First item of discussion -- Consumer Bill of Rights (Issue #1)
Proposal accepted to find areas of concern to parties re Consumer Rights document (see UCAN draft) and be sure statements about which there are disagreements are typed in brackets. Then a process has to be developed to indicate what the disagreements are and what the alternatives may be.
All "Rights" in the Bill of Rights/Principles are those associated with the provision of electric service under Restructuring.
"Right to Privacy" (Principle #V) -- draft on this consumer principle subject to considerable change after discussion. Controversy over "constitutionally protected right" of consumer to control the release and use of personal information; what is the meaning of "pertinent manner" re use of information?; and what is "unduly" intrusive marketing effort?
"Quality of Service" (Principle #VII) -- draft to be reworked after discussion on points:
"Right to Affordable Electric Service" (Principle #IX) -- draft to be reworked to replace "most inelastic" with "least choice" or "limited options", and include the concept (mandate) of no cost shifting. This principle to be reframed in terms of "universal service" a la telecom.
"Transaction Costs" and "Improvement Over the Status Quo" (#s X and XI) -- to be redrafted.
Add Principle #XII -- Right to Continuous Service for customers with accounts in good standing. This would apply for situations where the service provider ceased to provide service for some reason.
Proposal to cross-reference Rights with original Workplan for Subgroup D. DRA to do this by next meeting on June 19th, and posted on DRA's website o/a June 14.
UCAN will redraft the Consumer Bill of Rights document,
to be posted on DRA's website o/a June 14.
Second topic for discussion -- Consumer Privacy (Issue #2)
DRA's proposal presented (see DRA website under Direct Access -- Privacy issues and/or ref hardcopy document handed out at both May 31and today's meetings).
CEC also presented material/principles/questions
re consumer privacy.
Privacy issues enumerated for discussion:
1. Types of info at issue
2. Types of uses of info
3. Opt-in vs. Opt-out (customer's choice for info release and use)
4. Types of customers
5. Proprietary rights
Telemarketing discussed as most intrusive means of marketing.
Proposal that "D" group should focus on "balance" of privacy vs. info needs. But real question is "opt-in/opt-out" choice.
Re information custodian and release of information, we should not focus on UDCs only, since other competitors will eventually develop databases, also.
What are the types of info we're talking about that require protection?
(All information is customer-specific)
Opt-in vs. Opt-out: Customer has to be told what the information is to be used for. Opt-in tends to protect privacy; opt-out tends to facilitate the market.
Opt-in/opt-out may be the wrong question -- should focus on those customers (80%?) who do nothing (no option exercised) -- what happens as a default scenario?
Opt-in places burden on providers who want info. Why not segment info to include only types of info needed by specific provider? Rather than an all-or-nothing list choice.
Customer list info was used by long-distance telephone companies to open the market (name, address and account number only).
For electric, customer list is not as useful as usage data.
Large, sophisticated customer may want to get its info out to as many providers as possible to drive out a better deal.
Energy efficiency provider may want to solicit residential customers (for DSM and generation, etc.).
Privacy issue depends on whether we think small consumer will benefit or not. Gas experience shows all customers will benefit. Not all parties agree with this assessment of the gas experience.
Community access aggregated data not as sensitive
as individual data.
Registration & Oversight (Issue #3) introduced
with this statement to stimulate discussion:
"All electric providers should be registered, overseen by the electric provider industry, with a governmental regulatory enforcement backstop"
Brief discussion on what may be required in licensing/registering service providers:
What's required in GAS industry?
Who should be registered? (Should there be registration?)
If so, who controls the process? (Self-policing? PUC? Other?)
And if so, what form should registration take?
(Back to Consumer Privacy issue)
Who owns customer information? SDG&E posits that customer does not own its usage data, etc.
Should customer be paid for release of information?
There is precedent in the gas industry -- shouldn't we use that?
What about info collected at ratepayer expense?
Restructuring creates a "realizable" benefit in information value.
Carl Silsbee will draft a piece on "information
as property" for next meeting.
Back to Registration & Oversight (sorry,
folks, that's the way the discussion went)
Why do we need registration? Civil codes apply to undesirable behaviors.
But civil procedures and remedies are too slow -- immediate oversight/authority is beneficial to consumers.
If provider is already registered elsewhere (FERC, etc.), maybe it would not have to file a full application, but should be licensed specifically by California so authority is maintained. (FERC does not regulate or cover intrastate retail electric service.)
UDCs may want to see a third party market scheme backed up by some government protection in case the scheme goes awry and the UDC has to pick up the pieces.
There are entities the CPUC has no authority over (e.g., out-of-state companies). However, if an out-of-state company serves California customers, CPUC does have jurisdiction.
It appears some government agency should have jurisdiction
and the CPUC is a logical choice.
Next meeting is June 19, in Sacramento. Three issues will be addressed, with indicated parties assigned initial drafting duties: