DAWG Subgroup D

Consumer Protection and Education

Meeting Minutes of September 26, 1996

(Location: LAX Wyndham Hotel)

I. Introduction

Diana Brooks facilitated the meeting. Notes were taken by Lynn Maack and Faye Smothers. Please contact either of these individuals for corrections or omissions. There were a total of six handouts, including the agenda, and the minutes from the September 12^th meeting.

The meeting opened with a position paper and comments from Bruce Matulich, of Cellnet. In short, the paper proposes that the commission define "non-discriminatory access" to incorporate access to low-cost, hourly metering. There was discussion as to whether or not this group provided the appropriate forum for this subject. Some thought this topic could be better addressed in the metering group. Conclusions:

• Bruce will provide the group with documentation supporting zero or minimal net cost to deploy direct access or real-time meters to small customers.
• Bruce will draft a piece on non-discriminatory access for the future requirements section.

II. Unfair Trade and Marketing Practices ( Rich Jarvinen, SDG&E)

Rich provided a handout (Proposed Report Outline/Table of Contents-Chapters and Sections). This document is posted on the DRA website. The group reviewed this handout and made adjustments. Rich will take the outline and make the appropriate corrections, etc. He will also work with Joe on drafting chapter 3.

• Comments to address sections 3.1 and 3.2 can be sent to: Jcabrera@CPUC.CA.GOV
• Two main areas of concern were: target marketing as it relates to red-lining, and payments and deposits. Most of group felt there could be significant abuse in these areas.

• The group agreed it would transfer relevant portions of the August 30^th report to the October 30^th report. Under "consumer principles" section 2.2 of the October 30^th report will be included, with an addition of the pros and cons. Comments on this section should be sent to UCAN or Greenlining by October 4, 1996.

III. Consumer Education (Carl Silsbee, Edison)

Carl provided a handout (Consumer Education Plan-Discussion draft for Sept. 26, 1996 meeting). This document is posted on the DRA website, and outlines an option for the education process. He spoke of initial oversight being provided by the IOUs. They would put together a scope of services for an RFP. Funding would be necessary (amount unknown), however, there was no consensus on how this would occur. Discussion ensued on funding. This is a concern for the IOUs, if the trust is not approved prior to implementation.

• Doug Kline (SDG&E) suggested the 3 IOUs use their own in-house communications experts/facilities to do the plan.
• Option is to have a consultant devise the plan and IOUs implement it.

The IOUs expressed concern over out-sourcing the development of the education plan, and decided to meet over lunch to discuss. The meeting was open to other participants. The topic of the discussion was: 1) Should the education plan be done by a consultant or the IOUs themselves? 2) Who is most suited to develop the plan? 3) How much will it cost? 4) What message should be delivered? 5) How will it be funded? PG&E will host a meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday, October 1 to discuss this subject further. Anyone interested in attending should contact Pat Rodimer of PG&E at (415) 972-5204 for details.

IV. Customer Service Quality (Art McAuley, PG&E)

A handout was provided entitled " Issue #7-Customer Service Quality," dated 9/25/96. A discussion was had over the amount of duplication with the DAWG report of August 30^th on the billing issue.

• Issue: UDC has no obligation to shut off service for an ESP who is having problems with a customer. This is mentioned in Art's paper.
• Carl brought up the topic of bonding - the ESP having the ability to cover the financial risk of doing business.
• Art and Rich will work on integrating his paper with chapter 7.

V. Implementation (Carl Silsbee, Edison)

Carl provided the following information on the board, as it applies to the report outline:

I. Principles

II. Implementation Requirements

III. Timelines

Registration Education

12/6 Utilities file proposed registration standards 12/3 Utility filing/funding

1/6 Protest period 1/13 Protest period

1/13 Comments 1/31 CPUC decision

1/31 Intervenor testimony 4/30 Vendor selection

2/7 Hearings 6/30 CEP done

4/30 CPUC decision 7/1-7/10 Implem. stage #1

6/30 Registration and application 10/1-12/31 Implem. stage #2

7/30 Protest

8/30 CPUC decision

There was a great deal of discussion about this timeline. It is very aggressive and does not incorporate approval of the trust fund. The group agreed that some of the dates will need adjustment. Carl is interested in everyone's feedback.

VI. Report Process