Chapter 1.

Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Creating This Report

On September 12, 1996, following the release of the August 30 Report to the CPUC of the Direct Access Working Group (DAWG), the entire DAWG held a meeting in Oakland to consider its next steps. The most obvious and compelling next step was to complete its report on Consumer Protection and Education, which the Commission had ordered in Decision 96-03-022 to be delivered on October 30. Parties to the original Subgroup D of DAWG, which focused on Consumer Protection and Education, were joined by several other DAWG participants in this effort, and held a series of meetings to develop the present report.

Most of the topics in this report were already covered to some extent in the August 30 Report, but nearly all topics stood to benefit from further work. In addition, AB 1890 was signed into law after the August 30 Report went to print, so there was a need to revise some material based on the contents of that legislation.

At the same September 12 meeting of the entire DAWG, the process for review and completion of this report was decided. It was decided that an intermediate version would not be sent to the entire DAWG participant list nor the Commission's Restructuring service list. Instead, a letter was sent to the parties on those lists informing them of the intention to release a draft on October 8, of which they would be sent a copy upon request. Following the October 8 draft, parties would have until October 15 to send comments or additional material to designated lead authors of the various chapters. Another full DAWG meeting was called for October 22 in San Diego, to allow a final opportunity for interested parties to review the latest changes and make comments. New drafts dated 10/22 were available at that meeting.

Following the October 22 meeting, the lead chapter authors incorporated the final comments and dealt with any issues that arose at that meeting, and then turned over their chapters to the editor-in-chief for assembly of the final product. The editor-in-chief was selected by consensus among the participants in the process. As was the practice for the August 30 DAWG Report, positions discussed in this report and authorship of specific sections are not attributed to specific parties.


The major contributors to this report were as follows:

  1. Susan Brown - Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum
  2. Joe Cabrera, Mary Cooper, Lynn Maack - ORA
  3. Rich Jarvinen - SDG&E
  4. Lorenzo Kristov - CEC, Editor-in-Chief
  5. Art McAuley - PG&E
  6. Michael Shames - UCAN
  7. Carl Silsbee - SCE

1.2 Key Issues for Commission Decisions

Parties to the DAWG process and the other stakeholder working groups dealing with electric industry restructuring are acutely aware of how rapidly January 1, 1998 is approaching and how much remains to be done to have a well-functioning competitive marketplace for electric service operational on that date. Although we have not chosen to try to create a comprehensive critical path for the implementation of direct access, we have learned much about the interdependencies among different elements of the new structure. We are therefore able to indicate those areas where Commission decisions are needed in the near future so that progress towards the new market may continue at a rate rapid enough to maintain the feasibility of the target date. This section provides a survey of those crucial areas.

1.2.1 Direct Access Program Decisions

By now the Commission is undoubtedly quite familiar with the major direct access issues that require decisions, having had two months of review process including comments and reply comments and a full day's hearing on the subject. We will just mention the three issues that will have the greatest impact on consumer protection and education activities: phase-in of direct access, load profiling for small customers, and access to customer information by competitive retailers.

Phase-in. The content of an effective consumer education program must be shaped by knowledge of which consumers and consumer groups will be eligible for direct access in 1998. Although there are certain messages that need to be conveyed to all consumers regardless of whether they will see new electric service options during the first year, there is also a need for messages that are targeted to those customers who will be eligible for direct access and who therefore need to be able to make good choices for themselves. We may take a modest risk in assuming that large customers can take care of themselves in the new marketplace, but we take an enormous risk in opening the market to small customers without adequately preparing them for "shopping" there successfully. As soon as possible, then, we must know which customers will be eligible in 1998, so that the scope of education and marketing efforts can be fixed.

Load profiling. The ability to use statistical load profiles to estimate the hourly consumption of small customers, instead of requiring interval meters for all direct access contracts, will have large implications for prospective small-customer aggregators and their customers. Electric Service Providers (ESPs) interested in serving small customers will face quite different markets depending on how this decision is made, and some potential providers who have participated in the DAWG have argued that without load profiling small customers become much less economically attractive. Although most parties support the load profiling concept as a transitional measure pending universal implementation of interval metering, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding how load profiling should be implemented. Meanwhile, consumer education content and timing decisions cannot be made until the Commission decides whether load profiling will be allowed and, if so, how it should be done.

Access to customer information. Decision D. 95-12-063 observed that the playing field for competitive generation would not be level without equal access by all competitors to utility-held customer data bases. The Decision therefore ordered that such access be implemented subject to appropriate protection of customer privacy. The details of implementation are controversial, however, as the August 30 DAWG Report (Chapter 7) and subsequent filings and testimony clearly show. A primary issue is the relative sensitivity of certain basic customer data, specifically customer identification and contact information plus metered electricity consumption for at least one year. To classify this information as sensitive and subject it to a strong consumer consent requirement will reduce the amount of information available to competitive providers. At the same time, to classify it as non-sensitive and subject it to a weaker consent requirement may be detrimental to customer privacy. A Commission position on this issue is essential at this time.

1.2.2 Consumer Education Plan

We have proposed the creation of a Consumer Education Plan (CEP), a comprehensive program that takes a statewide approach to consumer education and maps out strategies, messages, special needs of certain populations, educational media, costs and funding, and many more details. The Commission should review the proposals in Section 5.2 and decide quite soon:

ï approximately when consumer education activities should begin;

ï which entity or entities will be responsible for developing the CEP;

ï whether it will authorize funding for an independent consultant to help create the CEP;

ï on what timetable the CEP should be developed;

ï funding amounts and sources for developing the CEP; and

the timetable for resolving implementation funding issues, so that education can begin well in advance of the start of direct access.

1.2.3 Registration of Electric Service Providers (ESPs)

AB 1890 provides relatively minimal registration requirements for ESPs. Many DAWG parties feel these requirements are too weak, but the group was not able to assess whether AB 1890 gives the Commission leeway to enact stronger requirements. In the very near future the Commission should decide whether it wishes to go beyond AB 1890, to develop stronger registration requirements and to implement some enforcement mechanisms that will deter undesirable business practices by ESPs. If the Commission decides this is a desirable approach, then it will need to decide which party or parties should draft such requirements and mechanisms, and it may need to develop legislative proposals that would ensure its authority in this area.



1.2.4 Reliable Market Information for Consumers

No one disagrees with the concept that consumers need reliable market information in order to be able to make good choices about electric service contracts and consumption. The key point of disagreement is whether they should get most of that information on their own, through market mechanisms, and rely on public agencies only for general education about the industry and useful tools for evaluating alternatives, or whether they should be aided by a significant programmatic effort that collects and disseminates a wealth of information about prices, terms, conditions and qualities of service options, as well as the track records of the market participants. The Commission should decide soon which way it will lean in this debate, and should designate the entity or entities that will perform whatever level of information gathering and dissemination it deems appropriate, keeping in mind the idea that consumers need a neutral source for market information if that information is to be perceived as trustworthy.

1.2.5 Other Consumer Protection Issues

Market monitoring and oversight. These are complex activities that require many decisions about what variables to monitor, how to collect and interpret information, what kinds of data bases to compile, etc. The Commission need not decide all these details now, but it should act promptly to set in motion a process to work out the details of a monitoring and oversight process that must be operational in advance of 1/1/98. At a minimum it must designate who will be responsible for developing the relevant procedures.

Resolution and redress of customer complaints. A fair and efficient procedure needs to be operational by 1/1/98. As in the case of the previous item, the Commission must promptly initiate a process and designate a responsible entity to develop a system that can function efficiently when the market opens.

Third-party verification of change of provider. This anti-slamming provision of AB 1890 gives the CPUC the responsibility of developing a workable mechanism. The process for developing such a mechanism must be initiated without delay.

1.2.6 Restructured Electric Service Education Trust (RESET)

Section 5.4 of this report discusses the need for timely Commission decisions regarding various aspects of the structure and functioning of the RESET, which is the model developed by DAWG parties to fulfill the requirement expressed in D. 95-12-063 to create a new Consumer Education Trust. Clear Commission guidance is needed at this juncture for this concept to move closer to realization.

1.2.7 Funding Issues

Guidance is needed from the Commission regarding funding sources for RESET (see Section 5.4), for a consultant to assist in developing the Consumer Education Plan (see Section 5.2) and for a potentially wide range of education efforts to be conducted by the utilities. In addition, some parties have raised the issue of intervenor funding for consumer advocacy organizations. Until the funding for these functions is resolved, it is difficult for consumer education efforts to progress.

1.3 How This Report is Organized

Following this Introduction and Executive Summary are six additional chapters.

Chapter 2 presents a set of fundamental principles the DAWG parties believe should guide the industry restructuring. Some parties call these a consumer bill of "rights," while others prefer to call them simply "principles." Under either label, they provide guidelines about how we believe consumers should be treated under the new marketplace if that marketplace is to be considered well-functioning, societally efficient and equitable. This chapter is largely taken from Chapter 2 of the August 30 DAWG Report. The set of basic principles has not changed, but some new material has been added in the form of alternative interpretations of the principles and arguments for and against those interpretations.

Chapter 3 describes aspects of market behavior and elements of electric service that may suggest a need for new consumer protection measures. We describe actual abuses that have occurred in other industries and could be applicable here, as well as unique features of electric service that, when opened to diverse unregulated firms, may likely provide opportunities for abuse. Most of this discussion is new since August 30.

Chapter 4 describes the potential institutions and mechanisms of consumer protection, beginning with a non-rigorous review of what AB 1890 says about Commission authority over ESPs, thus updating the corresponding passage in the August 30 Report, Chapter 6. Borrowing heavily from the August 30 Report, Chapter 4 discusses CPUC regulation of competitive local telephone service as an illustrative example. It then provides some alternative approaches to the principal elements of consumer protection identified by the DAWG parties: registration of ESPs, the right to redress, consumer advocacy and market monitoring.

Chapter 5 deals with consumer education and goes substantially beyond the August 30 Report, Chapter 11, particularly with regard to the Consumer Education Plan (CEP). Borrowed largely from the earlier report is the discussion of the Restructured Electric Service Education Trust (RESET).

Chapter 6 deals with access to customer information. Information access issues were fully treated in Chapter 7 of the August 30 DAWG Report and, in contrast to many other subjects the DAWG addressed, the restructuring bill AB 1890 was silent in this area. Parties to this report therefore felt there was no need to add to the earlier effort. As a result, Chapter 6 of the present report simply refers the reader to the August 30 DAWG Report rather than duplicate material that has already been distributed.

Chapter 7 deals with some implementation issues and is completely new to this report. Its specific concerns are twofold:

ï the timely development of registration requirements for ESPs and the implementation of those requirements in time to allow marketing activities well in advance of 1/1/98; and

ï the development of a Consumer Education Plan, including the roles of various participants and the required funding, that may be implemented in time to ensure that consumers are prepared to deal with ESP marketing activities when those activities begin.

1.4 Participants in DAWG Subgroup D

  1. Barkovich and Yap
  2. California Energy Commission
  3. California League of Food Processors
  4. California-Nevada Community Action Association
  5. Cellnet Data Systems
  6. Division/Office of Ratepayer Advocate (DRA/ORA)
  7. California Retailers Association
  8. Dept. of Defense
  9. Dept. of Water Resources
  10. Dept. of the Navy
  11. Eastern Pacific Energy Corp.
  12. Enova
  13. Grueneich Resource Advocates
  14. Independent Energy Producers
  15. Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power
  16. Latino Issues Forum / Greenlining Institute
  17. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
  18. New Energy Ventures, Inc.
  19. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
  20. Power Resources
  21. Richard Heath & Associates
  22. Robinsons-May Department Stores
  23. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
  24. Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District (SMUD)
  25. Southern California Edison (SCE)
  26. Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN)
  27. Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN)
  28. Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association