FINDINGS

1. SDG&E filed AL 1249-E on August 28, 2000 to implement a bill stabilization plan adopted in D.00-08-037. AL 1249-E was largely superceded by the rate stabilization plan required by AB 265.

2. In AL 1249-E, SDG&E established a sub-account within the TCBA to track the undercollected energy costs, including carrying costs and adjustments retroactive to June 1, 2000.

3. AB 265 added Section 332.1 to the PU Code, requiring the Commission to establish a ceiling of 6.5 cents/kWh on the energy component of electric bills for SDG&E's residential, small commercial, and street lighting customers. The ceiling is retroactive to June 1, 2000, and shall be in effect through December 31, 2002, at a minimum.

4. Consistent with Section 332.1, the Commission approved an expanded rate stabilization plan in D.00-09-040.

5. In compliance with D.00-09-040, SDG&E filed AL 1254-E on September 12, 2000 to implement the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling for residential, "small commercial" (below 100 kW demand) and lighting customers which take bundled service from SDG&E.

6. TPC and Scripps protested SDG&E's intent stated in AL 1254-E to apply the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling to DA customers. Scripps' protest to AL 1254-E was late-filed.

7. Utility.com and ARM filed letters in support of SDG&E's statement in AL 1254-E that it intends to apply the energy rate ceiling to direct access customers.

8. SDG&E began implementing AL 1254-E on October 2000 bills.

9. By AL 1260-E filed October 2, 2000 and supplemental AL 1260-E-A filed October 30 (which replaces AL 1260-E), SDG&E initiated a credit reflecting the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling retroactive to June 2000 for applicable customers which take bundled service.

10. SDG&E began implementing the retroactive credits filed in AL 1260-E-A on November 2000 bills.

11. SDG&E filed AL 1264-E on October 19, 2000 requesting authority to apply the provisions of AB 265 and D.00-09-040 to applicable DA customers.

12. We accept Scripps' late-filed protest to AL 1254-E as a protest to AL 1264-E.

13. TPC protested SDG&E's DA Plan as filed in AL 1264-E to apply the provisions of AB 265 and D.00-09-040 to DA customers.

14. Utility.com filed comments in support of AL 1264-E but requests that SDG&E amend its proposed bill language described in the AL.

15. ORA submitted a late-filed protest to AL 1264-E which expressed general support for SDG&E's DA Plan but suggested content and process improvements to SDG&E's plan for customer notification. We accept ORA's late-filed protest.

16. On December 6, 2000, SDG&E filed supplemental AL 1264-E-A, which replaces AL 1264-E, to address the concerns raised by Utility.com in its comments and by ORA in its late-filed protest.

17. Mr. Larry Cornett protested SDG&E's request in AL 1264-E-A to apply the rate stabilization plan to DA customers, and stated that the Commission should allow SDG&E's customers to opt-out of AB 265. TPC protested AL 1264-E-A along the lines of its protests to ALs 1254-E and 1264-E.

18. ARM filed a letter in support of AL 1264-E. CREC (formerly ARM) filed letters on December 7 and 14, 2000 in support of AL 1264-E/E-A urging swift resolution of the AL to allow customers to make reasonable choices.

19. As of December 14, 2000, the Commission's Public Advisor's Office had received 144 contacts supporting SDG&E's AL 1264-E. ED and other Commission staff also received calls from several DA customers, some supporting and others opposing inclusion of DA customers in the rate stabilization plan.

20. SDG&E estimates that the billing system changes necessary to implement its proposed DA Plan would take 45 days to complete.

21. PU Code Section 394 denies Commission authority over the rates of competitive ESPs. AB 265 does not expand Commission authority over ESP rates.

22. PU Code Section 332.1, added by AB 265, does not require the Commission to authorize SDG&E to apply the rate stabilization plan to the customers of ESPs.

23. Neither AB 265 nor D.00-09-040 provide clear directives about DA customers.

24. The rate ceiling required by AB 265 applies to the energy component of customers' bills and SDG&E procures electric energy only for its bundled customers.

25. In seeking to apply the provisions of AB 265 and D.00-09-040 to DA customers, SDG&E is proposing to offer a loan program to these customers.

26. ESPs have the authority to offer loans or other pricing options to help their customers manage their energy costs.

27. Gaming by customers to avoid paying their share of undercollected costs related to the expanded rate stabilization plan is not sufficient reason to include DA customers in the plan.

28. Customers need accurate information about their potential future obligations to repay SDG&E's reasonable electric procurement costs.

29. It is reasonable to require SDG&E to track and show on each customer's monthly bill, the EERA for that month, and the total net deferred amounts as defined in the Discussion section of this Resolution.

30. We have balanced the public interest in avoiding the possible harm to public welfare flowing from the delay in considering this resolution against the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment as required by Rule 77.7(f)(9). We conclude that the former outweighs the latter. We conclude that failure to adopt a decision before the expiration of the 30-day review and comment period would cause significant harm to the public welfare.