Michael Shames and Diana Brooks
shared facilitating the meeting, and Lynn Maack took notes.
Consumer Privacy
First up was a continuation of discussion of Issue
#2, Consumer Privacy. Carl Silsbee has compiled
past submittals and distributed his document at the meeting. Rich
Jarvinen has also done a compilation, but in the Report format
adopted by the DAWG. Comments on either document, or both, are
to be sent to Carl no later than noon on Monday, July 8. An attempt
will be made to post an updated document prior to the next "D"
meeting on the 11th.
Among the items discussed:
When referring to types of customer information,
we need to be consistent in terminology, so need to decide on
and define terms such as "aggregated" vs. "impersonal",
and the like.
Question was asked re Carl's write-up whether equal
access to customer data covered entities other than electricity
providers, and the answer was yes, the reference covers others,
such as DSM providers, as well. Mack McKay suggested emphasis
be made that providers be "qualified". That comment
raised the issue of certificated companies vs. ESCOs, who are
not certificated.
Lorenzo Kristov cautioned that our discussion seems
to focus on UDCs, which will not be around until after
1/1/98, whereas we should be focusing on IOUs, who will be responsible
for releasing data before 1/1/98.
We need to define types of customer information;
"sensitive" personal info is info such as income, number
of children, etc. Lorenzo suggests we use personal and impersonal
for simplicity.
Mack suggests that some info release could result
in fewer telemarketing calls, since info users could selectively
target their calls, rather than calling "cold", without
relevant information.
There is obvious disagreement over standards for
release of data by retailers. Contention exists around selling
of info vs. furnishing at cost. Carl will meld his and Rich's
write-ups on this topic.
There is also disagreement over standards for release
of customer-specific info. This brings in the options of "opt-in",
"opt-out" and outright (perhaps an initial one-time)
release without customer consent. Mike Jaske suggested we include
a separate section in the Report covering pre-1/1/98, or the one-time
release scenario. This will be done for a future meeting.
Registration and Oversight
Matrices comparing energy and telco rules will be
presented at next "D" meeting on July 11th.
(Focus for Registration and Oversight was UCAN's June 13 document.)
UCAN proposes that all service providers should be
licensed if they serve retail customers. There seems to be little
discontent with this concept. It was noted that DSM providers
are not currently licensed. This was met with the argument that
building contractors, electricians, plumbers are all licensed,
so why not electricity providers and energy service providers?
Perhaps the gas requirements should be reviewed/copied,
i.e., a creditworthiness check, not outright licensing. Or perhaps
the Building & Professions Code could substitute for PUC regulation.
Licensing and bonding were discussed, eliciting Mack's
continuing concern about reciprocity with out-of-state electricity
providers. This issue was remanded to Group "B", where
it is being dealt with.
UCAN posits that the PUC is the logical lead agency
for enforcement. Mike Yamada submits that a 3rd party
agency might be appropriate for consumer protection -- Munis are
not subject to CPUC jurisdiction and might not be if they expand
beyond their service areas.
Suggestion that PUC can suspend a license or curtail
solicitation of new customers if violations are "likely"
met with expressed concern by some in the group -- due process
must be met. A case-in-point was offered - the World Exchange
telco case - in which the PUC suspended the company pending outcome
of investigation of complaints.
Susan Brown's document on Certification and Consumer
Bill of Rights was briefly discussed. The "CPCN" concept
was raised again as a concern of some parties as too burdensome.
This concern seems to ease when relaxed certification or licensing
requirements are introduced.
On the Bill of Rights, Nancy Day is concerned about
the multi-lingual requirement on advertisements, if the target
customer base is known to be English-speaking only. Thinking of
the group seems to be that ads need be multi-lingual only if the
population at issue is sufficiently diverse as to call for it.
Michael Shames will recompile the Registration and
Oversight material and re-present it next meeting.
Consumer Information and Education
Discussion on this issue covered the education trust
and the content and scope of education programs.
The education trust
DRA offered its June 14 submittal on the Consumer
Education Trust - suggesting initial and continuing funding as
well as structure of the trust.
DRA suggested that initially (pre-1/1/98) the IOUs
fund the trust in some manner, perhaps diverting GRC funds. Mack
saw a problem with this, since there will be a PBR framework and
it will not be the same deal anymore - with a price cap, it would
be as if the utility itself were paying.
Alternative suggestions from the group for funding
were: use the Public Goods Charge; redirect unspent DSM funds;
deposit unrefundable refund amounts into the trust rather than
the State General Fund.
For the longer term (post-1/1/98), funding could
come 1) directly from service providers or 2) from fines and penalties
levied against service providers. There was much disagreement
on the first point, such as, what about companies coming into
the business midstream - they wouldn't have paid their fair share.
On the second point, there did not seem to be disagreement.
DRA offered a third possibility of cost defrayal,
which could be modeled after the US Postal Service's educational
brochure on what to do when moving (e.g., change address forms,
etc.). The brochure was prepared by an independent marketing firm
and contained advertisements which, presumably, pay for some or
all of the effort. This concept attracted some interest and consent
from the group.
The Caller I.D. educational drive was brought up
several times as a good example. However, we need to know more
about the cost and effectiveness of this effort.
Which brings up the question of how much will an
electric education trust effort cost? The Caller I.D. education
program was of very limited scope - the electric restructuring
education subject matter will be much broader and more complex.
Michael Shames said he thought the Caller I.D. education program
cost around $35 million.
Parties seem to agree that the education trust should
have a sunset date, even if only to provide for reevaluation of
its effectiveness and the need for continuation.
DRA offered that the education effort must begin
six months prior to 1/1/98, which means that the trust must be
up and running even earlier, (like around the beginning of 1997!).
Content and scope of educational effort
UCAN offered its June 13 submittal on consumer education,
detailing four areas: 1) Community-based education, 2) Educational
material and programs, 3) Use of UDC bills to impart information
and 4) the Consumer education trust.
It was noted that the education trust would not be
providing all the educational effort, but that it would have a
clearly delineated focus. The CPUC, the CEC, the UDCs, providers
and others may also be involved in various aspects of consumer
education on electricity restructuring.
Questions to be refined:
Latino Issues Forum/Greenlining Coalition is also
interested in presenting ideas re the electric education trust,
but was unable to attend today's meeting. DRA will contact Susan
Brown to coordinate on this.
DRA suggested Consumer Education be discussed two
meetings from today; all agreed.
Other consumer education comments
Sierra Pacific Power & Light asked whether non-participating
IOUs would be required to educate their customers as to why they
are not eligible….
NEXT MEETING:
When and Where:
Subgroup D next meets On July 11, 1996 at 1:00 p.m.,
in San Francisco, at PG&E's Energy Center, 245 Market Street.
Agenda:
Issues #2, Consumer Privacy; #3, Registration and Oversight; #5, Obligation to Serve; the subject of how to accomplish production of the August 30 Report; and the matrices on regulations/laws, telco vs. electric.