Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on September 27, 2007, and reply comments were filed on October 1, 2007 by PG&E and the Joint Petitioners.

PG&E and the Joint Petitioners both assert that defining "hard-to-reach customers" on the basis of never having "participated" or having rejected "participation" in a PG&E demand response event is unduly vague. PG&E proposes that we modify the definition of "hard-to-reach customers" to include customers who, regardless of whether they have previously enrolled or are currently enrolled in a demand response program, have not reduced load in a demand response event, while the Joint Petitioners propose that we substitute the word "enrolled" for "participated." We adopt PG&E's proposal, and provide additional clarification in the text above.

The Joint Petitioners request that we require PG&E and the BEC to periodically file a report that identifies customers that enrolled in the BEC program in the preceding period and demonstrates how they meet the definition of "hard-to-reach customers." PG&E objects that such requirement is unduly burdensome, particularly as the Joint Petitioners would not be entitled to view the reports because the customer-specific information is confidential. We do not require PG&E to file reports, as proposed by the Joint Petitioners. However, we direct PG&E to maintain auditable records to demonstrate compliance with the rules for implementation and administration of the BEC program. PG&E shall maintain auditable records for the life of the program.

In addition, in response to PG&E's query, we clarify that receiving promotional materials without enrolling does not meet the prerequisite established in part (b) of the above definition. We require that the customer receive a personal contact (telephone or field visit) describing at least one non-BEC demand response program, and reject it, before PG&E or the BEC proffers the BEC program to the customer.

PG&E and the Joint Petitioners both seek clarification of the effect of this decision on customers currently enrolled in the BEC program. PG&E proposes that current enrollees be allowed to continue their participation in the program, while the Joint Petitioners propose that current enrollees who are not "hard-to-reach customers" as defined in this decision have the option to terminate their contract with the BEC and enroll in any other PG&E demand response program. We adopt the Joint Petitioners' proposal as it is consistent with the purpose of the BEC program.

The Joint Petitioners ask that we "re-confirm" that the BEC program is currently limited to 50 MW. The Joint Petitioners do not identify any ambiguity in any Commission decision or resolution, or in PG&E's tariffs, that require this clarification.