5.  Implementation

We here address several implementation issues that are raised in comments. We also discuss implementation of today's decision in relation to final adoption of the other rule revisions that make up GO 96-B.

To accommodate the delay in this proceeding since the February 14 draft decision, and to ensure that utilities have a reasonable time to prepare for Internet publication, we have delayed (from October 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002) the date by which utilities must comply with this requirement.

We note that the GO 96-B rule revisions contain several proposals (most notably, adoption of the tariff sheet numbering system used by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]) that affect the content or format of tariff sheets. We believe that Internet publication of tariffs is far too important to risk any further delay pending a final decision on these other proposals. Moreover, the question regarding the FCC numbering system is not whether its use will be allowed (it is already used by many telecommunications utilities) but rather whether that numbering system will be mandated.¹³ Therefore, we will allow any utility that so chooses to switch to the FCC numbering system at this time. Similarly, we will allow any utility that so chooses to immediately make any of the tariff sheet format changes proposed for GO 96-B.¹⁴

As discussed earlier, several utilities believe that the requirements to disclose service options and alternatives are phrased ambiguously. ORA has proposed a definition for "optional;" however, rather than trying to dictate the solution to implementation problems, we prefer to have the utilities confer with our staff and consumer interests before submitting compliance advice letters. By this interactive implementation process, we think everyone involved will get a better understanding of the disclosure problems in the respective utility industries. To guide the process, we make the following observations.

As a matter of fundamental policy, we believe that whenever a customer has choices to make in ordering tariffed utility service, the existence of those choices should be disclosed in the underlying tariffs. This fundamental policy, however, does not require that all utility industries, or even all utilities within an industry, use the same approach to disclosure. Water and energy utilities currently provide a limited range of choices for most customers; telecommunications utilities, on the other hand, generally offer many choices. The terminology for these choices (whether they are called options, features, alternatives, plans, or something else) is not of primary importance, nor is the method of disclosure (tables or matrices, cross-references, etc.); what is important is that the tariffs reflect and meaningfully disclose the choices offered.

Given the scope of the disclosure problem for telecommunications utilities, we will direct our Telecommunications Division to hold public workshops at which these utilities and others can discuss implementation approaches. The need for workshops on this problem is less clear for energy and water utilities. The Energy and Water Divisions may hold workshops or provide for circulation of working drafts or other informal consultation before submission of compliance advice letters. For all industries, we will require submission of compliance advice letters by January 1, 2002.

Findings of Fact

1. The GO-96-B rules adopted in today's decision are nearly identical to provisions previously circulated for public review and comment. Adoption and implementation of these rules need not await adoption of GO 96-B as a whole.

2. Reliance on tariffs is part of the original statutory design to prevent utilities from imposing unreasonable terms and to ensure nondiscriminatory service. Reasonable customer access to tariffs is necessary to further this statutory design.

3. GO 96-A does not require, or even address, tariff publication via the Internet. Such publication should be encouraged for all utilities, and should be mandatory for the larger utilities. Those utilities that do not publish their tariffs on the Internet should be required to take other measures to ensure their customers have reasonable access.

4. Reasonable access means the ability to determine readily (1) the tariffs in effect, the tariffs that would be affected by pending advice letters, and the tariffs that are no longer in effect, and (2) the tariffs that govern (or formerly governed) the provision of a particular product or service at a particular time. Many disputes require resort to historical tariffs to determine whether the utility provided the service for which the customer signed up.

5. The information a utility provides about its tariffed services must be consistent with its applicable tariffs.

6. An ambiguity in a tariff provision must be construed in the way most favorable to the customer.

7. A utility's tariffs must disclose to customers their service options and alternatives, and how to choose among them.

8. Internet access enables a customer to inspect tariffs at a time and place convenient to the customer.

9. A threshold of $10 million in annual California revenues is a reasonable point at or above which to require a utility to publish its tariffs on the Internet. January 1, 2002 is a reasonable deadline for such publication.

10. Requiring utilities to have a toll-free number at which a caller may ask about tariffs or request copies is reasonable in conjunction with the other means for disseminating information about tariffed services.

11. As customer choices proliferate in the traditional utilities, tariff practices must change so as properly to reflect those choices.

Conclusions of Law

1. The rules adopted in today's decision are nearly identical in substance to proposed rules circulated for public review and comment by a draft decision issued in this proceeding on February 14, 2001; further public review and comment prior to adoption is not necessary.

2. The rules adopted in today's decision are necessary for the reasons summarized in the foregoing Findings of Fact and discussed in the foregoing Interim Opinion.

3. In order to timely complete the implementation process, today's decision should be made effective immediately.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The rules set forth in the Appendix to this Interim Opinion are adopted.

2. Utilities subject to the adopted rules shall submit, on or before January 1, 2002, advice letters with tariff changes to comply with the informational requirements of Rule 3. Well before the submission deadline, the Telecommunication Division will, and the Energy and Water Divisions may, hold public workshops at which compliance with these informational requirements will be discussed. Any of these divisions may provide for circulation of working drafts or other informal consultation before submission of the compliance advice letters.

3. This proceeding remains open to deliberate upon final adoption of General Order 96-B, apart from those rules adopted today.

This order is effective today.

Dated July 12, 2001, at San Francisco, California.

LORETTA M. LYNCH

President

HENRY M. DUQUE

RICHARD A. BILAS

CARL W. WOOD

GEOFFREY F. BROWN

Commissioners

APPENDIX