DAWG Subgroup D -- Consumer Protection and Education
Minutes of September 12, 1996 Meeting
at the Oakland Airport Hilton
[Michael Shames facilitated and Lynn Maack took some notes, which are the primary basis for these minutes. Please contact Lynn Maack to correct errors, omissions, etc. These minutes are to be posted on DRA's (oops, ORA's) website.]
The published agenda was only partially followed, due to lack of written submittals on certain subjects. Discussions focused on customer education, fair, non-discriminatory access, implementation of direct access (in terms of scheduling of education efforts, et al.) and preparation of the October 30 report on consumer protection and education.
Customer education was the first topic for discussion, focusing on implementation. Lorenzo Kristov's discussion draft outline of a framework for consumer education was presented (draft dated 4/11/84?, but emailed September 11, 1996). The document is a compilation of the points brought up and agreed upon at the August 28 meeting of DAWG-D. Lorenzo's document may be viewed on the DRA website as soon as it can be posted.
The need for a strong UDC (utility) role in consumer education was emphasized by Carl Silsbee (and the Legislature, per AB 1890). Carl proposed a schedule of implementation of direct access that includes components of provider registration, customer education and gauging of demand. Discussion of the schedule was postponed until later in the meeting.
Three possible scenarios arose regarding responsibility for designing and carrying out an education campaign:
1. A statewide, coordinated effort of all utilities, where the IOUs would hire a consultant to develop an overall plan, with CPUC oversight, and with outside stakeholder input.
2. Outside parties only (other than IOUs), such as community- based organizations, which could also include a consultant's services.
3. Combined IOU and other outside parties' efforts.
Consensus is deemed important on the implementation approach, since timing is critical and the task is large. No one disputes that the IOUs will carry a large portion of the burden.
Parties should review the Caller I.D. education report as instructional for our work. (Call CACD for copy.)
In designing and conducting the educational campaign, we want to be sure to protect customers who do nothing, even after the information is provided to them.
The three IOUs should present a joint proposal to Group D on timelines and funding, drawing upon experience of PacBell and GTE in the telecom arena.
There was discussion, but no consensus, on the idea of assessing the market to determine who is interested in direct access, who needs to be educated and with how much information, prior to conducting any dissemination of information. Some feel an assessment is important to designing a program and others feel total outreach at the outset is necessary to stimulate demand, hence the assessment is unnecessary.
One problem is that we don't know the market rules that will apply, whether there will be limited phase-in, etc., and education must focus on the "knowns".
Two key points were identified to include in the education message:
Timing of the message is also critical - if the message is too early, people will forget by the time change happens and they have to do something. But if the education plan is a building exercise, then the early approach with basic information first, with incremental additions over time, would seem appropriate.
The idea of hiring a consultant to determine how best to reach the public with an understandable message and how to direct funds to get it done met with general approval, pending a gameplan for hiring and guiding the efforts of a consultant. The three IOUs agreed to develop a plan to present to prospective consultants (like an RFP?) for the September 26 meeting of group D in Los Angeles. Focus will be what the consultant will be asked to do.
Fair, Non-Discriminatory Access was the next topic of discussion, focusing on UCAN's & Greenlining's draft dated September 10, 1996, which can be seen on DRA's website.
It was acknowledged that any requirements placed on service providers in connection with their registration must be considered in light of AB 1890. That legislation prescribes minimal registration conditions and we must acknowledge that there are likely limits as to what the CPUC can require of service providers, at least as a condition of registration. However, requiring data from providers does not appear to be so limited if that requirement is part of a monitoring effort.
Further, concerns in this chapter could be considered limited generally to smaller customers, with stated demand cutoff of 20 kV or less, since discrimination for large customers would likely be less of an issue.
The proposal is that information provided by a supplier to a retail customer shall contain full disclosure of charges and allow price comparison with other suppliers. It is not specified whether such comparison would be with actual market prices or the PX price.
Text outlining release of customer information is to be deleted, since that subject was covered in the August 30
DAWG report.
The subject of landlord/tenant relationships and direct access was briefly discussed. Issues include the scenario where a landlord of an apartment building that is submetered contracts with a service provider, but one tenant wants to remain with the UDC. The section will be expanded by Rich Jarvinen to add issues relating to condo tenants.
Back to Carl Silsbee, who introduced his "big bang" theory of implementation of direct access and the timing of the processes of provider registration, consumer education and solicitation of interest of participants. The group managed to whittle his theory down to a "little bang", since the presumption in the plan was that direct access would be limited at the outset in some fashion, either by supply or demand, rather than being implemented full-bore on 1/1/98. Worst-case scenario received the term "trickle" theory, where direct access, at least to small customers, occurs very slowly over time.
Basically, regardless of bang size, the schedule would be registration beginning early 1997, education beginning soon thereafter (mid-1997) and solicitation of participant interest soon after that. Carl will refine for next meeting.
The next meeting of the Consumer Protection and Education group will be on Thursday, September 26, at the Wyndham Hotel at LAX, sponsored by SCE. The meeting will be all day, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m. Issues will be #7, Customer Service Quality, #9, Unfair Trade and Marketing Practices, and #X, Implementation, plus detailing the process for production of the final report on October 30.
Report Notes: The group intends to compile the first draft of the October 30 report on October 8. The Full DAWG, in its meeting immediately preceding today's group D meeting, determined that the October 30, 1996, report of the Consumer Protection and Education subgroup is an official DAWG report and as such should be made available to all DAWG participants at significant stages. Accordingly, a letter will soon be sent to all DAWG participants to determine who may want a copy of the October 8 draft. (Chris King volunteered to draft the letter.) On October 15, there will be a meeting sponsored by SDG&E for parties to present comments on the October 8 draft. This meeting will also be the FINAL cutoff date for input into the October 30 report. Further details on the process will be determined next meeting.
As indicated in the minutes from the August 28 meeting, various parties accepted responsibility for the various remaining issues. The list has been revised, as follows:
Issue #1, Consumer Principles ……………………………………… UCAN/Greenlining
#3, Registration & Oversight …………………………...................UCAN/Greenlining
#4, Consumer Information & Education………..................UCAN/DRA/Greenlining
#6, Fair, Non-discriminatory Access ……….......................UCAN/Greenlining
#7, (Customer) Service Quality ……………………...................PG&E
#9, Unfair Trade & Marketing Practices ..........................SDG&E/DRA
#10, Low-Income ……………………………………………………………All
#11, Dispute & Complaint Resolution ………........................UCAN
#X, (New issue) Implementation ……………………...............SCE