3. Comments of Parties on Report
On August 6, 2010, comments on the Report were filed by PG&E, DRA, TURN, the Joint Utilities, Southwest Gas, SCE, Greenlining, and PacificCorp. Late comments were filed by the California Small Business Roundtable and California Small Business Association (CSBRT/CSBA) on September 2, 2010.5 Reply comments were filed on August 17, 2010, by DRA, PG&E, Greenlining, the Joint Utilities, PacificCorp, and SCE.
Parties' comments on the three main Report issues are discussed below.
3.1. Defining Small Business Customers
Parties generally support the Report's recommendation that Small Business Customers be defined as non-residential electric customers using no more than 40,000 kWh per year or an electrical demand of 20 kW or less, or non-residential gas customers using no more than 10,000 therms per year. Alternatively, a small business customer is a non-residential customer who meets the definition of "micro-business" as provided in Government Code Section 14837. Although it does not oppose the Section 14837 definition, PacificCorp points out that accommodating the Section 14837 definition of a small business may require it to undertake significant reprogramming.
The utilities request clarification on applying these definitions when there are changes in energy usage. Utilities also note that determining whether some business customers qualify under the Section 14837 definition will require hand processing of such requests.
3.2. Back-billing
Parties generally agree with the Report's recommendation to change the current back-billing rule and require that small businesses are back-billed for a maximum of three months. However, parties raise questions on implementing this rule, including measurement of the twelve-month period for determining energy usage, and qualification of small businesses under the Section 14837 definition.
3.3. Deposits
Southwest Gas and PacifiCorp agree with the Report's recommendation that small business deposits be reduced from two times the maximum monthly bill to two times the average monthly bill, while the Joint Utilities oppose this change. SCE would agree to revise deposit rules if the revisions sunset on January 1, 2012. PG&E explains that it already assesses deposits at twice the average monthly bill, except when PG&E is notified of financial deterioration of the business.
All of the non-utility parties support the proposed change in the deposit rule. In addition TURN and Greenlining recommend that deposits be prohibited for re-establishment of service due to disconnections for late or non-payment of bills.
5 CSBA/CSBRT requested authorization to file late-filed comments and for party status in this proceeding on September 2, 2010; this motion is unopposed and is granted.
