FW: Rule 22 Group -- Customer Right to Cancel a DASR


 ----------
From: WBooth
To: tariff@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov
Subject: Rule 22 Group -- Customer Right to Cancel a DASR
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 2:39PM

During the workshop held Tuesday, 3/3/98, the parties discussed the need for  changes to the Rule 22 tariff language at E (10) regarding the customer's right to cancel a DASR which has been submitted in error.  The Joint Petition to Modify filed by the three UDCs on February 9, 1998 raised the question whether residential and small commercial customers should have a right to cancel a submitted DASR, in addition to the 3-day cooling off mechanism and the third party verification mechanism mandated by the Code.  On behalf on CLECA, we submitted a Response to the Petition arguing that consideration should be given to ensuring that large customers have the right to cancel a DASR submitted in error, or without their consent, particularly given the fact that the statutory remedies do not apply to them.  I sensed general agreement among those present at the Workshop with this notion and we discussed very generally the possibility of the UDCs amending their Pet to Modify to include large customers in the relief sought.

One possibility would be simply to modify the language proposed for E (6) (c) at pages 2-3 of the Appendix to the UDC Pet to Modify to make it clear that all customers have the right to cancel such a DASR.  For example, the sentence might be modified to read as follows: "If any customer, large or small, believes that an ESP has submitted a DASR to switch the customer's account to the submitting ESP's service without the customer's consent, or, for residential or small commercial customers, without the verification required under ..."   I sense that ENRON is not comfortable with this change to the UDC proposed language and would prefer to go back to the language suggested to the Commission by the Alliance last summer.  That language is shown at page 17 of Appendix A to D.97-10-087.  I think the Alliance language is preferable.  Do others agree?  If so, would the UDCs be willing to amend their Pet to Modify to include this language?  I think this would cut through the matter and provide a viable solution to a potentially serious problem.

I welcome your thoughts.  Bill Booth, Atty for CLECA

.