VII. Comments of Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the Administrative Law Judge was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by SCE, PG&E, TURN, AReM/WPTF, New West, and UC/CSU. We have modified the text of the decision to incorporate TURN's position. The utilities request more time to implement bottoms-up billing than the proposed decision provides, while the ratepayer parties (other than TURN) request immediate implementation. Although immediate implementation would be desirable, the modifications to the utilities' billing systems require a reasonable adjustment period. PG&E says that its CIS staff needs 90-120 days, and perhaps more, to implement bottoms-up billing; SCE recommends it implement bottoms-up billing on the earlier of (i) the end of its Rate Repayment Period, or (ii) September 1, 2003. We prefer to have both utilities implement bottoms-up billing simultaneously if possible, and within a reasonable time. Both utility proposals leave room for delay, which is unacceptable. Therefore, to provide sufficient time to modify billing systems to assure reasonable accuracy in billing, we will set the implementation date for both utilities at 75 days from the effective date of this decision.

AReM/WPTF recommend that the proposed decision be modified to provide for an audit of the DA credits provided by PG&E for the period starting January 19, 2001 and ending with the implementation of bottoms-up billing for DA customers. AReM/WPTF's argument merely repeats its argument in its brief and has been disposed of in the text of the decision.

AReM/WPTF contend that the PD should be modified to require PG&E to continue to provide the 10% rate reduction to residential and small DA customers as long as it continues to collect the Fixed Transition Amount (FTA) from such customers. The FTA, claim AReM/WPTF, "is used to fund the 10% rate reduction. If PG&E is allowed to collect the FTA from DA customers but is not required to provide such customers with the associated discount, DA customers will be subsidizing the 10% reduction provided to PG&E's bundled customers." We disagree. The FTA does not fund any current rate reduction. The FTA represents the repayment of the Rate Reduction Bonds which were sized to fund the 10% rate reduction through the AB 1890 transition period. The AB 1890 transition period has passed. Thus, payment of the FTA is for a benefit already fully received (a 10% rate reduction during the transition period), not for the right to receive the 10% reduction now or in the future.