Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of assigned Commissioner Peevey in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE), CFC, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SDREO. Reply comments were filed by PG&E, SCE and SDREO. The final order incorporates minor changes in response to comments. Where comments merely reargued prior positions, they are not addressed.

In SDG&E's comments, the utility provides new legal argument that the proposed decision would violate SDG&E's constitutional free speech and property rights by directing SDG&E to give a third party, SDREO, access to its billing envelopes for CSI marketing purposes. To support its views, SDG&E cites PG&E v. CPUC (475 U.S 1 (1986)), which according to SDG&E found that the utility's billing envelope remains the utility's property and the utility cannot be compelled to use such property to further the interest of a third party. SDG&E suggests SDREO should instead use its own resources to perform CSI marketing and outreach functions, without use of the utility billing envelope. SDREO responds that the question in PG&E v. CPUC was whether the Commission could require a utility to include in its billing envelopes the speech of a third party with which the utility disagrees. SDREO notes that SDG&E's position creates a regional barrier to CSI implementation, and suggests that SDG&E will disagree with content of a Commission approved bill insert.

The property rights and free speech issues newly raised by SDG&E require further review by the Commission. To avoid any delay in approval of interim marketing for CSI, the decision has been revised to remove the requirement that SDG&E give SDREO access to its envelopes for CSI marketing purposes. In lieu of a bill insert, SDREO should explore other marketing options such as independent mailings to SDG&E customers.

We find this removal of the bill insert requirement unfortunate because intuitively, a bill insert would seem the fastest, most cost-effective means of providing households and businesses that receive electricity from SDG&E with information about CSI. We urge SDG&E to reconsider its position and continue discussions with SDREO and Energy Division regarding a cooperative arrangement wherein CSI marketing materials can be disseminated to SDG&E customers.

CARE's comments are not focused on marketing and outreach, but pertain to general solar incentive issues and policies such as time of use tariff requirements and standard offer contracts in another Commission proceeding. CARE's comments are not addressed herein because they are outside the scope of this order.

CFC claims that examination of marketing materials outside the Advice Letter process deprives the assigned Commissioner of authority to prohibit the distribution of inaccurate information. We disagree. Although the interim marketing approval process set forth in this order does not involve formal Advice Letters, it does incorporate notice and comment from parties. Further, Energy Division and the assigned Commissioner will review and approve interim marketing materials, with the specific intent to prevent dissemination of inaccurate information.