II. Background

On February 28, 2001, Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum (Joint Parties) filed an Emergency Motion for Comprehensive Protection of Low-Income Ratepayers during Energy Crisis (Motion) in this proceeding and Rulemaking (R.) 98-07-037. The Motion set forth several proposals intended to protect low-income ratepayers during the energy crisis, including:

1. An across-the-board increase in the CARE discount from 15% to 25%;

2. Increase in CARE eligibility criteria from 150% to 175% of Federal Poverty Guidelines;

3. Exemption of CARE-eligible customers from any Tier 3 rate increases;

4. Increased outreach for the CARE program by this summer, including targeted monies for prime time public service radio and TV announcements, informational bulletin boards and bus ads, in multiple languages;

5. Authorization of application fees to community-based organizations for the enrollment of CARE-eligible customers, including fees for conducting energy education;

6. Establishment of benchmarks for CARE penetration, i.e., 90% by this summer, with sanctions for persistent utility failure to meet those benchmarks; and

7. Reform of the utility shut-off process, with at least a temporary shut-off moratorium or delay instituted if the utilities do not meet CARE penetration goals.

Various parties filed Responses to the Motion, in both support and opposition. On April 3, 2001, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Motion, finding that the Joint Parties' request to address low-income assistance issues in one proceeding, on an expedited basis, had been made moot by the Commission's recent determinations in D.01-03-082 and activities already underway in Application (A.) 00-11-009.¹

In particular, by D.01-03-082, issued on March 27, 2001 in A.00-11-038, the Commission exempted CARE customers from the surcharge adopted in that decision (including any tiered rate design increases associated with the surcharge). In addition, the Commission increased the CARE eligibility levels from 150% of federal poverty guidelines to 175% for electric customers of PG&E and SCE and stated that it would "move quickly to address the applicability of the changes we make here to all jurisdictional utilities" in this proceeding. (D.01-03-082, mimeo. p. 3, footnote 2.) The Commission also determined that the issue of an increased CARE discount for both electric and gas customers "should be addressed expeditiously in A.00-11-009 et al." (Ibid. Conclusion of Law 29.)

Accordingly, the assigned ALJ requested comments on the following issues:

1. The applicability of the modified income eligibility requirements for CARE discounts adopted in Decision 01-03-082 to the gas customers of PG&E and customers of all other gas and electric jurisdictional utilities.

2. Whether income eligibility requirements for LIEE should be made consistent with the revised requirements for CARE.

3. Whether the CARE discount should be increased for both electric and gas customers of jurisdictional utilities and if so, by how much.

The scope of this decision is limited to these three issues. In response to the Ruling, Comments were received from Joint Parties, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)², SESCO, Inc. (SESCO), the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E and SoCalGas, who filed jointly (Joint Utilities). Reply Comments were received from Joint Parties, AARP, SCE, PG&E, and Joint Utilities.