2. Procedural Background and Chronology
PG&E has 84 front counters throughout its service territory that offer a variety of customer services. For example, customers can pay their utility bills with cash at front counters, turn service on and off, resolve billing and service issues, and restore service following discontinuation for nonpayment of bills.
In Application (A.) 05-12-002, PG&E requested, among other things, authority to increase its general rate case (GRC) revenue requirement and to close all 84 of its front counters by June 30, 2007. PG&E asserted that it could provide the services offered by front counters at less cost through its Call Center and Neighborhood Payment Centers (NPCs) operated by third parties. Closing all front counters would reduce PG&E's revenue requirement by $24 million annually starting in 2008. If the Commission rejected PG&E's proposal, PG&E requested $37.1 million in expenses for front counters in 2007 and $0.15 million for capital expenditures in 2007.
The following parties submitted testimony responding to PG&E's proposal to close its front counters: the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), the California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). The Coalition of California Utility Employees (CCUE) intervened but did not submit testimony.
Ten public participation hearings (PPHs) were held during April and May, 2006.2 Hundreds of letters were also received from the public. Much of the public's input focused on PG&E's proposal to close all front counters.
On May 26, 2006, most of the active parties for front-counter issues filed a joint motion to defer to Phase 2 of this proceeding all issues regarding PG&E's proposal to close its front counters. The unopposed motion was granted by the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in a ruling issued on May 30, 2007.
In Decision (D.) 07-03-044, the Commission resolved all GRC issues except PG&E's proposal to close its front counters. That Decision also provided PG&E with funding to operate all of its front counters, and ordered PG&E to not make any significant reductions to the staffing or operations of its front counters pending the Commission's consideration of front-counter issues in Phase 2.3
The active parties on front-counter reached a settlement and held a noticed settlement conference on February 15, 2007, as required by Rule 12.1(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rule). On April 3, 2007, the active parties filed and served a Settlement Agreement4 and a Motion to adopt the Settlement.5 The Settlement resolves all issues regarding PG&E's proposal to close its front counters. The parties that signed the Settlement are PG&E, CFBF, CCUE, DRA, Greenlining, and TURN (together, "the Settling Parties"). A copy of the Settlement Agreement is in Appendix B of today's Opinion.
There were no comments submitted on the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 12.2. Thus, the Settlement is unopposed.
On April 24, 2007, the Settling Parties filed additional information regarding the Settlement in response to an inquiry from the assigned ALJ.
2 The PPHs were held in Oakland, Ukiah, Santa Rosa, King City, Salinas, San Louis Obispo, Modesto, Fresno, Woodland, and Chico.
3 D.07-03-044, Ordering Paragraph 5.
4 Settlement Agreement Among Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, The Utility Reform Network, the Greenlining Institute, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Coalition of California Utility Employees (referred to hereafter as "the Settlement Agreement" or "the Settlement").
5 Motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, the Greenlining Institute and The Utility Reform Network for Approval of Settlement Agreement filed (referred to hereafter as the "Settlement Motion" or "the Motion").
