intent to comply fully with Rule VII.C.4.d. Edison acknowledges that it has filed a Petition for Modification to the rule, but that to the extent the Commission modifies the rule, it would conform its nontariffed products and services to those modifications.  Edison’s response fails to address the overarching issue that its statements of compliance are an inadequate demonstration due to the lack of any specificity or explanation.  Because Edison did not demonstrate compliance with any of the criteria in Rule VII.C.4, the JPC’s protest is granted on the issue of compliance with Rule VII.C.4.d.  

Rule VII.H

The JPC asserts that Rule VII.H requires Edison to file periodic reports with the Commission’s Energy Division and serve such reports on the service list recipients.  The Commission chose to enable the utilities to develop the format to these reports.  The JPC urges that the Commission should require Edison to provide, as part of AL 1286-E, a sample format for its Rule VII.H report to ensure that format adopted by Edison includes all the substantive requirements of Rule VII.H.

Edison responds that the Commission did not require that a sample format of the periodic reports be submitted with the advice letter filed pursuant to Rule VII.F.  Edison also notes that when the periodic report is filed, the JPC and other parties would have opportunity to scrutinize and comment on the format that Edison has adopted.  (Edison submitted its first periodic report on September 17, 1998.)

Rule VII.F requires the utilities to file an advice letter describing their existing products and services (tariffed and nontariffed).  (See Background, third paragraph for the relevant text of Rule VII.F.)   Edison correctly states that Rule VII.F does not require the utilities to submit with their advice letters a sample format for the periodic reports required in Rule VII.H.  The JPC’s assertion that AL 1286-E is deficient for this reason is groundless, and its protest is denied on this issue.

Rule VII.I

The JPC states that Rule VII.I makes clear that those nontariffed products and services offered to utility affiliates must be done so in compliance with all other provisions contained in the Affiliate Rules.  The JPC asserts that Edison’s advice letter is deficient until Edison amends the advice letter by providing a confirmation that it understands the rule.

Edison responds that no party, including Edison, has suggested that there is any ambiguity or vagueness to Rule VII.I.  Edison refers to its Compliance Plan filings (December 31, 1997 and January 30, 1998) as confirmation that it will comply with the provision concerning nontariffed products and services.  Edison also notes that Rule VII.F does not require Edison to include a statement of understanding Rule VII.I in its advice letter filing.

Rule VII.F requires the utilities to file an advice letter describing their existing products and services (tariffed and nontariffed).  (See Background, Paragraph 3 for the relevant text of Rule VII.F.)  Edison is correct that the rule does not require Edison to include in its advice letter filing a statement of understanding for Rule VII.I.  The JPC’s assertion that AL 1286-E is deficient for this reason is groundless, and its protest is denied on this issue.

Edison’s Request for Notice Prior to Commission Modification or Cancellation of Utility Product/Service

On page 1, footnote (1) in Advice Letter 1286-E, Edison states: 

“With respect to tariffed and non-tariffed product and service offerings that are currently provided pursuant to any Commission order or decision, SCE requests notice and the ‘opportunity to be heard’ before the Commission considers modifying or canceling any such offering (PU Code Sections 1705, 1708; Cal. Trucking Assn. v. PUC (1997), 19 Cal.3d 240, 244-245.)”

The JPC states that Edison’s footnote “suggests that the Commission lacks the authority to direct Edison to change any of its existing products and services.   According to Edison, the Commission cannot order such changes until it provides Edison with notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

The JPC makes two points in response to Edison’s footnote:  (1) The purpose of Rule VII is to provide the Commission with an opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of existing offerings, and if necessary, to direct modifications to these offerings consistent with the Rules.  Edison’s request undermines the purpose of Rule VII.  (2) Edison was given ample notice and opportunity to be heard on this matter in the proceeding.  The JPC concludes that Edison is wrong to suggest that additional proceedings are necessary before the Commission can direct changes to Edison’s existing offerings. 

Edison responds that it “does not dispute that it had the opportunity to be heard on the development of new affiliate transaction rules.”  But Edison points out that “the scope of the proceeding has not encompassed a review of individual products and services currently offered by the utilities.”  Edison asserts that it “has never been heard on the specific details of how Rule VII applies to these existing products and services.”  Edison also asserts that it should have the opportunity to present specific evidence if the Commission determines that an existing product or service lacks conformity with the affiliate transaction rules.

Both the JPC and Edison make correct points on this issue.  The JPC is correct in the sense that one of the purposes of Rule VII is to provide the Commission with an opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of existing offerings.  The discussion under section titled “Rule VII.C.4” (pg. 5) of this resolution is a prime example of the Commission requiring the utility to better demonstrate how its existing nontariffed offerings are in compliance with the Rules.  The JPC is also correct that Edison has been given ample opportunity to be heard, but only in regard to the development of the Affiliate Rules, not the application of those Rules to specific products and services.  Edison correctly notes that scope of the Affiliate Rules proceeding did not encompass a review of individual products and services currently offered by the utilities.  

The purpose of Rule VII is to establish a framework that governs utility offerings of existing and new products and services.  The Affiliate Rules proceeding did not encompass a review of individual products and services currently being offered by the utilities.  Similarly the Commission decisions that adopted the Affiliate Rules and their modifications did not specifically address whether specific products or services were in compliance with Rule VII.  As a matter of fact, a review of Edison’s existing products and services is occurring through this particular advice letter filing (and subsequent filings as required in this resolution).  Edison’s “request for notice and the opportunity to be heard” is a request for a procedure already available to it.  Section 311(g) of the Public Utilities Code provides Edison an opportunity to review and comment on the Commission’s resolution to this advice letter (and subsequent advice letters) prior to being voted on.  Accordingly the JPC’s protest on this issue is denied.

Section 851 Applications

Attachment A lists existing products and services that Edison considers to be tariffed.  Attachment A includes a category described as “Sale of utility property and equipment/furniture requiring Section 851 Application” (pg. A-2).  Edison provides D.96-01-011 (a rate case decision) as its regulatory reference for this product and service category.  (Edison also provides a nontariffed category entitled “Sale of Utility Property and Equipment/Furniture (Not Requiring Section 851 Applications)”).  The Energy Division requested Edison to provide an explanation as to how it considers the sale of utility property, equipment and furniture (requiring a Section 851 application) as a product and service category and how it considers these to be “tariffed”.  Edison notes that it was making an attempt to be all-inclusive, and categorizing all activities even if a particular activity was nonrecurring and even if the labeling of “tariffed” or “nontariffed” did not fit traditional characterization of the activity.  Edison also notes that because a Section 851 application sets forth the terms and conditions under which the asset will be sold, and Commission approval is required prior to the execution of the sale, such applications are “tariffed” (Edison Data Response dated May 17, 1999).

Edison’s regulatory reference (D.96-01-011) is inadequate in demonstrating that the sales of utility assets are a category of products and services.   Moreover, Edison’s effort to label Section 851 applications as a category of a product and service offering is incorrect.  Section 851 applications are essentially the vehicle by which a utility may sell, lease, dispose of, etc. its useful or necessary assets.  It is an established process of transacting utility assets, and not a separate category of product and service offerings.  Edison takes the position that any product or service whose rates, terms and conditions are approved by the Commission through a Section 851 application is “tariffed”.   This is incorrect.  The Commission’s Section 851 process has no effect on whether the product or service is “tariffed” or “nontariffed”.   Therefore both the tariffed and nontariffed categories that rely on the Section 851 process as part of their descriptions should be removed from their respective lists, and their specific line offerings should be reclassified as appropriate.

RECLAIM and Title IV Acid Rain Deposit Control Act

Edison categorizes the buying, trading, and selling of emission credits pursuant to RECLAIM and Title IV Acid Rain Deposit Control Act as tariffed products and services.  The Energy Division requested Edison to provide specific tariff sheet references for these programs.  Edison responds that upon further evaluation, it found that the referenced decision in Advice Letter 1286-E did not authorize the terms and conditions under which these credits could be sold, but instead only dealt with the ratemaking treatment for any revenues received from such sales.  Based on this, Edison acknowledges that these activities should be re-classified as nontariffed products and services instead of tariffed.  
Edison notes that in Attachment B (page B-8), it lists a non-tariffed category entitled “Trading and Selling of Emission Credits”.  The activities related to RECLAIM and the Title IV program can fall into this category.  Edison notes that it is appropriate to delete RECLAIM and Title IV program category in Attachment A.

Los Angeles Times Newspaper Solicitation Program

While analyzing this advice letter, the Energy Division discovered that Edison currently provides solicitation services for the Los Angeles Times newspaper through its Call Center staff.  According to Edison, the solicitation occurs whenever a customer calls the Edison Call Center to establish or transfer electric service.  The customer is asked if he/she is interested in starting a newspaper home delivery account.  The customer is free to reject the offer, and the newspaper subscription is not tied in any way to the provision of utility service.  Edison signed a contract with the Los Angeles Times on November 5, 1998 and the first solicitations were made by Edison call center staff on November 12, 1998.   Negotiations between Edison and the Los Angeles Times covered a period of time from October 1997 to October 1998 (July 28, 1999 Edison response to an Energy Division data request).

Rule VII.F states, “No later than January 30, 1998, each utility shall submit an advice letter describing the existing products and services (both tariffed and nontariffed) currently being offered by the utility and the number of the Commission decision or advice letter approving this offering, if any….”  “Existing” is defined in Rule VII.B.2 as “products and services…which a utility is offering on the effective date of these Rules.”  The effective date of the Affiliate Rules was December 16, 1997. Edison claims that it did describe telephone solicitation services  generally in the January 1998 filing under the heading “Customer Account Management Services for Non-ESPs/Phone Center Services,” although the examples given did not specifically include telephone solicitation. 

The Los Angeles Times newspaper solicitation service can be considered “existing” as defined by Rule VII.B.2 because Edison provided telephone solicitation services for its affiliate, Edison Select, until January 1998 when the Affiliate Rules were adopted.  Although there was a gap between Edison’s discontinuance of offering telephone solicitation to its affiliate and Edison’s solicitation for the Los Angeles Times, the service itself is essentially the same and can be considered existing.  In addition, Edison did include “Phone Center Services” as an existing service in its January 1998 compliance filing which can reasonably be interpreted to include services such as those Edison now offers to the Los Angeles Times.

We note that Edison did not cite any Commission decision or advice letter approving this type of telephone solicitation service and Edison has only offered telephone solicitation services as a pilot program by its own admission.  Therefore, Edison should file an advice letter pursuant to Rule VII.E of the Affiliate Transaction Rules pertaining to new categories of nontariffed products and services to receive Commission authorization to offer this newspaper solicitation service on a continuing basis. 

We do not wish to prejudge the outcome of any future advice letter so this resolution does not give blanket authorization for Edison to continue using its call center for telephone solicitation. We will allow Edison to continue its pilot program with the Los Angeles Times for six months from the effective date of this resolution to allow time for filing and review of any advice letter.  If the Commission has not acted on Edison’s filing within six months, Edison can request an extension of the pilot program.  If Edison does not file an advice letter for continuing authorization of the newspaper solicitation service within the 45 days from the effective date of this resolution, the service shall cease in six months from this order.  Edison may not expand the service to additional customers while issues surrounding use of the call center are pending in any advice letter.  Any continuation or expansion of the service to other customers will depend on the outcome of the advice letter. 

COMMENTS

The draft resolution of the Energy Division in this matter was mailed to Edison and the JPC in accordance with PU Code Section 311(g).  Comments were filed on (December 21, 1999) by (Southern California Edison.  Edison asks that the alternate resolution be modified to allow the Los Angeles Times pilot to continue until the Commission renders a resolution on Edison’s future advice letter filing rather than the pilot expiring in six months.  We decline to alter the six-month extension of the pilot based on Edison’s comments.  If a future advice filing is pending in six months, Edison can request an extension at that time if needed.  Edison also raises the same issues that it raised in earlier comments to the Energy Division version of this resolution.  We decline to alter the resolution with respect to the other concerns Edison raises because Edison merely reargues positions reflected in Advice Letter 1286-E and its data responses.  Therefore, the findings of the resolution remain unchanged.

FINDINGS

1.	As ordered in D.97-12-088, Edison filed Advice Letter 1286-E on January 30, 1998.

2.	Advice Letter 1286-E has four overly broad nontariffed product and service categories, which do not comply with the definition of category in Rule VII.B.1.  

3.	Edison’s statements regarding Rule VII.C.4.a-e are inadequate in demonstrating that its existing nontariffed products and services are in compliance with these criteria.

4.	Edison’s advice letter is not required by Rule VII.F to include a format for its biannual periodic reports on nontariffed products and services.

5.	Edison’s advice letter is not required by Rule VII.F to include a statement that it understands Rule VII.I

6.	Edison’s assertion that it be given notice and the opportunity to be heard if the Commission should find that any of Edison’s existing products and services are out of compliance with the rules is provided through Section 311(g) of the Public Utilities Code.

7.	The Commission’s Section 851 process has no effect on whether the product or service is “tariffed” or “nontariffed.”

8.	Edison’s categorization of its buying, trading, and selling of emission credits pursuant to RECLAIM and Title IV Acid Rain Deposit Control Act as tariffed products and services is incorrect.  

9.	Edison’s solicitation program with the Los Angeles Times newspaper was an existing service at the time Advice Letter 1286-E was filed.  

10.	Edison may continue its pilot program with the Los Angeles Times for six months from the effective date of this resolution to allow Edison time to file an advice letter pursuant to Rule VII.E of the Affiliate Transaction Rules.  Edison may request an extension of this deadline if the Commission has not resolved the advice letter in six months.

11.	If Edison does not file an advice letter for continuing authorization of the newspaper solicitation service within the 45 days of this order, the service shall cease in six months from this order. Edison may not expand the service to additional customers while issues surrounding use of the call center are pending in any advice letter.  Any continuation or expansion of the service to other customers will depend on the outcome of the advice letter. 

12.	The protest of the JPC is granted to the extent that Edison shall file a supplemental advice letter that addresses the shortcomings identified in this resolution.

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.	Edison’s Advice Letter 1286-E is conditionally approved.

2.	Edison shall file a supplemental advice letter that:

•	Recategorizes the four categories identified in this resolution so that they comply with the definition established in Rule VII.B.1

•	
•	Demonstrates how each of its nontariffed product and service offerings is in compliance with Rule VII.C.4.a through e, including detailed information as appropriate.

•	Deletes the category called “Sale of tariffed utility property and equipment/furniture requiring Section 851 Application.”  The specific items within this category shall be reclassified as appropriate.

•	Deletes the category called “Sale of Utility Property and Equipment/Furniture (Not Requiring Section 851 Application).”  The specific line items within this category shall be reclassified as appropriate. 

•	Deletes the category called “Trading, buying and selling of emission credits pursuant to RECLAIM emissions trading program and the Title IV Acid Rain Deposit Control Act (SO2 Allowances)” from Attachment A.

3.	Edison may continue the Los Angeles Times newspapers solicitation program, with the limitations described in this resolution, for six months from the effective date of this resolution, pending the outcome of a further advice letter as described herein. 

4.	Edison shall file the supplemental advice letter within 30 days.

5.	This resolution is effective today.

I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on January 6, 2000; the following Commissioners voted favorably thereon:

______________________________
WESLEY M. FRANKLIN
Executor Director

								            RICHARD A. BILAS
								                    President
								          HENRY M. DUQUE
								          JOSIAH L. NEEPER
								          CARL W. WOOD
								          LORETTA LYNCH
								                 Commissioners