6. Comments on Proposed Decision

The PD of the assigned Commissioner in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on December 7, 2009, by PG&E, SDG&E, Pacificorp, Sierra Pacific, CAISO, DRA, TURN, CARE, CFC, CEERT, Google, and Tendril. Reply comments were filed on December 14, 2009 by SCE and SDG&E.

In general, comments either addressed the substance of the matters addressed in the PD or sought resolution and clarification of procedural issues concerning the next steps in the proceeding.

6.1. Comments Pertaining to the Issues Before the Commission

SDG&E, Pacificorp, Sierra Pacific, and DRA, express broad support for the substance of the PD and its findings.

PG&E asks that "the PD should be interpreted as setting the end of 2010 as a goal for near-real time customer access to price and usage information, not as a mandate."¹⁹¹

CAISO argues that the Commission "should consider requiring utilities to also provide wholesale price information as a complement to the retail price information that already will be covered through the AMI proceedings."¹⁹² CAISO asks that the PD "include the issue of wholesale prices in future workshops."¹⁹³ CAISO notes that "[r]eal-time wholesale price information already is provided on the ISO's Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) website."¹⁹⁴

CEERT, similarly, asks that the PD clarify "an intention to ensure customer (or their authorized third party) access to wholesale market information or the underlying cost associated with retail rates."¹⁹⁵

TURN expresses general support for the PD, but states that the Commission "provide for some flexibility in the date by which pricing information is made available on a `real-time basis,' and the Commission should encourage the utilities to use the communications infrastructure to send other useful consumer information."¹⁹⁶ TURN argues for this flexibility because "[s]ome of the information and data regarding the communication of price versus usage data will overlap ..."¹⁹⁷ Specifically, TURN argues that "there is evidence showing that consumers will benefit and actively desire information concerning their cumulative monthly usage relative to baseline rates."¹⁹⁸

CFC supports most of the determinations in the PD, but requests that the Commission adopt a standard requiring a regulatory showing by a utility that demonstrates that it has considered a smart grid system before investing in "nonadvanced grid technologies."¹⁹⁹

CARE opposes the PD's decision declining to adopt a standard requiring a regulatory showing that a utility demonstrate that it considered a Smart Grid investment before making a grid investment. CARE argues that "the Commission failed to demonstrate"²⁰⁰ that such a requirement is inconsistent with the purposes of the act. CARE also opposes the PD's deferring of action on obsolete equipment to other proceedings. Finally, CARE opposes the PD's policies pertaining to access to information.

Google requests that the Commission clarify its discussion of access to usage and pricing information to avoid "inclusion of the word `whether,'" because it "casts doubt on the topics to be addressed in the upcoming workshops/comments."²⁰¹ Similarly, Google asks for clarifications concerning "the policy objectives identified in the PD"²⁰² and concerning "access to usage and price information ..."²⁰³

Tendril expresses support for the decision.

6.2. Discussion of Comments Pertaining to Issues before the Commission

Concerning the comments of PG&E, we note that the PD draws a distinction between price information and usage data, and sets a 2010 goal for providing all consumers with access to price data and has ordered the provision of access to real or near-real time usage data by the end of 2011. In addition, this decision mandates access to usage data on a "backhaul" basis by the end of 2010. Access to usage data, however, must comply with the rules developed in this proceeding to ensure that the access is consistent with EISA, the general public interest, and state privacy rules.

Concerning the comments of CAISO and CEERT, we clarify that our workshops will indeed consider providing customers with access to wholesale price data as well as retail data. As CAISO points out, such access is possible to provide and the information on wholesale price will assist those seeking to offer demand-response services to the grid. We have made changes throughout this decision to make it clear that the workshops will seek to provide access to both wholesale and retail price information.

Concerning the comments of TURN, we find that TURN raises important points concerning the difficulty of separating price and usage data, as well as the importance of providing cumulative totals for usage and billing to customers. In response, we wish to make it clear that these are topics that we will consider in the workshops that will follow this proceeding.

Concerning CFC's comments, we note that the comments fail to point out errors of law or fact in the PD. Similarly, CARE's comments fail to point out errors of law or fact.

Concerning Google's requests for clarifications, we have made changes in response to Google's comments.

6.3. Comments Pertaining to Next Steps in Proceeding

In addition to comments on the substance of the proposals contained in the PD, several parties provided comments recommending procedural steps.

Pacificorp, noting that the PD has resolved all EISA issues pertaining to PacifiCorp, asks "to be excused from Phase 2 of this proceeding."²⁰⁴ PacifiCorp, however, acknowledging the passage of SB 17, states "[i]f PacifiCorp is not excused from this rulemaking at this time, PacifiCorp requests that the Proposed Decision be modified to limit PacificCorp's continued participation in the next phase of R.98-12-009 only to the applicability of SB 17 to PacificCorp , and specifically to the question of whether to excuse PacifiCorp from the SB 17 requirements by way of the § 8368 exemption for small electrical companies."²⁰⁵

Similarly, Sierra Pacific asks that it "be dismissed from this proceeding"²⁰⁶ on grounds similar to those argued by PacifiCorp. Sierra Pacific, however, also acknowledges the passage of SB 17 and its requirements, but argues that "administrative efficiency is best served by determining whether Sierra can be excused from SB 17 requirements at this time."²⁰⁷ In the alternative, Sierra Pacific asks that the PD "be modified to explicitly state that Sierra's participation in this proceeding be limited to issues involving implementation of SB 17, and that Sierra be excused from issues that broadly pertain to this Commission's proposals to adopt policies to modernize California's transmission and distribution infrastructure."²⁰⁸

TURN suggests "that a more feasible and efficient approach would be either to 1) set a deadline of end-of-2012 for both these objectives [providing price and usage data to all consumers] or, 2) allow the AC or assigned ALJ to modify the suggested deadlines as appropriate."

Tendril and Google ask that the Commission provide more details on the timing of the workshops. Google proposes a schedule for the remainder of this proceeding and urges its adoption.

6.4. Discussion of Comments Pertaining to Next Steps

Concerning the requests of PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific, we find that it is reasonable to limit participation in the next phase of this proceeding by the utilities PacifiCorp, Sierra Pacific, Mountain Utilities and Bear Valley to issues raised by Senate Bill 17 (Chapter 327, Statutes of 2009) unless a utility, within 30 days of the adoption of this decision, files a motion in this proceeding requesting full participation. In addition, if one of these utilities desires dismissal from the this proceeding, then the utility should file a motion explaining why it is reasonable, pursuant to SB 17, to not apply the requirements to these companies in light of their individual circumstances. The assigned Commissioner or the assigned ALJ should be authorized to grant a motion for dismissal via a ruling.

Concerning TURN's suggestion regarding creating flexible deadlines, we clarify that the provision of access to usage data will not take place unless the Commission has rules in place consistent with EISA, the public interest, and state privacy laws to protect consumers.

The request of Google and Tendril for more details concerning the workshops and timetable is beyond the scope of this decision. We expect to issue in January 2010 via ruling a specified schedule to the issues discussed herein regarding consented third-party access to customer data. In addition, SB 17 provides a structure of deadlines affecting this proceeding, and this should provide parties with the guidance that they request.

6.5. Review of Comments and Replies

We have reviewed all the comments and replies. In addition to addressing many of the issues raised by parties directly, we have revised the decision in many places based on the comments and replies as we deemed reasonable.