III. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling Requesting Comments on Whether the Changes to Rule V.F.1 Should Apply to All Utilities

No parties filed petitions for modification, but because of the PG&E penalty issue discussed below, and in order to provide certainty, a December 3, 1999 ALJ ruling requested parties' comments on whether Rule V.F.1 should be modified to apply the modifications adopted in D.99-09-033 for SDG&E and SoCalGas to all utilities covered by the Rules.

The ruling proposed comments on the following proposed modification:

F. Corporate Identification and Advertising

1. A utility shall not trade upon, promote, or advertise its affiliate's affiliation with the utility, nor allow the utility name or logo to be used by the affiliate or in any material circulated by the affiliate, unless it discloses in plain legible or audible language, on the first page or at the first point where the utility name or logo appears that:

a. The affiliate "is not the same company as [i.e., PG&E, Edison, the Gas Company, etc.], the utility," and the affiliate "is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission."

b. In the case of energy service provider affiliates, the disclaimer will be:

The affiliate "is not the same company as [i.e., PG&E, Edison, the Gas Company, etc], the utility, and the California Public Utilities Commission does not regulate the terms of [the affiliate's] products and services."

The application of the name/logo disclaimer is limited to the use of the name or logo in California.