Diana Brooks graciously agreed to facilitate the meeting, and
Bob Finkelstein reluctantly enlisted to take notes.
Consumer Information and Education
This topic was deferred to the next meeting, at which
time all participants are requested to have prepared responses
to and/or elaborations upon two documents:
1. UCAN's 6/13 Memorandum on Community-Based Education
2. DRA'S Memorandum on the Consumer Education Trust
(hardcopy undated and unattributed; Web copy dated 6/14).
Consumer Privacy
Carl Silsbee of Edison had faxed out a draft of
language for this section of the report. Carl also led the discussion
of this topic today.
Format/Structure
Mike Jaske noted that the Coordinating Committee
is developing a style guide for the entire report. The general
structure will be a general background discussion, followed by
a description of the various views of the participants.
General Overview of Privacy Issues
While some felt there are no hard and fast answers
to these questions, DRA had cited specific statutory code sections
in its original write-up on privacy issues that seemed to contradict
this view.
Other sources of information are Lorenzo Kristov's paper
from mid-May, and Michael Shames' discussion of this issue in
his draft on consumer rights
Lorenzo was appointed team leader for the effort of folding together
the various discussions of the existing statutes implicating privacy
issues. Rich J. of SDG&E and DRA will assist in the effort.
Carl continued discussing his draft -- the kinds of information
at issue, and the tradeoffs to be made or considered in determining
how to respond to the privacy issues.
Strategic Choices
The group discussed the boundaries of "opt-in/opt-out"
approaches to getting customers to consider waiving their privacy
rights.
Someone pointed out that there could also be other models under
which the customer would not have any choice on this issue.
Proprietary Nature of Customer Information
Ownership -- There is a wide range of opinion on
who owns customer information.
Lorenzo K. suggested the real question is what can the owner do
with the information. There may be a need to differentiate the
various types of ownership.
Mike J. noted the tradeoff between privacy and commercial use
of information, and stated that the proprietary issue is simply
one aspect of the overall information issue.
Mike also noted that there has been a lot of work on this issue
done already by the IAST (?) group within CEC, and that we may
want to use that work as a springboard for our work here.
Lynn Maack stated that there is a much narrower question asked
in the original two queries on this subject (i.e., Subgroup D's
list of Issues, developed early in this process).
Eric W. questioned whether any of the old analyses of the issues
work in a newly emerging market. For example, if a new meter
is installed by a non-utility service provider, who owns the data
generated thereby? Certainly not the utility . . . .
Lorenzo pointed out that the PUC had clearly sought to get data
to non-utility providers in order to bolster the competition we
are likely to see.
The group then came up with a series of questions to be addressed.
The Questions To Be Addressed.
1. Equal access by electric/generation service providers.
2. Privacy standards governing retailers
3(a) The release of UDC data (impersonal)
3(b) The release of UDC data (personal)
Rich J. of SDG&E had suggested three categories into which information generally fell: (1) Sensitive personal information; (2) personal information that could be identifiable to an individual consumer; and (3) impersonal data, such as aggregated information or the results of a saturation study.
4 Opt-in/opt-out procedures, including keeping additional
information and providing regular reminders or updates about the
opportunity to release information or bar its release, as the
case may be.
5. Pricing for information provided by the UDC.
6. Treatment of revenues collected for information provided
by the UDC.
Parties were asked to E-mail or fax one or two paragraphs on any
or all of these points to Carl Silsbee at Edison by June 25.
His E-mail address is SILSBECH@SCE.COM.
Mike Jaske raised the question whether these information standards
will apply only to generation providers or to DSM-only service
providers as well.
At this point there was a break. Then we got into the topic of
Registration and Oversight
Registration and Oversight
Michael Shames had prepared a paper entitled "Registration
and Redress".
Bob raised the rules that had been developed in the local competition
rulemaking for the telecommunications industry, and promised to
make a matrix of those rules. Diana Brooks suggested DRA could
help. (Useful decision numbers are D.95-07-054, see Appendices
A and B, and D.95-12-056, see Appendix C.) Someone asked whether
the appendices could be posted on DRA's web page. That has been
done.
There was general agreement that we need to collaborate with subgroup
B, the Market Rules folks, on this topic.
The key questions raised here appear to be:
Michael Shames' paper addresses the first two, with "yes"
and "PUC" as the answers.
Lynn Maack pointed out that the PUC already has enforcement capabilities,
and that it provides quicker resolution than the courts or other
agencies.
Steve Linsey said that if financial eligibility is one of the
factors for registration, there may be another agency with better
ability to review a company's finances.
Carl Silsbee cited the Telecommunications Local Competition Rules
as requiring only a $25,000 cash-on-hand showing.
Nancy Day asked why a service provider that had satisfied the
creditworthiness requirement for the ISO should be required to
do anything more.
Similarly, someone suggested that registration requirements need
not be the same for all providers -- registration elsewhere (FERC,
etc.) may be sufficient to satisfy PUC registration requirements.
Carl Silsbee said the UDC would be worried about being left high
and dry for services provided by the generator and the
consumer would be left high and dry for power not delivered.
In other words, who will bear the cost of the UDC-delivered power
required in the event of a failed non-utility generator.
There was then a general discussion of the gas industry experience
with gas suppliers who went belly up, and who bore the risk.
Sy Goldstone suggested relying on the FDIC approach, that is,
a pool to insure performance.
Carl said that has the effect of subsidizing the flaky firms.
Rich J. pointed out that if the customer receives electricity
before paying for it, which is typically the case, why
would a bond be needed?
Carl S. countered with the example of a fixed price contract,
and the opportunity for gaming by getting ahead during one season,
then abandoning the contract in the other season.
At this point Bob. F. left the meeting, and DRA was to pick up
the note-taking duties.
(Lynn Maack, taking over note-taking duties --)
There was further discussion about whether group "D"
should limit its activity regarding the six Privacy issues shown
above. A suggestion was made that we should focus on numbers
2, 3 and 4. The decision of the group was that the writings submitted
would to some extent determine the focus and scope of the Privacy
coverage.
NOTE:
Cross-Feed to Subgroup "B", the
Market Rules Committee
At the meeting of group "B" immediately
preceding today's "D" meeting, group "B" requested
input from group "D" on Customer Privacy by mid-July,
since "B" must issue a product on July 31 and would
like to consider input from "D". Group "D"
is to make a presentation at the "B" meeting on July
2 (before "D"'s next meeting that same day) on the
content and status of development of "D"'s Consumer
Bill of Rights. One question we should address is, how does group
"B" use the Consumer Bill of Rights we have developed?
NEXT MEETING:
Location:
Subgroup D next meets in Southern California, at a location
to be determined and announced. Under consideration at today's
meeting were LAX and Ontario.
Agenda:
Issues #2, Consumer Privacy; #3, Registration and Oversight;
and #4, Consumer Information and Education.