· Authorized PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SoCalGas to charge significant costs associated with complying with the new practices in the decision to their memorandum accounts.

D.10-07-048 adopted the customer service disconnection practices listed above on a limited term basis.³ This decision addresses, among other things, whether to order the continuation of any of these practices.

2.3. Settlement Agreement

Following the issuance of D.10-07-048, SDG&E, SoCalGas, and the consumer groups active in this proceeding entered into a settlement resolving all outstanding issues with respect to SDG&E and SoCalGas. In D.10-12-051 the Commission approved the settlement and modified D.10-07-048 accordingly. As a result of the approved settlement, the Phase II issues that we resolve today pertain only to PG&E and SCE.

2.4. Phase II Issues

D.10-07-048 designated the following issues to be addressed in Phase II of this proceeding:

1. What is causing the discrepancy between the disconnection rates of CARE versus non-CARE customers? How can we limit this discrepancy? For example, should the recertification of CARE customers be waived for some period and, if so, for how long?

2. What is causing the discrepancy between the disconnection rates of PG&E and SCE as compared to SDG&E and SoCalGas? Are there certain customer service policies or practices of SDG&E and SoCalGas that PG&E and SCE should adopt in order to further decrease the number of customer service disconnection in the PG&E and SCE service territories?

3. What is the role of CSRs in educating customers about assistance programs and assisting in completing CARE applications and what are the costs of this additional work?

4. Should utilities provide an opportunity for customers to select a language for utility communications, and what are the associated costs?

5. Should the utilities establish a uniform protocol for remote disconnections?

6. Have utilities established a uniform billing and accounting methodology that ensures that the customer receives proper credit for monies paid as discussed in R.10-02-005 at 7?

7. Should particular disconnection notice practices be adopted for all utilities?

8. What should be the sunset date for PG&E's interim practices?

9. Should there be exceptions to deposit rules for certain customers demonstrating continued fraud or bad check activities?

10. Should customers be allowed to choose a monthly billing date for their payments?

11. How should sensitive customers be defined, and how can utilities identify such customers?

D.10-07-048 also provided that Phase II would address the categories and significant costs associated with compliance with the practices in this proceeding. However, as provided in D.10-07-048, memorandum account cost recovery will be determined in the next general rate case (GRC) for each utility.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rulings issued on August 26, 2010, September 21, 2010, and April 19, 2011 (Phase II Rulings) provided guidance on how Phase II issues would be addressed. The first of these rulings provided for comment on three issues: allowing customers to select their own billing date, waiver of deposit exceptions, and definition of "sensitive customer." The latest of the Phase II rulings provided opportunity for comment on the following issues:⁴

1. What is causing the discrepancy between the disconnection rates of CARE versus non-CARE customers? What low cost strategies can be implemented to help decrease the disconnection rate of CARE customers? How easily can the recommended strategies be implemented and at what estimated cost? Please note that any recommendations that would require modifications to the CARE program (e.g. waiving the recertification of CARE customers for some period, etc.) should be considered in PG&E's and SCE's respective 2012-2014 Energy Savings Assistance Program (formerly, known as the Low Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE)) and CARE budget applications.

2. What is the current role of CSRs in educating customers about assistance programs? Should CSRs assist in completing over the phone CARE applications and what would be the additional costs of this?

3. Are PG&E and SCE's current communication language options sufficient in meeting their customers' needs? If not, can third-party programs like Community Help and Awareness of Natural Gas and Electricity Services (CHANGES) which offer assistance in 18 different languages provide a viable alternative? Please indicate any additional languages that are not represented but would be beneficial to a large population if included.

4. Should PG&E and SCE establish a uniform protocol for remote disconnections in this proceeding? Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of any uniform protocol you recommend.

5. Since the Settlement Agreement for the Joint Utilities is effective until December 31, 2013, should the effective sunset date for PG&E's and SCE's residential disconnection practices also be December 31, 2013?

6. Is there supporting data or studies that show that allowing customers to choose their billing date assists in better bill payment management and result in less arrearages? If so, should all customers be allowed to choose a monthly billing date for their payments, or should this customer class be limited, (such as to CARE only customers, or CARE customers in arrearages)? If you have evidence or facts which support the contention that allowing customers to choose their own billing dates will provide better bill payment management or bill paying behavior, please provide that support in your comments along with estimated costs associated with allowing this option.

7. Please break down the specific cost by categories tracked in the memorandum account associated with compliance with the practices in this proceeding (e.g. waiver of credit deposits, in person bill collections and disconnections for medical baseline/life support customers, etc.), of March 31, 2011.

8. Utilities are normally the best sources of customer practices intended to reduce disconnections. Other than a bench-marking as adopted in the Settlement Agreement for the Joint Utilities, what other mechanisms or practices might be useful for reducing PG&E and SCE residential customer disconnections which were not included in D.10-07-048? Parties recommending such mechanisms should provide estimates of the costs of implementing them.

2.5. Development of the Phase II Record

Phase I opening and reply comments were filed in response to the OIR on March 12, 2010 and April 2, 2010, respectively, and constitute part of the Phase II record. The Phase II rulings established two additional rounds of comments. Opening and reply comments were filed on September 15, 2010 and September 24, 2010, respectively, by the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT),⁵ the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SoCalGas, and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). In the second round, opening and reply comments were filed on May 20, 2011 and May 31, 2011, respectively, by DisabRA, DRA, Greenlining, NCLC, PG&E, SCE, and TURN. The City and County of San Francisco (the City) filed reply comments on May 31, 2011 supporting the comments filed by DisabRA, DRA, Greenlining, NCLC, and TURN (sometimes referred to herein as customer or consumer representatives).

The Phase II record also includes utility filings that were ordered by the Commission. Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 10 of D.10-07-048, on October 1, 2010 PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SoCalGas jointly filed proposals regarding uniform notice of disconnection procedures and the estimated costs and estimated time to implement such procedures. The utilities' joint filing also addressed uniform arrearage billing and accounting practices in accordance with the Commission's discussion of this issue at 7 of the OIR as well as the August 26, 2010 ALJ ruling on Phase II issues. In addition, pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 12 of the OIR and Ordering Paragraph 14 of D.10-07-048, the utilities have filed monthly reports of specified disconnection data.

The Phase II Scoping Memo confirmed earlier determinations that evidentiary hearings are not necessary.

³ D.10-07-048, Ordering Paragraphs 15 and 16. With respect to SCE, the practices were made effective until the effective date of SCE's next general rate case, which the Commission anticipated would be January 1, 2012 at the time it issued D.10-07-048. With respect to PG&E, the practices were explicitly made effective until January 1, 2012. D.11-12-028 temporarily extended the effectiveness of the practices for both PG&E and SCE pending the issuance of this Phase II decision.

⁴ The August 17, 2011 Scoping Memo of Assigned Commissioner (Phase II Scoping Memo) confirmed this expanded list of Phase II issues.

⁵ The CforAT represents the interests of the disability community. It is acting as the successor to Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA), which participated actively in this proceeding in earlier stages of this proceeding. CforAT adopts prior filings by DisabRA as its own, and DisabRA has ceased its active participation in the proceeding. (See ALJ's ruling granting CforAT party status dated November 3, 2011.) Accordingly, the Phase II comments that were filed by DisabRA are referred to herein as CforAT's filings.