BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ... · 1/2/2019 · Community-Based...

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motion to Conduct a Comprehensive Examination of Investor Owned Electric Utilities’ Residential Rate Structures, the Transition to Time Varying and Dynamic Rates, and Other Statutory Obligations.

R.12-06-013

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY’S (U 338-E) FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS OF RESIDENTIAL RATE REFORM

ANNA VALDBERG ROBIN MEIDHOF

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6054 Facsimile: (626) 302-1910 E-mail: [email protected]

Dated: February 1, 2019

1


STATE OF CALIFORNIA


R.12-06-013

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY’S (U 338-E) FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS OF RESIDENTIAL RATE REFORM

Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 16 of Decision No. 15-07-001, Southern California

Edison Company hereby timely provides its Fourteenth Quarterly Report on the Progress of

Residential Rate Reform, attached hereto as Attachment A.

Respectfully submitted, ANNA VALDBERG ROBIN Z. MEIDHOF

/s/ Robin Meidhof By: Robin Meidhof

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6054 Facsimile: (626) 302-1910 E-mail: [email protected]

February 1, 2019

Attachment A

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY’S FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT

ON PROGRESS OF RESIDENTIAL RATE REFORM February 1, 2019

Southern California Edison Company’s Fourteenth Quarterly Report on Progress of Residential Rate Reform

February 1, 2019 Table of Contents

Section Page

A-i-

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

II. MARKETING, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (ME&O) CAMPAIGN ..................................1

A. Community Outreach ...........................................................................................................1

B. Rate Options Marketing Campaign .....................................................................................3

C. Outreach for High Usage Charge (HUC) .............................................................................4

III. METRICS ........................................................................................................................................4

A. ME&O Tracking Survey ......................................................................................................4

B. ME&O Goal Targets ............................................................................................................6

C. ME&O Tracking Survey - Default TOU Pilot Surveys .......................................................7

D. Default TOU Pilot – Post-Transition Opt-Out or Switch Survey ........................................9

E. Statewide TOU ME&O Evaluation – Baseline (2018 Year 1) Survey ..............................10

IV. UPDATE ON ONLINE BILL COMPARISON TOOL AND PAPER BILL COMPARISONS ...........................................................................................................................11

A. Online Bill Comparison Tool.............................................................................................11

B. Rate Comparisons ..............................................................................................................11

V. TOU PILOTS .................................................................................................................................12

A. TOU Default Pilot ..............................................................................................................12

1. Customer Rate Selection ........................................................................................12

2. Rate Selection Survey Results ...............................................................................12

3. Data Visualization Dashboard ...............................................................................13

4. Evaluation of Pilot Research ..................................................................................13

B. New Customer Engagement Call Center Pilot...................................................................13

VI. COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS (CCA) COORDINATION ....................................13

Southern California Edison Company’s Fourteenth Quarterly Report on Progress of Residential Rate Reform

February 1, 2019 Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Page

A-ii-

VII. MARKETING AUTOMATION ...................................................................................................13

VIII. TEXT ALERTS .............................................................................................................................15

IX. ONLINE APPLIANCE SHIFTER TOOL .....................................................................................15

X. APPLICATION FOR TRANSITION OF CUSTOMERS TO DEFAULT TOU ..........................15

XI. ME&O STRATEGIES ACROSS TOU & DSM PROGRAMS ....................................................16

XII. CURRENT RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE RATE ENROLLMENTS ......................................17

XIII. MEDICAL BASELINE .................................................................................................................18

XIV. BUDGET UPDATE .......................................................................................................................18

A. Residential Implementation Memorandum Account (RRIMA) Summary ........................18

B. Default Pilot Budget Summary ..........................................................................................19

C. Marketing, Education and Outreach (ME&O) Budget Summary .....................................22

XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................23

APPENDIX A Q4 2018 CBO EVENTS

APPENDIX B DEFAULT TOU PILOT SURVEY 2 REPORT

APPENDIX C DEFAULT TOU PILOT DASHBOARD 2017-18

A-1

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Decision (D.) 15-07-

001 (the Decision), the Investor-Owned Utilities (the IOUs), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) must provide quarterly updates on the progress of residential rate reform efforts and the transition to default time-of-use (TOU) rates. This update is the fourteenth quarterly report on the progress of residential rate reform (PRRR).

As directed by various decisions, resolutions and Assigned Commissioner and Assigned Administrative Law Judges’ (ALJ) Rulings, SCE’s PRRR includes updates on its Marketing, Education and Outreach (ME&O) plan, metrics, goals and strategies for residential rate reform; statistics on the number of customers currently enrolled in opt-in TOU rates; statistics on the number of customers enrolled in medical baseline, as well as outreach activities; a status update on rate comparison and online bill tools; information on bill presentment for typical customers on default and opt-in rate schedules; progress on Default TOU plans; information on ME&O expenditures and a summary of the status of the Residential Rate Implementation Memorandum Account (RRIMA) as required by the Decision.

II. MARKETING, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (me&o) CAMPAIGN

A. Community Outreach Community-Based Organization (CBO) Outreach Strategy

As part of SCE’s strategy to increase awareness and educate customers about rates and assistance programs, the Company has implemented a bottoms-up, grassroots approach, by leveraging established relationships with more than 1,400 CBOs within our service territory as well as by participating in a variety of local events and community celebrations.

To create even tighter alliances with key CBOs, particularly those that reach critical customer segments like Seniors, Low Income, Disabled, and Multi-Cultural, SCE released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on December 10, 2018 to CBOs in its service territory and by January 11, 2019 we had received more than fifty proposals.

The RFP was also posted on several online grant boards like CA Grant Watch, Grant Select and SoCal Grants (see sample below).

A-2

The RFP encouraged CBOs to submit a proposal to be eligible to receive an incentive of up to $5,000 to be paid out in four quarterly disbursements throughout 2019. The proposals provided SCE with general information about the organization which included basic demographics about their constituents as well as preliminary plans for outreach and tools in place to measure this work. SCE is in the process of scoring the proposals and will select by early February those that will be eligible to receive an incentive through our partnership, upon meeting the established requirements listed in the RFP.

The RFP selection process will highlight those CBOs that are highly interested in partnering up with SCE in order to share program information within their communities. In addition, we will continue to work with our database of more than 1,400 CBOs to identify other opportunities where SCE programs and tools can be shared with community members. We are currently working on a website that will serve as a resource center (one stop shop) for all CBOs. The objective of the site will be for CBOs to have immediate access to various tools such as program brochures, one-page guides, etc.

CBO Savings Toolkits & Community Engagement

SCE continues the distribution of its Savings Toolkit, which includes an easel-back display, brochures with information on rate plan options, low income and Medical Baseline programs. It also includes giveaways (notepads and pens). In the fourth quarter of 2018, SCE distributed over 40 Savings Toolkits. The response of the Savings Toolkits continues to be positive as they are well-received by community members who find the information easy to understand. The distribution of the Toolkits will continue in 2019 and SCE will continue to make in-person visits to these CBOs to gather feedback and seek additional opportunities to engage the audience.

In mid-December, SCE facilitated a focus group with one of our CBO partners (Set for Life) which included members of Second Baptist Church. The objective of the focus group was to gain insights to inform future outreach and help us to optimize the CBO channel.

The focus group shared that they appreciate the partnership between SCE and CBOs like Set for Life. The audience was heavily engaged throughout the session and provided feedback on the following:

Preferred communication methods - they appreciate information that is at-a-glance, bullet points and colorful graphics.

Ways to improve communication, targeted to those customers that fall within the senior segment

Continuing engagement with CBOs to relate information about SCE Programs and upcoming changes

SCE will continue to work with Set for Life and other key CBOs to develop similar focus groups throughout 2019.

Events

SCE continued its community outreach efforts by attending dozens of community events during fourth quarter of 2018. Over 70% of these events took place in hot climate zone areas and customers received information about rates and assistance programs. A list of these events is attached as Appendix A.

A-3

B. Rate Options Marketing Campaign The goal of the Rate Options Summer campaign is to generate awareness of available

residential rate plan options. This campaign, which was active from July 16 through October 29, 2018, was part of the multi-year holistic approach to creating awareness of rate plan options ahead of the 2020 rate plan transition. The campaign consisted of mass media promotion in multiple languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese) that generated a total of 517MM impressions, and a dedicated interactive landing page, also available in multiple languages. Promotion channels included digital banner ads and videos, rich media, native content, transit shelters, streaming and terrestrial radio, television, social media, and billboards.

The mass media promotion drove customers to the interactive landing page where viewers were able to explore various rate plan options as well as click to the rate plan comparison tool to compare rates and/or make a rate plan switch. The landing page received over half-a-million unique views of which 15% is attributed to the combined multi-language segment. Unique click-throughs, which help to demonstrate customer engagement, totaled approximately 14,235 of which 36% is attributed to the combined multi-language segment.

The latest ME&O tracking survey results showed an increase in customer actions such as going to the website, which reported a 5-point increase over the previous survey. Also reported was a 4-point increase in customers who viewed their customized rate plan comparison. The independent third-party survey conducted by Ipsos reported SCE residential customer awareness of rate plan choices is slightly ahead of statewide and is six-points more satisfied with their rate plan than statewide. In addition, SCE is trending slightly ahead of statewide when it comes to

A-4

customer actions such as motivation to reduce during peak-load and intent to reduce future peak-load.

C. Outreach for High Usage Charge (HUC) In the fourth quarter of 2018, SCE mailed 64k HUC letters to customers who were at

349% to 400% of the baseline and 24k HUC letters to customers exceeding 400% of baseline. This represents a decrease of 5% from Q4 2017. The decrease might be due to many customers already receiving their letters during previous summer months. Total letters sent in 2018 were 925,551 (456,572 Pre-breach and 468,979 Breach), vs 974,803 (522,734 Pre-breach and 452,069 Breach) in 2017.

The HUC dedicated webpage received 2.5k visits from October 1 through December 31. This shows a 23% increase compared to Q4 2017, primarily due to a general increase in traffic to the tiered rate pages. There were 3.6k phone calls to the call center in Q4, which represents a decrease of 3% compared to Q4 2017.

Data tracking shows that the high usage letters are encouraging customers to enroll in new rates and programs. Of those who received pre-breach letters from January through December, there was an incremental take rate of 0.1% for Budget Assistant, 0.4% for Medical Baseline, and 1.7% for TOU rates. Of those who received the breach letters from January through December, there was an incremental take rate of 0.2% for Budget Assistant, 0.6% for Medical Baseline, and 2.4% for TOU rates. Response to the breach letters was higher than the pre-breach.

On November 30, 2018, SDG&E filed a Petition for Modification to D.15-07-001 and D.17-07-006, citing several changed facts that call for the re-examination and ultimate removal of the HUC charge. SCE also believes the HUC should be removed due to changed circumstances including how the HUC will impact the transition to default TOU rates and will inadvertently target economically vulnerable customers. These and other points are detailed in a Response SCE will file on February 1, 2019.

III. METRICS

A. ME&O Tracking Survey SCE began conducting semi-annual (spring / fall) ME&O tracking surveys in 2016 to

assess customer awareness, understanding, and engagement with regard to Residential rate reform and the anticipated transition to Default TOU.

The latest (sixth) wave of the ME&O tracking survey was conducted in November 2018 with a total of 1,300 Residential customers (including low / moderate / high usage, CARE / FERA, NEM, and other demographic and geographic customer sub-groups), from which a properly weighted representative sample of 1,000 customers was identified. Also, 739 of the 1,000 were qualified as “Default Eligible” customers – their responses were compared to the general Residential population and used to determine SCE’s performance against the seven ME&O targets established earlier in 2018.

The next (seventh) wave of the ME&O tracking survey will be conducted in spring (April-May) 2019.

A-5

Wave 6 survey results for most of the core metrics were unchanged from Wave 5 (May 2018) – and responses are comparable between general Residential and Default Eligible respondents. Key findings from Wave 6 include the following:

Awareness of Tiered and TOU Rates: Unchanged from Wave 5 – 67% for Tiered and 49% for TOU.

Awareness of Current Rate: Customers who don’t know what rate plan they are on – up slightly to 41%.

Satisfaction with Rate Plan: Less than half (47% for Tiered and 46% for TOU) have high satisfaction with their current rate plan.

Best Rate for Household: About two-thirds on Tiered or TOU believe they are currently on the best rate for their household.

Interest in TOU: Among non-TOU customers, interest peaked in Wave 4 but dropped in both 2018 waves. In Wave 6, 45% of general Residential and 42% of Default Eligible are not interested in switching to a TOU rate.

Awareness of Rate Plan Changes: 19% (down from 23% W5) have already heard about upcoming rate plan changes.

Awareness of Specifics about TOU Transition: 10% (unchanged) know that most residential customers will be transitioning to a TOU rate plan by 2021.

Reasons for Transition: 28% (unchanged) say they are aware of the reasons for the transition.

Metrics 1-6, 8: Performance against targets is unchanged for all metrics in Wave 6, maintaining Wave 5 improvements over Wave 4.

Actions Taken: One in 10 (unchanged) indicate they have taken action as a result of upcoming changes. Among those who did not take action, 34% (unchanged) intend to take action.

A-6

Summary of Selected Results from ME&O Tracking (Fall 2018)

B. ME&O Goal Targets SCE established targets for its seven primary goal metrics in Q1 2018, using the Wave 4

(Fall 2017) ME&O Tracking survey results for the subset of respondents who met the characteristics of customers eligible for default TOU (“Default Eligible”).

The table below shows updated results from the Wave 6 (Fall 2018) survey for Default Eligible customers in the study. All seven metrics held steady compared to Wave 5.

A-7

SCE’s Rate Reform ME&O Goal Metrics (Fall 2018)

As a reminder: All of the metrics with percentages are based on “yes” answers to the survey questions, while the mean ratings are based on questions with a 1-10 rating scale as the basis for the answer choices.

For Metric 1, SCE is using “help you save money” as a surrogate for “mitigate electricity expenditures.” Metric 3 is a composite average rating (equally weighted) of two attribute statements related to customers’ understanding of “how electricity use can impact bills” under a TOU rate scenario. Metric 4 addresses the benefits of both reducing and shifting electricity use – a composite average rating for eight attributes (again equally weighted): four of these attributes related to “benefits of lowering electricity use” and four about “benefits of shifting electricity use to non-peak hours.”

C. ME&O Tracking Survey - Default TOU Pilot Surveys Three primary surveys – Survey 1a, 1b, and 2 – were conducted by SCE in 2018 to

measure customers’ experiences with and attitudes / opinions about the TOU Default Pilot at various points in time. Survey 1a evaluated the pre-Default experience (particularly the effectiveness of the 90/60/30-day communications sent to customers) – and was fielded from April 4 to May 6 with a sample of 2,244 Residential customers drawn from all 400,000 eligible for the Default transition (whether they actually transitioned or opted out to Tiered / chose an alternate TOU rate).

Approximately 275 surveys were completed across each of the eight Default Pilot treatment cells (4-9 vs. 5-8 peak, monthly vs. seasonal bill impacts, opportunity vs. loss aversion

A-8

messaging). Results of the Survey 1a were reported to the Working Group in June – and summarized in the 12Q PRRR report.

Survey 1a was also administered to a small sample of SCE employees who were selected to participate in the Default TOU Pilot (also reported in the 12Q PRRR).

Survey 1b was conducted from June 4-27 with results received in mid-July. The study included a sample of 2,016 Residential customers who defaulted to a TOU Default Pilot rate in March and remained on the new rate when surveyed. The purpose of this survey was to assess customers’ initial experiences with the Default Pilot, and particularly their response to the two test TOU rates, the enhanced vs. basic Welcome letters, and the first months’ bills.

Results from Survey 1b were reported to the Working Group in late summer 2018 – and highlights were included in the 13Q PRRR report.

Survey 2 was conducted in October-November 2018 with results received in late December. This study evaluated customers’ longer-term, post-summer attitudes and experiences with their Default TOU rate and SCE communications. A total of 2,023 interviews / surveys were completed either by phone or web with Default Pilot customers still on the two test rates when surveyed – 1,021 with TOU-D-4 customers and 1,002 with TOU-D-5 customers. Data collection began on October 22 and ended on November 27. Survey Results were presented to the Working Group at the January 28, ME&O WG meeting and are attached as Appendix B.

Highlights from Survey 2 include the following:

Awareness of TOU (73% vs. 72%) and Tiered rates (66% vs. 68%) is unchanged from Survey 1b.

52% are aware that there are rate plans that can help them save money, down from Survey 1b. Most other specific TOU awareness-related statements are also down from the last measurement.

Almost half (46%) of the Pilot customers are satisfied with their current rate.

o However, nearly a third (31%) of customers who defaulted to TOU still do not know what rate they are on – unchanged since Survey 1b .

Only about half (48%) are aware that their household is part of the Default TOU Pilot transition.

o Among those aware, 60% knew they could make a rate choice (down significantly from Survey 1b at 65% and Survey 1a at 75%).

About half (48%) recall receiving the Summer newsletter, but only half as many (24%) recall receiving the Winter newsletter.

o Over half considered the information provided to be useful (53%) and easy to understand (56% -- up from prior Pilot communications). Less than half (44%) agree the look and feel is attention-getting.

o About one-third (35%) reportedly took action in response to the materials, up significantly from Survey 1b’s Welcome letter.

Customers still feel a need for additional information – just under half (46%) thought they received enough information about the transition.

A-9

Among customers defaulted to a Pilot rate, positive feelings / emotions (among several tested) are generally increasing and negatives are decreasing.

Half have reviewed their bill since their transition to TOU.

o Most customers thought the items on the bill were easy to find (range of 89%-99%), except for info about bill protection (73%).

o One-fourth said something stood out on the new bill – 21% positive stood out and 5% negative (down from 12%).

Up significantly from Survey 1b: 48% give high ratings (% 8-10) to “how changes to current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you adjust your usage” and 44% for “how to manage your bill on your current rate plan”.

Two in three (64% to 70%, up from 52% to 57%) have an understanding of the impacts / benefits of reducing usage, while slightly fewer (53% to 60%, up from 47% to 51%) understand the impacts / benefits of shifting usage.

About 60% of customers correctly identified the peak times as falling somewhere between 5 to 8 PM for TOU-D-5 (or 4 to 9 PM for TOU-D-4).

About one in six customers know they have Bill Protection (17%, down from 23%).

Four in 10 customers took action to shift or reduce, unchanged from Survey 1b’s “planned” actions.

o About one in six (17%) said they made energy efficiency improvements as a result of the transition to TOU.

o One in seven (14%) said they signed up for or enrolled in an Edison program since the transition.

Overall favorability toward SCE at 61% (8, 9, or 10 rating on a 10-point scale) is unchanged from Survey 1b.

D. Default TOU Pilot – Post-Transition Opt-Out or Switch Survey In late November / early December, SCE conducted a follow-up email “pulse” survey

with Default TOU Pilot customers who opted out to a Tiered rate or switched to an Alternate TOU rate post-transition (after June 1, 2018). The purpose of the study was to explore the reasons for customers choosing to make a change to their assigned Default TOU Pilot rate. Completed surveys were received from 88 Tiered Opt-Outs and 100 Alternate TOU Switchers.

Highlights from the survey include the following: Compared to the Alternate TOU Switchers, Tiered Opt-Outs are less favorable toward

SCE, had lower understanding of their bill impacts (but clearer recall of the peak hours), were less actively engaged in reducing or shifting their usage, and are much less satisfied with the Default TOU rate they were transitioned to.

There is more of an emotional intensity to the verbatim comments expressed by Tiered Opt-Outs to explain their reasons for changing than those made by the Alternate TOU Switchers.

A-10

“My bill was too high” at 64% was much more likely a reason for Tiered Opt-Outs (second-highest to “My old tiered rate plan was working fine for me before” at 66%) than for Alternate TOU Switchers (38%)

The next-highest reasons for Tiered Opt-Outs was “TOU rate plan did not fit my usage patterns or the times I wanted to use electricity” (53%) and “I did not want to be moved to a TOU rate plan” (31%).

“I did a rate comparison online – and saw that there was a lower-cost TOU rate option for me” at 50% is the highest-mentioned closed-ended reason for switchers to an Alternate TOU rate, followed by “My usage patterns and lifestyle work better on a different TOU rate plan” (41%).

There were many comments about or references to EVs as a reason for selecting an alternate TOU rate.

Both groups tend to recall the pre- and post-Default communications at about the same level (Alternate TOU Switchers perhaps slightly higher).

Both groups have the same limited recall of Bill Protection – about 4 in 10 (higher than our Survey 1a, 1b, and 2 results, however).

o Reminders about Bill Protection are preferred before transition to a new TOU rate or before an expected high bill.

o Email is the preferred communications vehicle for Bill Protection reminders, followed by on the bill and / or in a separate letter or postcard.

E. Statewide TOU ME&O Evaluation – Baseline (2018 Year 1) Survey Between September 6 and October 18, Ipsos (the selected evaluator for the statewide

TOU ME&O efforts, in particular the DDB campaign) conducted the Year 1 baseline survey prior to the launch of any “air cover” communications in SDG&E’s territory or elsewhere in California. The purpose of the annual surveys is to measure specific aspects of the statewide residential rate reform campaign via customer research, and assess the achievement of the Vision Metrics per the Greenberg Blueprint related to engagement, rate choice, and action. The research will allow us to attribute changes in the Vision metrics to the effects of statewide campaign, IOU communications, or both.

For the baseline study, surveys were conducted by phone and online among Residential customers across all three IOUs. A total of 5,359 surveys were completed statewide – 1,693 with SCE’s customers (1,160 online and 533 phone). Surveys were offered in multiple languages – English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

Highlights from the baseline survey include the following:

About half of Residential customers statewide feel a personal connection to electricity and believe it is important to be thoughtful about and manage their usage. Likewise, about half are aware of TOU rate plans.

About one-third are aware that they have rate choices and under half are satisfied with their current rate

A-11

About one-fourth say they are motivated or intend to reduce peak-hour usage or exhibit those behaviors

One-third of SCE customers agree that SCE offers programs, information and tips that give customers greater control over their electricity bill, offers rate plans that could help save you money, and is a company I trust.

CARE / FERA customers statewide have a lower understanding of peak / non-peak hours and benefits of shifting usage, but are more engaged and willing to learn. They also have high trust across all three IOUs.

o Will likely require more education on TOU and how to succeed on this rate.

o Will likely react positively to communications and make an effort to apply.

SCE’s default-eligible customers are more aware of TOU rate plans than are the non-eligible customers, but are comparable in terms of awareness of rate choices available and rate satisfaction.

NEM customers understand more about TOU rates than non-NEM customers – and they are more satisfied with their current rate. However, they are less trusting of SCE than non-NEMs.

Customers in hot and cool climate zones may be more difficult to engage with TOU messaging than those in moderate climate zones.

IV. UPDATE ON ONLINE BILL COMPARISON TOOL AND PAPER BILL COMPARISONS

A. Online Bill Comparison Tool SCE implemented the Rate Plan Comparison Tool (RPCT) in November to Residential

bundled customers. GridX, SCE’s third party vendor, is responsible for providing the rate calculations that are being used for the Customer Experience tool. Additional enhancements will be completed in Q1 2019, which includes a rate analysis experience for eligible customers with less than 12 months of usage.

Since the launch of the RPCT in mid-November, SCE does not yet have validated data available for website activity. For October through mid-November, there were 39k visits to the landing page of the online tool, with 21k customers who logged in. This can be compared to Q4 2017 (Oct 1-Dec 31), where there were 24k web visits to the online tool. Even with just partial data for Q4 2018, an increase in visits was observed. The increase was due to a general increase in use of the tool, as well as increased traffic from the TOU Benefiter Acquisition campaign in October, as described below, which provided a link to log-in information for TOU rate options through our online Rate Comparison tool.

B. Rate Comparisons Given the ALJ Ruling suspending semi-annual bill comparison letters, SCE continued its

test and learn strategy to generate awareness of time-of-use (TOU) and rate plan choices by launching another TOU Benefiter Acquisition campaign to target 290k benefiters, which also included Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers in October 2018. SCE sent two emails to 190k

A-12

customers who were benefitting on TOU, as well as a direct mail to 100k customers, with (50k) receiving a business reply card (BRC) and (50k) without a BRC. The communications displayed the best rate options for the customer. SCE also expanded direct mail to include dual language with one side in English and one side in Spanish. Communications also promoted TOU text alert sign-ups. As a result, we have included updates made from the last PRRR webinar held on November 29th, 2018. There is a take rate of 1.7%, equating to approximately 5k customers selecting to go on a Time-of-Use rate. Test results also showed customers who received direct mail had a higher response rate enrolling through BRCs. CARE customers preferred BRC versus other reply channels (approximately 55%). 18% of BRCs completed in Spanish, which shows the value of including Spanish for the communications.

V. TOU PILOTS

A. TOU Default Pilot SCE started with an initial targeted pilot population of approximately 400,000 customers

in December 2017. Of the 400,000 customers, 309,199 (77.3%) customers were defaulted to either TOU-D-4-9PM or TOU-D-5-8PM in April 2018. As of December 31, 2018, 279,004 still remain on the pilot. These customers have continued to receive post-default communications that focus on tips and solutions to help lower their electricity costs on a TOU rate. Ongoing reporting and tracking of the TOU Default Pilot customers focuses on the number of customers who remain on either of the pilot rates (i.e. TOU-D-4-9PM or TOU-D-5-8PM) or who have requested to go back to their domestic tiered rate, number of customers receiving bill protection credit, call center call volumes and dispositions and survey tracking.

1. Customer Rate Selection The table below provides a breakdown of the number of customers that were defined to

be on the pilot as of April 2018 and those pilot customers that remain on either of the two TOU default rates as of December 31, 2018:

2. Rate Selection Survey Results The TOU Default Pilot surveys (1a, 1b, and 2) are intended to assist SCE in determining

how to proceed in the full roll-out based on the different treatments that were tested and to get a better understanding of customer understanding, acceptance and satisfaction on TOU. Results from Survey 2 which was conducted in Q4 of 2018 can be found in section III.C of this report.

As of April 2018At time of Default TOU D 4 9PM TOU D 5 8PM

Initial Population 399,994 153,049 156,150Closed 14,291 12,757 12,891Ineligible 2,579 N/A N/AOpt-Out / Rate Change to Tiered 48,241 1,196 1,086Rate Change to Optional TOU 25,054 1,185 1,080Rate Change to Other Default Rate 3,402 46 16Defaulted / Remain on Default Rate 305,797 137,865 141,077

As of December 31, 2018

A-13

3. Data Visualization Dashboard Per Resolution E-4895-E, Ordering Paragraph 7, SCE was directed to implement a “data

visualization dashboard or similar tool containing metrics and tracking date for interested parties to access: SCE’s pre-default data visualization dashboard is attached here to as Appendix C

4. Evaluation of Pilot Research SCE contracted with Nexant, Inc. to conduct the evaluation of the Default TOU Pilot.

SCE has received preliminary summer load impact findings which show 1.5% peak load impact on average weekday for customers on Rate 4 (peak hours 4pm-9pm). Furthermore, on Rate 4, non-CARE/FERA customers showed a 1.6% peak load impact while CARE/FERA customers showed a 1.2% peak load impact. Customers on Rate 5 (peak hours 5pm- 8pm) showed a peak load impact of 2% on an average weekday. Non-CARE/FERA customers on Rate 5 achieved 2.1% peak load impact on an average weekday while CARE/FERA customers on Rate 5 achieved 1.5% during the same time period. These preliminary summer results were presented and discussed during the January 28 ME&O Working Group meeting.

B. New Customer Engagement Call Center Pilot SCE has been working to update potential lifestyle questions based on the available rate

options expected in 2020. The factors that seem to best define rate selection include owning solar, electric vehicle ownership, number of household member(s), being home during weekdays, and owning a single family house. SCE continues to work with an agency to develop a prototype for the online experience. SCE is planning a customer research study in Q1 2019. The goal of the study would be to measure ease of use and understandability for customers. SCE intends to share its preliminary designs and findings with the working group within the next few months. These findings will help to build out detailed requirements to support Initial Default TOU Migration (IDTM) in Q4 2020.

VI. COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS (CCA) COORDINATION SCE met with current and future CCAs on December 19 to provide a demo of the rate

tool and discuss key decisions CCAs will need to make in 2019 before the TOU default. Attendees included Lancaster Choice Energy, Apple Valley, CCEA (Pico Rivera, etc.), Rancho Mirage Energy Authority (RMEA), Clean Power Alliance (LA County), and numerous attendees from Calpine, the billing agent. Action items for SCE were to investigate the ability for SCE to offer CCA customers’ access to the Rate Plan Comparison Tool prior to the TOU default by using SCE rates as a proxy. SCE is currently working with its vendor to determine feasibility and intends to provide CCAs with an update in Q1 2019.

VII. MARKETING AUTOMATION Per Resolution E-4895, Ordering Paragraph 3e, SCE was directed to implement a plan for

full marketing automation functionality to be completed by the end of 2018. SCE’s marketing automation technology and enablement became functional in December 2018 through the established Salesforce platform. Salesforce technology was amended to facilitate the automation of outgoing communications and the technology was piloted through a non-RROIR campaign in

A-14

Q4 2018. SCE will leverage the updated Salesforce technology to interact with customers through personalized communications made possible through the automated transfer of data within the platform. SCE’s plan is to use this customer data, behavioral data, and customer journey milestones as inputs to deliver timely and contextually relevant communications.

SCE is testing a limited set of automated communications on Residential TOU Pilot customers in Q1 2019 to gather learnings that will inform the full automation plan moving forward. The objective of this test is to keep TOU Pilot customers, who have been on their current plan for over 8 months, informed about how they are doing on their current rate plan, how they can improve, and if they might benefit from a different rate (last stage of the customer journey).

The test will run a rate analysis on these TOU Pilot customers and divide them into groups based on their performance against their rate. Each group will receive an email with content and recommendations tailored to them (e.g. non-benefiters may be prompted to consider changing rates, and benefiters may be encouraged to learn other ways to become more efficient). This customer data will be migrated to an email platform (Salesforce) where email content and timing is managed. Immediately after the emails are released, the platform will track customer interaction with the emails and manage follow-up communications. Non-responding customers would be put on a path to try and drive engagement, while responders would be put on a path to provide additional information and actions.

This test will help SCE identify operational efficiencies, as well as better understand how to effectively group customers, time communications, and tailor messaging. These learnings will inform communication planning in the future.

Execution Plan The execution plan outlines the testing, technology planning, customer experience planning, and optimization enablement.

Q1 2019 --- Test automated communications with our TOU Pilot customers.

Q2 2019 – Q2 2020 --- Introduction of new/transfer customers with marketing automation communications. In addition, refine and optimize the current automation plan and build out the technical infrastructure as necessary to support it. Progressively implement automated communications to residential customers as more advanced capabilities are added.

Q3 2020 --- Prepare residential customers leading up to the TOU transition with 120 and 60-day communications.

Q4 2020 + --- Execute marketing automation plan to onboard, educate, and nurture customers after the TOU transition.

The marketing automation plan will communicate to residential customers prior to, during, and after their transition to TOU. Throughout this journey, all communications are geared to help customers understand their rate plan, feel confident they are on the optimal rate plan, and if not, help them to identify their optimal rate. This customer journey is broken into stages, each with its own respective objectives:

A-15

Pre-TOU Transition (when applicable) and new/transfer customer engagement --- Generate awareness of the TOU transition and the customer’s options.

0-3 Months --- Help customers understand their rate plan, how to maximize savings, and how to read their bill.

3-7 Months --- Provide guidance to customers with high bills and educate all customers about seasonal differences in rates.

8+ Months --- Keep customers informed about how they are doing on their current rate plan, how they can improve, and if they might benefit from a different rate. On a yearly basis, provide usage/rate summary and inform customers of the expiration of their bill protection (when applicable).

Communications are aligned with each stage of the customer journey to achieve their respective objectives. Whether a communication is triggered (based on customer activity) or planned (predetermined time), the message, recommendation, and channel of delivery is dictated by a set of customer data (e.g. rate/account, demographic/psychographic data, behavioral data, usage data, and channel engagement/preference). The execution plan may be optimized in the future based on progressive learnings throughout the year.

Key Milestones Date Status Data Structure Design and Setup

May 2018 Completed

Marketing Automation Functionalities Enable

December 2018 Completed December 2018

Execution Plan Q1 2019 Completed January 2019 Measuring and Refining 2019 - 2020 In Progress

VIII. TEXT ALERTS Through December 2018, there have been 1,239 enrollments into TOU Text Alerts. 338

of the enrollments are TOU Default Pilot customers, and 802 of the enrollments came through the Fall TOU Acquisition effort. There have been approximately 82 opt-outs by default pilot customers since the program launch.

IX. ONLINE APPLIANCE SHIFTER TOOL Through Q4 of 2018, there were 7,868 visits to the Appliance Energy Cost Estimator

Tool. The tool will be updated in Spring 2019 to include rate factor changes, the addition of EVs and the new TOU-D-PRIME rate1, and adjustments to account for appliances with usage that exceeds the number of hours in TOU peak periods.

X. APPLICATION FOR TRANSITION OF CUSTOMERS TO DEFAULT TOU A.17-012-012 filed in December 2017 is SCE’s proposal to migrate approximately 3.3M

eligible residential customers to TOU rates. SCE filed supplemental testimony in August 2018 to include additional data and pilot learnings that were not available at the time of the filing. In

1 Approved per D.18-11-027.

A-16

October 2018, parties filed opening testimony. On December 6th, SCE filed a Motion for a Settlement on rate design matters with six other parties.2 On December 7, 2018, SCE and parties filed rebuttal testimony leading up to seven days of evidentiary hearings which took place between January 7 and January 15, 2019. Parties will file legal briefs on February 15 and reply briefs on March 8 leading to a proposed decision scheduled for June 2019.

XI. ME&O STRATEGIES ACROSS TOU & DSM PROGRAMS Per Resolution E-4895 SCE was directed to report on an annual basis in its PRRR filings,

the following additional information: (a) A comparison of ME&O strategies across TOU and Demand Side Management (DSM) programs; (b) Descriptions of strategies for aligning funding streams for default TOU and DSM programs; (c) Descriptions of ME&O cost allocation methods across programs; (d) Descriptions of examples of integrated marketing strategies across programs.

SCE routinely markets to residential customers a suite of offerings that range from rate plans, rebates and low income programs to energy management tools and conservation tips.

While all of these marketing efforts naturally have different objectives, a unified strategy coordinates them so they work together to support larger goals that ladder up to conservation, behavior change and customer satisfaction.

SCE’s overarching ME&O strategy is consistent across programs and is as follows:

1. Customer Journey. It relies on the marketing funnel as a tool that helps put into perspective the customer journey, or the path that a customer takes to become familiar with the utility’s offerings.

For instance, few customers understand today how their rates work (or what rate they’re on), including tier pricing. In fact, many customers may have the perception that they are on some TOU-like rate structure where they benefit from using appliances in the evening.

Recognizing the wide-spread confusion that exists, and in preparation for broad-scale default of residential customers to TOU in 2020, SCE implemented an awareness campaign (upper funnel) that utilizes mass media to reach a broad audience to begin the process to educate customers so that they can make an informed decision when it’s time for their transition to TOU.

In support of SCE’s DSM portfolio, our ME&O is primarily designed to reach customers who are further within the marketing funnel and are focused on driving action. For instance, in preparation for the summer season, we isolate those customers who have a swimming pool, educate them about the benefits of a variable speed pump and encourage their enrollment. This call-to-action is doable and meaningful, and the one-to-one customer engagement illustrates our ability to reach the right person, in the right place, at the right time, and with the right message.

2. Customer Data. SCE routinely uses internal customer data and external demographic data to develop propensity models for targeting segments of customers. Recently, SCE

2 SCE, California Public Advocates Office, California Solar and Storage Association, Solar Energy

Industries Association, Natural Resources Defense Counsil, Environmental Defense Fund and the Consumer Federation of California.

A-17

created a propensity model to identify FERA eligible customers who may benefit from enrollment in the program. ME&O was then deployed to efficiently and effectively target specific customer segments.

3. Cohesive Look and Feel. To create a cohesive experience across all channels, the look and tone of all communications materials are consistent, and our messages are crafted with clear, simple language.

To that end, SCE projects an attitude that is caring, responsive, expert and visionary, and our brand, “Energy for What’s Ahead,” represents a foundation of energy progress that better serves customers, communities and the environment.

4. Integration of Multiple Offerings. SCE’s strategy encourages customers to move beyond one-time “single energy actions” (e.g., one program sign-up) and drives customers toward ongoing, permanent behavior changes that are paramount to living an “energy-management lifestyle” (e.g., multiple program signups and sustained energy saving behaviors). The strategic approach provides customers with general education and awareness of rate options and DSM programs and tips and directs customers to SCE.com or to contact SCE for more information.

SCE’s ME&O strategies contribute to a customer-centric, integrated approach that ultimately leads to a more personalized customer experience and more efficient and effective communications.

In situations when multiple programs and messages are combined and integrated within a particular communication such as a brochure, SCE will allocate the expense across programs and respective funding streams based on the proportion of real estate that is associated with each. For instance, if a brochure is developed to primarily promote residential rate options and within the brochure one-quarter of the messaging is allocated to the smart thermostat rebate, the rate budget would be responsible for 75% of the expense and the smart thermostat budget, 25%.

Examples of ME&O integration include the following

CBO Savings Toolkit: programs cross-promoted include income-qualified programs (CARE/FERA), the Medical Baseline program, and the Energy Advisor tool.

TOU Pilot Welcome Kit: integration of rate information with energy management tools and conservation tips as well as information about smart thermostat rebates.

New Customer Welcome Communication: information includes Budget Assistant, Paperless Billing, and residential rate plans.

Pages linked to the residential rate plans page include the Electric Vehicle page and the Energy Savings Tip page.

XII. CURRENT RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE RATE ENROLLMENTS As of December 30, 2018, 441,249 residential customers are enrolled in TOU rate plans,

as reflected in the table below, including 279,004 that were transitioned through the Default TOU Pilot. Enrollment has increased since 2017, with a significant increase in enrollments

A-18

resulting from SCE’s TOU Default Pilot. In addition, opt-in TOU enrollments increased in Q4 as well, with a large contributor from our TOU Benefiter Acquisition.

XIII. MEDICAL BASELINE There has been an increase in customer enrollment in Medical Baseline with 1,402 new

sign ups.

SCE continues to leverage its grassroots approach referred to in Section IIA of this document, Marketing, Education and Outreach Program, Community-Based Organization to market Medical Baseline through CBOs and local events.

XIV. BUDGET UPDATE

A. Residential Implementation Memorandum Account (RRIMA) Summary As with previous reports, SCE is tracking all recorded costs in four categories: TOU Opt-

In Pilot, TOU Default Pilot, TOU Default Full Roll Out, and Non-TOU Pilot, with sub-categories in each (i.e., ME&O, Consultant, etc.). In addition, SCE has now added a fifth category which includes internal charges (e.g., general and absence labor, contract procurement, accruals, etc.), and budget reclassification efforts. These charges are best separated from the other categories as they are not specific to TOU and Non-TOU activities.

Below is the summary table of RRIMA operating expenses from October 2015 through December 2018. SCE spent approximately $7.67M on RRIMA operating expenses in Q4 2018. Included in that total is approximately $193k in bill protection credits. Pursuant to Resolution E-4847, issued May 11, 2017, SCE now records bill protection credits in the Base Revenue

TOU RatesTotal TOUEnrollments2018 Q1

Total TOUEnrollments2018 Q2



Opt in TOUEnrollments2018 Q3

Opt in TOUEnrollments2018 Q4

TOU DOption A 47,170 56,608 81,499 94,662 34,486 39,254TOU DOption B 33,261 36,942 45,093 50,009 43,927 48,554TOU D T 15,178 15,398 15,470 15,435 14,858 14,719TOU D 4 147,875 149,795 141,877 138,473 412 602TOU D 5 150,898 153,016 145,259 141,818 509 690TOU EV 1 917 881 810 852 809 851Total 395,299 412,640 430,008 441,249 93,981 104,670

MBLCustomer Class

Number ofCustomer2018 Q1

Number ofCustomers2018 Q2



Critical Care 16,472 16,348 17, 080 17,433Non Critical 74,560 74,286 76,711 77,760

Total 91,032 90,634 93,791 95,193

A-19

Requirement Balancing Account (BRRBA). However, bill protection credits have been included in the budget table below to accurately represent RRIMA spend.

SCE has implemented quarterly accruals for all invoices over $50,000. In Q4 2018, SCE incurred approximately $5,906,453 in quarterly accrual expenses which will be adjusted in Q1 2019.

While not noted in the above table, SCE has incurred capital-related expenses to support the residential rate reform decision. This work included system changes to modify SCE’s tier structure, including the development of the HUC, the building of new rates for TOU Pilots, and the development of the long-term Rate Plan Comparison Tool. Currently, SCE has incurred approximately $7.58 million in capital-related expenses through December 31, 2018 and these costs are in addition to the above table.

SCE has discovered a reporting error in Q2 2018 in the amount of up to $155,525. The error was caused by incorrect vendor billing which resulted in the erroneous charges. Approximately $130,376 has been adjusted and reflected in Q3 & Q4 2018 (TOU Default Full Roll Out, Other).

B. Default Pilot Budget Summary Resolution E-4847, issued on May 12, 2017, approved with modifications SCE’s Default

TOU Pilot and directed SCE to begin tracking expenditures against estimates related to the pilot. SCE is tracking all Default TOU Pilot costs in six categories: Marketing, Market Research (including Measurement and Evaluation), Information Technology (IT), Operation Support, Bill Protection, and Project Management Support. Since the filing of AL 3531-E, three line-items have been added to the Default TOU Pilot budget to specifically track Marketing “Collateral,” and “Bill Redesign”, as well as Operation Support “Rate Calculations.”

2015Oct Dec 2016 Total 2017 Total 2018 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018 Total TOTAL

ME&O 174$ 1,339,386$ 264,043$ 40,060$ 22,660$ 21$ $ 62,741$ 1,666,344$IT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Consultant 131,107$ 607,082$ 526,375$ 26,119$ 10,675$ 88$ $ 36,881$ 1,301,445$Operations $ 170,588$ 256,889$ 33,334$ 1,620$ $ $ 34,954$ 462,431$Incentives $ 2,897,918$ 724,250$ $ $ $ $ $ 3,622,168$Other 19,776$ 230,372$ 222,837$ 6,797$ 7,532$ 5,753$ 7,120$ 27,202$ 500,187$

151,058$ 5,245,345$ 1,994,395$ 106,309$ 42,487$ 5,862$ 7,120$ 161,778$ 7,552,575$ME&O $ 460,576$ 384,411$ 1,015,289$ 207,926$ 316,542$ 325,446$ 1,865,203$ 2,710,190$IT $ $ 48,780$ 622$ $ $ $ 622$ 49,402$Consultant $ 307,480$ 296,712$ 33,991$ 82,334$ $ $ 116,325$ 720,517$Operations $ $ 15,157$ 110,785$ 65,155$ 22,765$ (15,248)$ 183,457$ 198,614$Other $ 49,210$ 138,324$ 36,786$ 16,606$ 27,990$ 37,403$ 118,785$ 306,319$

$ 817,266$ 883,383$ 1,197,473$ 372,021$ 367,297$ 347,600$ 2,284,392$ 3,985,041$ME&O $ $ $ $ 39,624$ $ 139,978$ 179,603$ 179,603$IT $ $ 19,026$ 4,667$ 10,581$ 7,971$ 463,073$ 486,293$ 505,320$Consultant $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Operations $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Other $ 14,048$ 74,760$ 29,623$ 173,598$ (118,235)$ 36,182$ 121,167$ 209,976$

$ 14,048$ 93,787$ 34,290$ 223,803$ (110,264)$ 639,233$ 787,063$ 894,898$ME&O $ 3,548,678$ 2,674,348$ 42,445$ 3,059,774$ 122,653$ 6,381,672$ 9,606,544$ 15,829,570$IT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $Consultant $ 323,971$ 89,059$ 750$ $ $ $ 750$ 413,779$Operations $ 16,069$ 489,037$ 100,272$ 44,106$ 251,407$ 72,438$ 468,223$ 973,329$Other $ 10,487$ 21,471$ 13,914$ 1,391$ 28,943$ 1,369$ 45,616$ 77,574$

$ 3,899,205$ 3,273,914$ 157,381$ 3,105,271$ 403,003$ 6,455,479$ 10,121,134$ 17,294,253$SCE Internal Charges 98,136$ 174,036$ 51,625$ (92,006)$ 25,603$ 27,565$ 31,540$ (7,298)$ 316,499$

Reclassification 387$ (43,180)$ (9,550)$ 0$ 401$ $ $ 401$ (51,942)$98,524$ 130,856$ 42,075$ (92,006)$ 26,003$ 27,565$ 31,540$ (6,898)$ 264,557$

Total Operating Expenses 249,581$ 10,106,721$ 6,287,554$ 1,403,447$ 3,769,586$ 693,464$ 7,480,972$ 13,347,469$ 29,991,325$Bill Protection 86,862$ 260,658$ 7,870$ 12,477$ 147,545$ 193,451$ 361,342$ 708,862$Total RRIMA 2015 2018 249,581$ 10,193,583$ 6,548,212$ 1,411,317$ 3,782,063$ 841,008$ 7,674,423$ 13,708,811$ 30,700,187$

Miscellaenous Subtotal

Miscellaenous

Non TOU Pilot Subtotal

TOU Opt In Pilot

TOU Default Pilot

TOU Default Full Roll Out

Non TOU Pilot(Rate Communications)

TOU Opt In Pilot Subtotal

TOU Default Pilot Subtotal

TOU Default Full Roll Out Subtotal

A-20

As noted in the RRIMA Summary, IT capital and Bill Protection expenditures do not record in the RRIMA. However, these costs have been included in the budget table above in order to accurately represent Default TOU Pilot spend. Currently, SCE has incurred approximately $4.06 million in Default TOU Pilot IT capital-related expenses through December 31, 2018, and these costs are included in the table above. In addition, SCE has incurred approximately $361k in Bill Protection credits. Bill Protection credits for 2017 were previously recorded as Default TOU Pilot costs in error and have been corrected.

Various activities contributed to SCE spending only $3.84M on the project, significantly less than the $7.604M budgeted for 2018. These include:

Lower Pilot Pre-Default Notification Costs – SCE developed the Default TOU Pilot Pre-Default Notification budget with the assumption that the total customer population of 400k would be included. Approximately 22% of the projected customer base opted-out, closed rates, or switched to another TOU rate which led to lowered production costs. The recorded spend reflects the revised costs associated with production, print, postage, and available efficiencies which lead to lower spend.

Lower Market Research Costs – SCE spent approximately $544k less on market research efforts than previously budgeted for. This is due to revised costs for

2016Budget

2016Actuals

2017Budget

2017Actuals

2018Actuals

2019Budget

TotalBudget

TotalActuals

Cost Recorded Cost Recorded Cost Recorded Cost Cost RecordedMarketingPilot Pre Default Notification90/60/30 Day CommunicationsMarketing Direct Mail $ $ 172,823$ 167,745$ 1,588,174$ 922,978$ 1,760,997$ 1,090,723$

Pilot Welcome CommunicationsWelcome Kit BasicMarketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 109,674$ 128,157$ 109,674$ 128,157$

Welcome Kit EnabledMarketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 186,112$ 128,157$ 186,112$ 128,157$

Pilot Post Default CommunicationsFirst TOU Summer Communication Enhanced (Newsletter)Marketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 155,661$ 34,017$ 155,661$ 34,017$

First TOU Summer Communication Basic (Postcard)Marketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 112,358$ 34,017$ 112,358$ 34,017$

First Winter Communication Enhanced (Newsletter)Marketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 155,661$ 151,466$ 155,661$ 151,466$

First Winter Communication Basic (Postcard)Marketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ 112,358$ 151,466$ 112,358$ 151,466$

12 Month Bill Protection ExpirationMarketing Direct Mail $ $ $ $ $ 186,087$ 186,087$ $

Outbound Calling $ $ $ $ 10,600$ 96,962$ $ 10,600$ 96,962$Digital Experience (sce.com) $ $ 22,800$ 35,213$ 25,080$ 40,769$ 27,588$ 75,468$ 75,982$TOU Text Alert $ $ 17,969$ $ $ 23,478$ $ 17,969$ 23,478$Collateral $ $ $ $ $ 1,775$ $ $ 1,775$Bill Redesign $ $ $ $ $ 21,758$ $ $ 21,758$SUB TOTAL $ $ 213,592$ 202,957$ 2,455,678$ 1,734,999$ 213,675$ 2,882,945$ 1,937,957$Market Research (Survey Design, Implementation and Reporting)Bovitz Design Thinking Research 149,189$ 149,189$ $ $ $ $ 149,189$ 149,189$Communications Development/Message Testing for Default Pilot $ $ 150,000$ 157,098$ (52,371)$ $ 150,000$ 104,727$ME&O Experience and Tracking Surveys for Default Pilot $ $ $ $ 525,000$ 173,636$ $ 525,000$ 173,636$Experience Evaluation Research for Default Pilot $ $ $ $ 100,000$ $ $ 100,000$ $Pulse Surveys/Experience Evaluation Research for Default TOU $ $ $ 7,000$ 50,000$ $ $ 50,000$ 7,000$

Bill Redesign 336,124$ 311,387$ 11,039$ 17,355$ $ 8,939$ $ 347,163$ 337,681$SUB TOTAL 485,313$ 460,576$ 161,039$ 181,453$ 675,000$ 130,203$ $ 1,321,352$ 772,233$

M&ELoad and Bill Impact Report $ $ $ $ 200,000$ $ 200,000$ 400,000$ $M&E Consultant Support 53,309$ 50,309$ 34,000$ 17,795$ 34,000$ 1,660$ $ 121,309$ 69,764$

SUB TOTAL 53,309$ 50,309$ 34,000$ 17,795$ 234,000$ 1,660$ 200,000$ 521,309$ 69,764$Information Technology (IT) System UpdatesBilling System Updates and Support $ 580,874$ 3,232,417$ 2,331,424$ 705,288$ 1,199,816$ $ 3,937,705$ 4,112,114$Technology, Tools, and Alerts $ $ 30,000$ $ $ $ $ 30,000$ $SUB TOTAL $ 580,874$ 3,262,417$ 2,331,424$ 705,288$ 1,199,816$ $ 3,967,705$ 4,112,114$

Operation SupportCustomer Contact Center Operations $ $ 63,166$ $ 415,084$ 148,984$ $ 478,250$ 148,984$Billing Operations $ $ 36,667$ $ 183,333$ 22,849$ $ 220,000$ 22,849$Rate Calculations $ $ $ 15,157$ $ $ $ $ 15,157$Training $ $ 75,605$ $ 65,205$ 11,623$ 63,405$ 204,215$ 11,623$SUB TOTAL $ $ 175,438$ 15,157$ 663,622$ 183,457$ 63,405$ 902,465$ 198,614$

Bill Protection Revenue ShortfallBill Protection $ $ $ $ 2,623,491$ 361,342$ 7,870,473$ 10,493,964$ 361,342$SUB TOTAL $ $ $ $ 2,623,491$ 361,342$ 7,870,473$ 10,493,964$ 361,342$

Project Management SupportIncremental Labor 55,741$ 37,689$ 222,960$ 132,834$ 222,960$ 107,675$ 222,960$ 724,621$ 278,198$Consultant Support 115,614$ 257,170$ 93,986$ 278,918$ $ 114,665$ $ 209,600$ 650,753$Employee Expenses 6,000$ 11,521$ 24,000$ 5,490$ 24,000$ 11,110$ 24,000$ 78,000$ 28,121$SUB TOTAL 177,355$ 306,380$ 340,946$ 417,241$ 246,960$ 233,450$ 246,960$ 1,012,221$ 957,072$

TOTAL 715,977$ 1,398,140$ 4,187,432$ 3,166,027$ 7,604,039$ 3,844,928$ 8,594,513$ 21,101,961$ 8,409,095$

2018Budget

A-21

surveys and using in-house resources. A competitive estimate for experience and tracking surveys was lower than previously budgeted. In addition, costs for experience evaluation research were included in a separate survey effort; therefore the previously budgeted amount of $100k was not incurred. Also, SCE used in-house resources for Default TOU pulse surveys.

Higher IT System Update Costs – SCE spent approximately $494k more on IT billing system updates and support than previously budgeted for. This is due to revised project scope and cost estimates for bill redesign efforts.

Lower Operational Costs SCE did not consider Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and robotics assistance in previous operations support estimates. At that time, the role that IVR and robotics would play was uncertain. IVR satisfied at least 50% of the calls that came into the call center prior to default resulting in a reduction of energy advisors needed and trained for live calls. With the support of robotics, billing operations experienced a reduced handled-time compared to what was forecasted for exceptions. Training labor expenses are factored into Customer Contact Center (CCC) labor hours and did not record in the training section. Also, additional training that was planned was not needed.

Lower Bill Protection Costs – SCE conservatively estimated a total of $10.5M cost for bill protection, with 25% of the bill protection being paid in 2018. Of the $2.6M forecast for 2018, only $361k in bill protection costs were incurred. SCE’s original estimates assumed that a representative sample of 10% of customers would opt-out over the term of the pilot, where as of February 2019, approximately 30% of customers have either opted-out, switched to a different TOU rate that does not include bill protection, or closed their account due to normal attrition. Many of the customers that opted-out prior to default were non-benefiters, thus no bill protection will be paid to them.

A-22

C. Marketing, Education and Outreach (ME&O) Budget Summary The following table provides a revised budget estimate for SCE’s RROIR ME&O activities

in 2018-2022. The final budget may vary based on a variety of factors, such as the final rate design and lessons learned from the TOU pilots. As requested by the Public Advocates Office (formerly ORA) in response to SCE’s AL 3500-E, SCE will update the below table with the recorded ME&O expenditures each quarter. Through December 2018, SCE has recorded approximately $12.06 million in ME&O costs. SCE has implemented quarterly accruals for all invoices over $50,000. In Q4 2018 (Statewide Marketing: Statewide (DDB), Consultant), SCE incurred $6.15 million in quarterly accrual expenses which will be adjusted in Q1 2019.

Ordering Paragraph 6 of Resolution E-4895, issued on February 9, 2018, directs SCE to include cost deviations and explanations for costs variances of $250,000 at the tactic line level in the PRRR. SCE has confirmed with Energy Division staff that all deviations will be based on the most recent budget submitted as part of SCE AL 3777-E-A, filed on August 24, 2018.

SCE has cost variances of $250k for the following tactic line items:

Lower Statewide Marketing – SCE spent approximately $7.87M less for statewide marketing efforts than previously budgeted in 2018. This is due to a delay in invoicing. PG&E and SDG&E hold the contracts for DDB and OMD, and costs have not been incurred by SCE.

Lower Default TOU Pilot – SCE spent approximately $1.04M less for Default TOU Pilot efforts than previously budgeted in 2018. As stated in XIII. Budget Update, Section B. Default Pilot Budget Summary, lower Default TOU Pilot participation is the reason for reduced spend. Approximately 22% of the projected customer base opted-out, closed rates, or switched to another TOU rate which lead to lowered

2018 Budget 2018 Q1 Actuals 2018 Q2 Actuals 2018 Q3 Actuals 2018 Q4 Actuals 2018 Totals 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Total Budget Total Actuals

Cost Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost RecordedMarketing, Education & Outreach (ME&O)

TargetedMediaCreative Development & Production 300,000$ 20,576$ 28,555$ 42,137$ 2,656$ 93,923$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 1,749,572$ 93,923$Media Buy 2,700,000$ $ 3,000,000$ 55,398$ (47,501)$ 3,007,897$ 3,950,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 3,950,000$ 18,615,794$ 3,007,897$

Statewide MarketingStatewide (DDB) 6,815,500$ $ $ $ 6,041,702$ 6,041,702$ 6,815,500$ 25,714,405$ 6,041,702$Media Buy 6,987,500$ $ $ $ $ $ 6,987,500$ 6,987,500$ 6,987,500$ 27,950,000$ $Evaluation 118,250$ $ $ $ $ $ 118,250$ 118,250$ 118,250$ 473,000$ $Consultant for Alignment of ME&O Campaigns 105,000$ $ $ $ 108,032$ 108,032$ 52,500$ 52,500$ 426,064$ 108,032$

Bill Comparisons 200,000$ 750$ 28,230$ 3,203$ 78,173$ 110,357$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 2,600,000$ 3,422,964$ 110,357$Default TOU Pilot

Communications Development 982,269$ 388,256$ 11,322$ $ $ 399,577$ 2,946,190$ 399,577$30/60/90 Communications (DM/EM) 561,611$ 433,042$ 87,901$ 2,458$ $ 523,401$ 2,907,538$ 523,401$Telephone Outreach 96,962$ 96,962$ $ $ $ 96,962$ 290,885$ 96,962$New Rate Welcome Kit 461,285$ 36,816$ 66,248$ 14,806$ 138,444$ 256,314$ 1,084,360$ 256,314$Seasonal Education (Winter/Summer) 498,306$ $ $ 143,017$ 227,949$ 370,966$ 1,240,237$ 370,966$Bill Protection $ $ $ $ $ 213,675$ 213,675$ $Text Alerts 74,500$ 294$ 445$ 12,325$ 10,414$ 23,478$ 73,000$ 195,337$ 23,478$Collateral 25,000$ 765$ $ $ 1,010$ 1,775$ 30,843$ 1,775$Social Videos 15,000$ $ $ $ $ $ 15,000$ $

Default TOU60/90 Communications (DM/EM) $ $ $ $ $ 2,661,000$ 1,827,000$ 4,488,000$ $New Rate Welcome Kit $ $ $ $ $ 2,095,000$ 2,921,000$ 5,016,000$ $Seasonal Education (Winter/Summer) $ $ $ $ $ 6,133,000$ 1,206,000$ 7,339,000$ $Bill Protection $ $ $ $ $ 1,353,000$ 266,000$ 1,619,000$ $Experiential Marketing $ $ $ $ $ 500,000$ 650,000$ 800,000$ 300,000$ 2,250,000$ $Telephone Outreach $ $ $ $ $ 733,000$ 1,240,000$ 1,973,000$ $Text Alerts $ $ $ $ $ 60,000$ 243,000$ 303,000$ $Video Bill $ $ $ $ $ 198,000$ 395,000$ 593,000$ $Pre Default Social Media $ $ $ $ $ 270,000$ 270,000$ 540,000$ $Post Default Social Media $ $ $ $ $ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 135,000$ $Social Videos $ $ $ $ $ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 45,000$ $Collateral

Informational Brochures $ $ $ $ $ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 100,000$ $CARE/FERA Outreach $ $ $ $ $ 300,000$ 300,000$ $

CCA Versioning $ $ $ $ $ $ $Web Development

Digital Updates 50,000$ 52,705$ 12,923$ 17,098$ 7,567$ 90,293$ 47,412$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 532,997$ 90,293$Rate Selection at Turn On 143,000$ $ $ $ 128,246$ 128,246$ 240,000$ 80,000$ $ $ 719,492$ 128,246$

Community Based Organizations (CBO) 100,000$ $ $ 4,818$ 62,796$ 67,614$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,035,228$ 67,614$Marketing Automation 200,000$ $ $ $ $ $ 150,000$ 53,209$ 53,209$ 53,209$ 509,627$ $High Usage Surcharge (Super User) 377,578$ 82,717$ 31,293$ 239,688$ 72,438$ 426,136$ 440,514$ 440,493$ 196,975$ 120,852$ 2,428,684$ 426,136$Bill Redesign* $ 21,758$ $ $ $ 21,758$ 43,516$ 21,758$SUB TOTAL 20,811,761$ 1,134,639$ 3,266,916$ 534,948$ 6,831,927$ 11,768,429$ 20,628,351$ 16,268,952$ 26,807,934$ 6,551,061$ 117,246,409$ 11,768,429$ 0

Market ResearchME&O Experience and Tracking Surveys for Default Pilot 350,000$ $ 29,700$ 143,936$ $ 173,636$ 697,271$ 173,636$Experience Evaluation Research for Default Pilot 50,000$ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000$ $Communications Development/Message Testing $ $ $ (52,371)$ (52,371)$ 100,000$ (4,742)$ (52,371)$Semi Annual ME&O Tracking Surveys (Spring/Fall) 150,000$ $ $ $ 139,978$ 139,978$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 1,029,957$ 139,978$Pulse Surveys/Experience Evaluation Research 50,000$ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ $Bill Protection/Additional Research Costs 0 $ 23,270$ $ $ 23,270$ 30,000$ 76,540$ 23,270$Bill Redesign* 6,563$ 2,376$ $ $ 8,939$ 8,939$SUB TOTAL 600,000$ 6,563$ 55,346$ 143,936$ 87,607$ 293,451$ 280,000$ 200,000$ 250,000$ 150,000$ 2,049,025$ 293,451$ 0

AL 3777 E A TOTAL 21,411,761$ 1,141,201$ 3,322,262$ 678,884$ 6,919,534$ 12,061,881$ 20,908,351$ 16,468,952$ 27,057,934$ 6,701,061$ 119,295,434$ 12,061,881$

A-23

production costs. The recorded spend reflects the revised costs associated with production, print, postage, and available efficiencies.

Lower Market Research – SCE spent approximately $306k less than previously budgeted in 2018. Market Research costs were lower than expected due to lower costs and utilization of in-house resources. Default TOU Pilot experience and tracking surveys were less than expected. Also, SCE received a credit from our market research vendor for previous communications efforts conducted in a prior year. Experience evaluation efforts were included in a separate research effort and pulse surveys were done in-house.

XV. CONCLUSION SCE continues to collaborate with both TOU Pilot and ME&O Working Groups along with

the ME&O consultants to continue a successful implementation of the Default TOU Pilot. SCE looks forward to continued discussion with the CPUC and parties regarding its full TOU implementation plan detailed in its 2018 Rate Design Window proposal.

Appendix A

Q4 2018 CBO Events

# Date Event CityQ4 2018 CBO Events

Appendix B

Default TOU Pilot Survey 2 Report

December 17, 2018

Default TOU PilotSurvey 2 Report

1

Table of Contents

2

Background, Objectives, and Methodology ……………………………………………….……… 3

Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………….……. 6

Key Findings

Awareness of Rate Plan Types, Current Rate, and Satisfaction …….……………………………… 15

Awareness and Response to TOU Transition and Knowledge of Recent Changes ……….. 24

Communications Recall, Evaluation, and Preferences ………………………............................ 31

Unmet Information Needs, and Information Sought and Found .................................... 38

Feeling About New TOU Rate Plans ……………….………………………………………………….……….. 47

Understanding TOU Transition Changes: Bill Impacts, Peak Times, and Bill Protection .. 50

Knowledge About SCE Resources and Assistance ……………………………………………………….. 65

Actions to Reduce or Shift with Barriers, Technologies, and Programs to Assist ………….. 70

Bill Review ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 79

Attitudes Toward SCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94

Demographics of Survey Respondents ………………………………………………………………….…….. 97

Background & Metrics The CPUC directed the three California IOUs to implement a TOU default pilot to gaugecustomer response to new TOU rate plans, and test communication approaches tofacilitate customer adoption. A set of surveys will assess: (1) awareness (of the default,rates, and communications), (2) understanding (of the rates, how to manage on TOU,etc.), and (3) engagement (with the selected rate, including behavioral changes and/orengagement with SCE tools and assistance). Additionally, the survey will measure keyME&O metrics:

3

Metric Nr. Description

1Customers are aware that there are rate plans that may help them mitigate electricityexpenditures (“could help you save money”)

2 Customers know where to go to get more information about how to manage their electricity use

3 Customers understand how electricity use can impact bills (based on the rate plan they are on)

4Customers understand the benefits of lowering their electricity use or shifting electricity use tonon peak hours

5

Customers are aware of the rebates, energy efficiency programs, demand response programs,energy management technologies, and tips offered by their utility that can help them managetheir electricity bill

6 Customers feel they were provided useful info explaining their bills

8 Customers were provided with information and services to help reduce their electricity bill

ObjectivesResearch objectives of the survey include:

• Measure awareness and knowledge of available rate plan types: Tiered, TOU• Measure awareness and response to the TOU Default Pilot transition• Determine recall of summer and winter newsletter communications• Measure customer takeaway from the newsletters

– Useful, easy to understand, got your attention, caused you to take action • Determine sufficiency of communications• Measure customer understanding of TOU, re: how to manage electric bill• Measure awareness and understanding of SCE assistance• Determine customer actions to reduce and shift• Identify TOU rate group and demographic differences in awareness, knowledge,

and actions

4

MethodologyA total of 2,023 interviews were completed among a sample of customers who defaulted to a TOU Default Pilot rate in March (did not opt out to Tiered or choose an alternate TOU) –and remain on the new rate when surveyed. • Customers had received three communications prior to defaulting, with content based on three

dimensions: (1) peak period (4-8 or 5-9), (2) bill impact analysis (monthly or seasonal), and (3) consumer benefit (opportunity or loss aversion). Customers then received one of two versions of a Welcome Letter (Kit): basic or enhanced. Finally, customers received a summer and a winter newsletter.

• Interviewing was completed by (a) web (via email or letter invitation with link to a web survey) or phone (direct calls to those without email or non-responders to the email or mail invitation). Respondents were offered the chance of receiving a lottery incentive.

• Interviewing was completed between October 22 and November 27, 2018.

5

4-9 PM Peak Period 5-8 PM Peak Period

Total 1,021 1,002

Field Dates October 22nd – November 27th

Length of Interview (median) 20.57 minutes

First Second FinalResponse Rates by Method Method

SampleSize Completes

Response Rate Method

SampleSize Completes

Response Rate

Response Rate

Mail + Phone Mail 12,000 334 2.78% Phone 11,838 509 4.30% 7.03%Email + Phone Email 10,000 888 8.88% Phone 8,118 292 3.60% 11.80%

Total 21,000 1,222 5.55% 19,956 801 4.01% 9.20%

Overall, awareness has remained steady at 73%. Many customers are still not aware of rate choices, of the impact of reducing or shifting use, and especially of bill protection – those who are not engaged by now may never be. Any further communications could reach a level of diminishing returns, of which we may be seeing the marginal yield now.

Higher Engagement Levels Will Be Challenging• Awareness of TOU and Tiered rates is unchanged from Survey 1b. Even after all the outreach and communications, a third still do

not know what rate they are on. This could be because they do not feel the need to pay attention, have low bills, or are a Benefiter. More outreach activities are likely to have minimal results.

• On the plus side, almost half are satisfied with their current rate. However, fewer customers are aware that they could make a choice in rates. Desert customers and Non-Benefiters have even lower awareness of having a choice – perhaps because they really do not think they have a choice.

• Many awareness specifics are also down in Survey 2, including being aware there are plans to help save money. It could be that those who are not aware of TOU messages are just harder to engage, and no matter how many attempts are made are likely never to pay attention or act.

More Work to Do on Bill Protection and Sharing Ideas to Shift / Save• Recall of the Summer newsletter is much higher than for the Winter version, which could be because summer temperatures remind

customers to pay more attention to SCE communications. • Customers seem to be settling into their rate, since more customers are saying they understand they could pay more without taking

action and how to manage their bill on the current plan. Positive feelings are increasing and negatives subsiding. More customers are feeling in control.

• More customers indicate that reducing electricity can impact the bill as compared to shifting. This suggests that more can be done to show how shifting saves energy.

• Customers did not easily find information about Bill Protection. Very few customers even know they have it. Future communications may need to repeatedly share messages about Bill Protection, especially where to find the status on the bill.

• Many customer feel they have done all they can to save. Perhaps sharing testimonials and videos on how customers saved will show customers what more could be done, especially low/no cost actions.

6

Executive Summary

Awareness of Rate Plan Types, Current Rate, and Rate Satisfaction• Awareness of TOU (73% vs. 72%) is unchanged from Survey 1b. Tiered rate plan awareness

is also unchanged (66% vs. 68%) from Survey 1b.• Nearly a third (31%) of customers who defaulted to TOU still do not know what rate they

are on, and this has remained unchanged since Survey 1b (June) after the March transition. • Almost half are satisfied with their current rate (46%), but mean satisfaction decreased to

6.9 from 7.1 with fewer who are “not sure” – and more who gave a mid-range rating (4-7). Groups with the highest rate satisfaction are CARE, Coastal, and Benefiters/Neutrals.

• Customers believe that TOU is best for their household over Tiered by a 3:2 ratio, but one in three is still not sure what is best – unchanged from Survey 1b.

Awareness and Response to Transition / Knowledge of Recent Changes• About half (48%) of customers are aware that their household is part of the Default TOU

Pilot transition. Most of those aware of the transition (60%) knew that they could make a rate choice (down significantly from Survey 1b at 65% and Survey 1a at 75%). CARE customers are less aware of the transition. Desert dwellers and Non-Benefiters are less aware (or do not think) that they have a choice.

• METRIC 1: 52% are aware that there are rate plans that can help them save money, down from Surveys 1a and 1b (55%). Most other specific awareness-related statements are also down from the last measurement.

7

Executive Summary

Summer and Winter Newsletters • About half (48%) of customers recall receiving the Summer newsletter, but only half as

many (24%) recall receiving a Winter newsletter. • Over half considered the information provided to be useful (53%) and easy to

understand (56%). Agreement on the look and feel being attention-getting is slightly lower at 44%. Those who reportedly took action is 35%, up significantly from Survey 1b.

• CARE customers gave the highest ratings to the newsletters.

Adequacy of Information • Despite relatively high awareness levels of SCE providing information, customers still feel

a need for additional information.– Just under half (46%) thought they received enough information about the transition.

• One in ten sought additional information.– SCE.com is the primary resource for obtaining additional information (used by 51% who sought

more information), followed by calling SCE (35%), and going to My Account (34%). – Two in three (68%) who sought additional information found it, an improvement from 56% in

Survey 1a.

8

Executive Summary

Feelings and Conclusions about TOU• Among customers defaulted to a Pilot rate, positive feelings are increasing and

negatives are decreasing. – Those feeling in control (29%) and optimistic (26%) increased from Survey 1b. – Those feeling confused (27%) or worried (19%) decreased. – Still 39% feel at least one negative emotion (worried, helpless, or angry) and 7% feel all three. – CARE customers are more likely to feel all of these emotions – positive and negative – except

for feeling confused or angry which is similar to Non-CARE. – Non-Benefiters feel less positive but no more negative than Benefiters or Neutral customers.

Understanding TOU Transition Changes: Peak Times, Bill Impacts, and Bill Protection• METRIC 3: Up significantly from Survey 1b, with 48% (rating 8-10) on “how changes to

current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you adjust your usage” and 44% for “how to manage your bill on your current rate plan.”

• About 60% of customers correctly identified the peak times as falling somewhere between 5 to 8 PM for TOU-5 (or 4 to 9 PM for TOU-4). Of concern are those who misunderstand peaks times to be from noon to 4 PM (28-34%).

• METRIC 4: Two in three (64% to 70%, up from 52% to 57%) have an understanding of the impacts of reducing usage to realize potential benefit outcomes (save money, impacts to environment, improved reliability, controlling bill), while slightly fewer (53% to 60%, upfrom 47% to 51%) have an understanding of the impacts/benefits of shifting usage.

9

Executive Summary

Understanding TOU Transition Changes: Peak Times, Bill Impacts, and Bill Protection (continued)• Half of customers have reviewed their bill since their transition to TOU. Most customers

thought the items on the bill were easy to find (range of 89%-99%), except for info about bill protection (73%). Almost all customers looked at the amount due and due date. Many looked at the peak periods, the TOU graph, and the rate they are on as well. Most customers thought the various bill items were helpful (range of 88%-92%).

• One-fourth of customers said something stood out on the new bill – 21% said something positive stood out and 5% (down from 12%) said something negative. Positive mentions about the bill are easy to read (37%), TOU information/detail (31%), graphs (13%), and lower cost (7%, down from 36%). The most frequent negatives are hard to understand (33%, up from 11%) and higher costs (28%, down from 63%).

• More customers believe they pay more with their new TOU rate plan than pay less – 22% vs. 16%. Most say they pay about the same amount (33%) or are not sure (30%).

• About one in six customers know they have Bill Protection (17%, down from 23%).– Half of those aware believe it is “very important” to their decisions to try and stay on TOU, yet

most customers (70%) don’t know about or understand bill protection.– A majority of customers (75%) want to see Bill Protection information elsewhere, with most

preferring it on both their bill and SCE’s website. Few want it just on the website.

10

Executive Summary

Knowledge About SCE Resources and Assistance• METRIC 5: Awareness that SCE provides information and assistance is unchanged at

69%. However, fewer customers are sure where to go to get more information (METRIC 2): 52%, unchanged from Survey 1b but down significantly from the baseline of 57%.

Actions to Reduce or Shift• Four in 10 customers claimed they took action to shift or reduce, unchanged from Survey

1b’s “planned” actions, but more say “no” and fewer are “not sure” than in Survey 1b. • Equal numbers reduced (19%) as shifted (21%). All actions are down, though in Survey 2 these

are “actual” while in Survey 1b, actions were “planned.”• Top reasons for not reducing or shifting are that there is nothing more they can do

(“have done all I can,” “already use very little electricity”). • About one in six (17%) said they made energy efficiency improvements as a result of the

transition to TOU. One in seven (14%) said they signed up for or enrolled in an Edison program since the transition.

Attitudes Toward SCE• Overall favorability at 61% (8, 9, or 10 rating on a 10-point scale) is unchanged from

Survey 1b. • The most favorable groups are those on CARE, Coastal dwellers, and Benefiter and

Neutral groups. The least favorable are the Desert Dwellers and the Non-Benefiters.

11

Executive Summary

Metric Key MeasuresBaseline Nov ‘17

1a TotalApr ‘18

1a Def TOUApr ‘18

1bJun ’18

2Nov ‘18

Answer Choice Key Sub-Group Differences

- Aware of Tiered Rate Plan 63% 72% 67% 68% 66% % Yes Non-CARE>CARE; Valley>Coast; Ben, NB>Neu

- Aware of TOU Rate Plan 47% 70% 62% 72% 73% % Yes Non-CARE>CARE; Valley, Desert>Coast

- Have Tiered Rate Plan 35% 41% 38% 31% 30% % Yes Valley>Coast, Desert; Ben, Non-Ben GT Neutral

- Have TOU Rate Plan 7% 26% 21% 41% 43% % Yes Non-CARE>CARE; Ben>NB

1Rate plans are available that could help you save money 45% 62% 55% 55% 52% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE; Ben, Neu > NB

- You can choose to change your rate plan NA 60% 52% 51% 46% % Yes Ben, Neu > NB

-Rate plans are available that give you more control over your bill NA 54% 46% 47% 45% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE; Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

-New Time-of-Use or T-O-U rate plans are now available to all SCE customers 29% 46% 37% 45% 39% % Yes Coast, Desert GT Valley; Ben, Neutral > Non-Ben

-A choice of rate plans is available so you can decide which rate plan best suits your needs 35% 61% 50% 51% 48% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE; Ben,Neu > Non-Ben

-In 2020, many residential customers will be transitioned onto T-O-U rate plan 11% 39% 33% 26% 38% % Yes Desert > Coast, Valley; Neu > Non-Ben

-A personalized rate plan comparison is available to help you choose … 25% 50% 40% 39% 35% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE; Coast, Desert > Valley;

Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

Understanding of TOU Impacts

3 How to manage your electric bill using the rate plan that you are currently on

38%5.97

40%6.26

33%5.84

38%6.20

41%6.42

% 8-10 Meanrating

Ben , Neu > Non-Ben

3How changes to current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you can adjust your electricity use

33%5.53

44%6.52

38%6.09

43%6.56

48%6.71

% 8-10 Meanrating

Non-CARE>CARE; Desert GT Coast; Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

12

Executive Summary: Key Measures


1a TotalApr ‘18

1a Def TOUApr ‘18

1bJun ’18

2Nov ‘18


4A

Reducing your electricity use will…Allow you to save money NA 56%

7.3456%7.41

57%7.44

70%8.25

% 8-10 Meanrating

Coast > Valley, Desert; Neu > Non-Ben

Allow you to control the amount of your bill NA 51%7.11

50%7.10

52%7.19

64%7.94

% 8-10 Meanrating

Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

Improve reliability of the electric grid to reduce the possibility of frequent outages NA 51%

7.2452%7.28

54%7.45

61%7.85

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE

Reduce negative impacts on the environment NA 52%7.20

52%7.28

53%7.37

62%7.87

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE; Coast > Valley, Desert; Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

4B

Shifting the time you use electricity will..Allow you to save money NA 46%

6.7846%6.86

51%7.19

60%7.78

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE; Coast , Valley > Desert;

Allow you to control the amount of your bill NA 45%6.78

44%6.80

50%7.07

58%7.68

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE; Coast , Valley > Desert;

Improve reliability of the electric grid to reduce the possibility of frequent outages NA 47%

6.9948%7.07

50%7.27

56%7.60

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE; Coast , Valley > Desert; Neu > Non-Ben

Reduce negative impacts on the environment NA 43%6.70

43%6.77

47%7.02

53%7.41

% 8-10 Meanrating

CARE > Non-CARE; Coast > Valley, Desert; Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

- Awareness of Bill Protection NA 20% 17% 23% 17% % Yes Non-CARE > CARE, Desert > Coast, Valley

13



1a TotalApr ‘18

1a Def TOU Apr ‘18

1bJun ’18

2Nov ‘18


Transition Awareness

- Household was a part of this transition NA 40% 34% 49% 48% % Yes Non-CARE > CARE; Desert > Coast, ValleyNeu > Non-Ben

-

Aware that you could make a choice regarding this automatic transition to the new Time-of-Use rate plan, in that you could select a different Time-of-Use rate plan or choose to go back to your previous Tiered rate plan

NA 82% 75% 65% 60% % Yes Coast, Valley > Desert; Ben > Neutral > Non-Ben

-Received right amount of information about your TOU rate plan in Welcome Letter

NA 45% 37% NA 46% % Yes Ben, Neu > Non-Ben

- Sought out additional information about the transition NA 19% 14% 10% 10% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE

SCE Communication…

- Was useful NA 56% 51% 51% 53% % 8-10 CARE > Non-CARE; Neutral > Non-Benefiter

- Was easy to understand NA 50% 49% 50% 56% % 8-10 CARE > Non-CARE;

- Had a look and feel that got attention NA 51% 47% 42% 44% % 8-10 CARE > Non-CARE;

- Caused you to take action NA 51% 38% 30% 35% % 8-10 CARE > Non-CARE; Coastal > Valley; Neutral > Non-Benefiter

14


Key Findings: Awareness of Rate Plan Types, Current Rate,

and Rate Satisfaction

15

Awareness of TOU is 73% in Survey 2, unchanged from Survey 1b in June but still up significantly from Survey 1a (April) at 62%. Awareness of the Tiered rate plan at 66% is also essentially unchanged since Survey 1a. • Awareness of NEM and EV rates is also unchanged since Survey 1a.• Awareness has not increased any further since defaulted customers received the Welcome

Letter, suggesting that achieving further awareness among those who thus far have remained unaware is increasingly difficult.

Awareness of Rate Plan Types

RA.1: “Which of the following types of rate plans for your home electricity use have you heard of?”

Arrows indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between waves Letters indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between subgroups

16

Rate Plans: Heard OfBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017

Survey 1a (Total)Def TOU Pilot Apr 2018

Survey 1a (Defaulted)Def TOU Pilot Apr 2018

Survey 1bDef TOU Pilot Jun 2018

Survey 2Def TOU Pilot Nov 2018

(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

TieredTime of Use (TOU)

Net Energy Metering (NEM)Electric Vehicle NA

63%47%

31%

67%62%

24%26%

68%72%

23%27%

72%70%

26%28%

66%73%

24%27%

Awareness of Rate Plan Types

RA.1: “Which of the following types of rate plans for your home electricity use have you heard of?”

Survey 1BDefault Rate

Survey 2Default Rate CARE/FERA Climate Zone Benefiter Status

Rate Plans: Heard Of TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Tiered 67% 69% 66% 67% 57% 69% E 65% 74% G 67% 70% 64% 73% K

Time of Use 71% 72% 71% 74% C 61% 77% E 71% 78% G 83% G 76% 72% 73%

Net Energy Metering 21% 24% 26% AD 22% 25% 24% 23% 27% G 33% G 26% 22% 30% K

Electric Vehicle 26% 28% 28% 26% 29% 27% 28% 24% 28% 31% 26% 29%

Letters indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between subgroups

17

• Those on TOU-5 show a higher level of awareness of TOU rate plans than those on TOU-4, while TOU-4 have higher awareness of NEM.

• CARE customers have lower awareness of both TOU and Tiered rate plans than non-CARE.• Valley and Desert customers have higher awareness of TOU and NEM than Coastal. • Non-Benefiters have higher awareness of Tiered and NEM rate plans, but similar

awareness of TOU compared to Benefiters and Neutral customers.

RA2: “And which of these types of rate plans do you currently have for your home?”RA2a: “How would you rate your satisfaction with your current rate plan?”

Regarding their current rate plans, those who think they have TOU at 43% is up slightly from 41% in Survey 1b. Not knowing or identifying their rate is unchanged from Survey 1b at 31%.• Satisfaction with their current rate decreased, with more who gave a mid-range rating (4-7) and fewer

who are “not sure,” leading to a decrease in the mean score to 6.9 from 7.1.

Rate Plans: Currently HaveBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

TieredTime of Use (TOU)

Net Energy Metering (NEM)Electric Vehicle -

Don’t Recall

Satisfaction w/ Current Rate

Top 3 Box (%8-10)

Middle 4 Box (%4-7) NA

Bottom 3 Box (%1-3)

Not Sure

Mean 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.9

35%7%9%

52%

38%21%

5%1%

41%

45%

39%

7%

9%

18


Current Rate and Satisfaction

31%41%

4%1%

32%

45%

36%

9%

10%

41%26%

6%1%

34%

46%

38%

7%

9%

30%43%

4%1%

31%

46%

40%

10%

4%

RA2: “And which of these types of rate plans do you currently have for your home?”RA2a: “How would you rate your satisfaction with your current rate plan?”

• CARE customers are less likely to believe they have a TOU rate compared to non-CARE, and they are more likely to say they “don’t recall.”

• Rate satisfaction decreased among TOU-5 customers from Survey 1b to Survey 2. CARE and Coastal customers are more satisfied, while Non-Benefiters are less satisfied.



Rate Plans: Currently Have TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5

Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Tiered 31% 30% 30% 29% 28% 30% 28% 38% GI 25% 33% K 27% 38% KTime of Use (TOU) 39% 42% 42% 45% 32% 47% E 43% 42% 52% 44% 44% 40%

Net Energy Metering (NEM) 4% 5% 5% 4% 3% 5% E 4% 7% G 6% 5% 3% 9% JK

Electric Vehicle *% 2% DA 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% - 2% L 1% *%Don’t Recall 34% 31% 33% D 29% 42% F 27% 33% H 22% 31% 29% 33% L 25%

Satisfaction with Current Rate

Top 3 Box (%8-10) 45% 46% 48% D 44% 62% F 40% 48% HI 39% 36% 53% L 48% L 33%Middle 4 Box (%4-7) 38% 35% 39% 42% B 31% 43% E 41% 40% 36% 32% 40% J 48% JKBottom 3 Box (%1-3) 8% 9% 10% 9% 5% 11% E 8% 14% G 28% GH 11% 9% 13% K

Not Sure 9% C 10% D 4% 5% C 2% 5% E 4% 7% G - 5% 4% 6%Mean 7.1 7.0 D 7.0 6.8 7.8 F 6.6 7.1 HI 6.3 5.7 7.1 L 7.0 L 6.2

19


Current Rate and Satisfaction

RA2aa: “What are the reasons for your satisfaction with your current rate plan?”

Customers have more negative reasons than positives regarding their satisfaction (47% vs. 31%). Top negatives are about high rates, inconvenient hours, confusion, and no choice. Positives include saving money, being more aware of usage and the bill amount, and that it works for the customer.

Reasons for SatisfactionBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=1835)

NET: POSITIVESaves money/ lower rate

Aware of the usage and bill amountIt works for me / I'm happy

Good customer serviceSimple to understand

Discounted rates / CARENET: NEUTRAL NA NA NA NA

Not satisfied nor dissatisfiedAlways room for improve

Too early to sayNET: NEGATIVE

High ratesInconvenient usage hours

Confusing / Hard to understandNo choice

OutagesBad service

OtherDon't know

20


Reasons for Rate Plan Satisfaction

31%15%

8%6%3%2%2%

19%11%

4%3%

47%29%

10%5%5%1%1%1%3%

21


• CARE, Coastal, Benefiters, and Neutrals have more positive comments. • TOU-4 customers are more likely to mention inconvenient usage hours than those on

TOU-5.

Reasons for Rate Plan Satisfaction

RA2aa: “What are the reasons for your satisfaction with your current rate plan?”

Rate Plans: Best for HH



TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=936) c (n=899) d (n=423) e (n=1412) f (n=1423) g (n=348) h (n=64) i (n=195) j (n=1320) k (n=320) l

NET: POSITIVE 30% 32% 41% F 28% 33% HI 26% 17% 35% L 33% L 22%Saves money/ lower rate 15% 15% 20% F 13% 16% HI 11% I 3% 15% 16% L 10%

Aware of the usage 7% 9% 8% 8% 9% H 6% 5% 10% 8% 7%It works for me / I'm happy 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 8% 6% 10% L 7% L 3%

Good customer service 3% 3% 7% F 2% 3% H 1% 2% 2% 3% 2%Simple to understand 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% - 2% 2% 1%

Discounted rates / CARE 2% D 1% 4% F 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% L 1%NET: NEUTRAL NA NA 20% 19% 18% 19% 20% I 18% 11% 22% L 20% L 14%

Not dissatisfied 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11% 8% 13% L 12% L 8%Always room for improve 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% - 5% 4% 3%

Too early to say 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% L 1%NET: NEGATIVE 47% 47% 39% 50% E 45% 53% G 69% GH 43% 44% 61% JK

High rates 28% 30% 24% 31% E 27% 33% G 47% GH 31% 26% 40% JKInconvenient usage hours 11% D 9% 7% 11% E 9% 14% G 11% 5% 10% J 12% J

Confusing 5% 6% 4% 6% 6% I 5% 2% 7% 5% 8% KNo choice 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 3% 6% J 4%

Outages 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% H *% - 1% 1% 1%Bad service *% 1% 1% *% 1% *% - 1% 1% 1%

Other 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% KDon't know 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% J 2%

RA2b: “And which of these types of rate plans do you think would be best for your household?”

Compared to Survey 1b, defaulted customers’ selections for the best rate plan for their household are unchanged in Survey 2, with 33% identifying TOU as the best rate plan compared to 22% who selected Tiered and 37% who are not sure.

Rate Plans: Best for HHBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Tiered

Time of Use (TOU) NANet Energy Metering

(NEM)Electric Vehicle

Not Sure

28%

26%

6%

1%

39%

22


Best Rate Plan for Household

23%

32%

7%

2%

36%

31%

27%

7%

1%

35%

22%

33%

6%

2%

37%

Rate Plans: Best for HH



TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Tiered 24% 22% 25% D 19% 23% 22% 21% 27% G 27% 16% 23% J 25% J

Time of Use (TOU) 31% C 33% 28% 38% BC 31% 33% 33% I 31% 23% 41% KL 33% L 25%Net Energy Metering

(NEM) 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 11% 5% 5% 9% JK

Electric Vehicle 1% 3% A 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%

Not Sure 37% 35% 39% 36% 38% 37% 38% 36% 38% 37% 37% 39%

23


• Despite a slight decrease in rate plan satisfaction from Survey 1b to Survey 2 among TOU-5 participants, more said TOU is the best rate for their household in Survey 2 than Survey 1b.

• Among TOU-4 participants, more selected Tiered and fewer selected TOU compared to TOU-5 participants in Survey 2.

• Coastal were more likely than Desert customers to select TOU as the best rate plan, while Benefiters were more likely than Neutrals or Non-Benefiters to select TOU as best.

Best Rate Plan for Household

RA2b: “And which of these types of rate plans do you think would be best for your household?”

Key Findings: Awareness / Response to TOU Transition

and Knowledge of Recent Changes

24

Awareness of TOU Transition

AT1: “Earlier this year, Southern California Edison transitioned some residential customers to a new Time-of-Use rate plan. Was your household a part of this transition?”AT2: [IF AT1=YES] “Were you aware that you could make a choice regarding this automatic transition to the new Time-of-Use rate plan, in that you could select a different Time-of-Use rate plan to choose to go back to your previous Tiered rate plan?”

HH Part of TransitionBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

YesNo NA

Don’t Recall

Aware of Rate Choice (n=897) (n=500) (n=995) (n=961)

YesNo NA

Don’t Recall

34%

28%

38%

75%19%

6%

25

Half of survey respondents (48%) are aware of the recent transition, unchanged from Survey 1b, but still up from Survey 1a. Among those aware, a majority (60%) still knew they had a choice, but continuing a downward trend from 65% in Survey 1b and 75% in Survey 1a. • Choice was a focal message in pre-Default communications, but not since then.


49%

19%

31%

65%27%

9%

40%

29%

31%

82%14%

4%

48%

19%

34%

60%30%

10%

Awareness of TOU Transition

HH Part of Transition




Yes 48% 51% 46% 49% 39% 50% E 47% 46% 62% GH 47% 49% L 43%No 19% 20% 19% 19% 24% F 17% 18% I 24% GI 11% 19% 18% 21%

Don’t Recall 33% 30% 35% 32% 37% F 32% 35% H 30% 27% 34% 33% 36%

Aware of Rate Choice

(n=489) a (n=506) b (n=468) c (n=493) d (n=198) e (n=763) f (n=745) g (n=176) h (n=40) i (n=102) j (n=710) k (n=149) l

Yes 64% C 65% 58% 62% 58% 60% 62% I 56% I 40% 75% KL 60% L 49%No 26% 27% 32% A 29% 33% 29% 28% 33% 60% GH 19% 30% J 40% JK

Don’t Recall 10% 8% 11% 10% 9% 11% 10% 11% - 7% 11% 11%

26

• CARE customers and Coastal & Valley residents are less aware of being part of the transition.

• Awareness of rate choice dropped more among TOU-4 participants than TOU-5 participants from Survey 1b to Survey 2.

• Desert and Non-Benefiter customers are substantially less likely to be aware that they have a choice – it might make sense for targeted communications to clear up this misunderstanding among customers most impacted by the transition.


AT1: “Earlier this year, Southern California Edison transitioned some residential customers to a new Time-of-Use rate plan. Was your household a part of this transition?”AT2: [IF AT1=YES] “Were you aware that you could make a choice regarding this automatic transition to the new Time-of-Use rate plan, in that you could select a different Time-of-Use rate plan to choose to go back to your previous Tiered rate plan?”

Awareness of Specific Rate-Related Changes

AW2: “Which of the following statements about SCE rate plans are you aware of?”

27

Awareness of Metric 1 – rate plans are available that could help you save money –decreased in Survey 2 to 52%. Awareness of all but one of the rate-related changes also dropped significantly in Survey 2 compared to Survey 1b. The exception:• Knowing about the transition that will occur soon for many customers is up significantly to 38%.

Statements: Aware ofBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Rate plans are available that could help you save money

A choice of rate plans is available so you can decide which rate plan

best suits your needs

You can choose to change your rate plan NA

Rate plans are available that give you more control over your bill NA

New Time-of-Use or T-O-U rate plans are now available to all SCE

customersA personalized rate plan

comparison is available to help choose the rate plan best for you

Soon, many residential customers will be transitioned onto a Time-of-

Use or T-O-U rate plan

55%

50%

52%

46%

37%

40%

33%

Metric 145%

35%

29%

25%

11%


55%

51%

51%

47%

45%

39%

26%

62%

61%

60%

54%

46%

50%

39%

52%

48%

46%

45%

39%

35%

38%

AW2: “Which of the following statements about SCE rate plans are you aware of?”



Statements: Aware of TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Rate plans are available that could help you save money 55% 55% 52% 51% 61% F 49% 53% 48% 47% 57% L 54% L 41%

A choice of rate plans is available so you can decide

which rate plan best suits your needs

51% C 52% 47% 49% 52% F 47% 49% 46% 47% 52% L 50% L 41%

You can choose to change your rate plan 51% C 50% 45% 47% 47% 45% 46% 42% 48% 49% L 47% L 37%

Rate plans are available that give you more control over your

bill48% C 47% 44% 46% 48% F 44% 46% 42% 44% 51% L 46% L 37%

New Time-of-Use or T-O-U rate plans are now available to all

Southern California Edison customers

45% C 45% D 38% 39% 40% 38% 40% H 33% 53% GH 37% 40% L 34%

A personalized rate plan comparison is available to help you choose the rate plan best

for you40% C 38% 35% 35% 40% F 33% 36% H 28% 44% H 40% L 37% L 25%

Soon, many residential customers will be transitioned onto a Time-of-Use or T-O-U

rate plan28% 25% 37% A 39% B 36% 38% 37% 38% 55% GH 36% 39% L 32%

28

• Awareness dropped more among TOU-4 participants than among TOU-5 from Survey 1b to Survey 2.

• Awareness is higher among CARE customers for four of seven statements.• Awareness is higher among Desert dwellers for three of the statements.• Awareness is lower for all statements among Non-Benefiters.


Metric 1

Awareness of Specific Rate-Related Changes

Awareness of Rate Comparison

QNEW2: “On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means do not agree at all and 10 means completely agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?“

About four in ten agree that they were offered choices of a preferred rate plan, that SCE offers one that works well, and that they were given sufficient information to make a choice.• These results are generally higher in Survey 2 than they were in Survey 1a.

29


Agree (%8-10,Mean)BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=) (n=2023)

I was offered choices of my preferred rate plan 6.7 6.1 6.4

SCE offers at least one rate plan that works well for my

household

NA NA

6.5 6.4 7.1I was given sufficient

information about each rate plan option to make a

choice 6.1 5.7 6.0

44%

39%

39%

37%

39%

35%

40%

39%

37%

Awareness of Rate Comparison

QNEW2: “On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means do not agree at all and 10 means completely agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?“

• CARE, Coastal, and Benefiter/Neutral customers have higher agreement with each of these statements.

30




Statements: Aware of TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

I was offered choices of my preferred rate

plan39% 42% 50% F 37% 42% H 34% 38% 43% L 42% L 29%

SCE offers at least one rate plan that works

well for my householdNA NA 43% 46% 58% F 40% 46% H 38% 39% 50% L 47% L 31%

I was given sufficient information about each

rate plan option to make a choice

36% 38% 46% F 34% 39% H 28% 36% 41% L 39% L 26%

Key Findings: Communications Recall, Evaluation, and

Preferences

31

Default TOU Pilot Communications Recall

AW4 “Do you recall receiving any of the following communications from SCE?”

Recall Receiving Communications

BaselineDefault Eligible Nov 2017

Survey 1a Default TOU Pilot Apr 2018

Survey 1bDefault TOU Pilot Jun 2018


(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=2007)

Summer Newsletter or postcard in the mail with summer rate,

summer savings tips, and how the rate plan works

A Winter Newsletter or postcard in the mail with winter rates, winter

savings tips and how the rate plan works

NA NA NA

None of these

32


Nearly half of customers (48%) recall receiving a Summer newsletter, but only one in four (24%) recall a Winter newsletter.• About half (47%) did not recall either communication.

48%

24%

47%

• TOU-5 participants have higher recall of the Summer newsletter. • Desert dwellers also have higher recall of the Summer newsletter.• Benefiter and Neutral customers have higher recall of the Winter newsletter.

Recall Receiving Communications



TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=1009) c (n=--998) d (n=493) e (n=1514) f (n=1563) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=215) j (n=1443) k (n=349) l

Summer Newsletter NA NA 46% 50% C 48% 48% 48% 47% 61% GH 44% 49% 47%

Winter Newsletter NA NA 24% 25% 27% 23% 25% 23% 22% 26% L 25% L 19%

None of these NA NA 49% D 45% 46% 47% 47% I 49% I 36% 48% 46% 51% K

33


Default TOU Pilot Communications Recall

AW4 “Do you recall receiving any of the following communications from SCE?”

Evaluation of Pilot Communications

AW5: [RECEIVED INFORMATION] “How would you rate your level of agreement with the following statements using a 10-point scale where 1 means you completely disagree and 10 means you completely agree, and you can use any number between 1 and 10?”

AgreementBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=1558) (n=1473) (n=901) (n=1081)

Was Useful

Was easy to understand NA

Had a look and feel that got your attention

Caused you to take action

Had a layout that you liked NA NA NA

51%

49%

47%

38%

The information provided By SCE…

34

Two of four communications effectiveness measures about the Summer and Winter newsletters in Survey 2 are up significantly from similar measures about the Welcome Kit in Survey 1b:• Was easy to understand is up to 56% from 50%.• Caused you to take action is up to 35% from 30%.


51%

50%

42%

30%

44%

56%

50%

51%

51%

53%

56%

44%

35%



Agreement TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=455) a (n=446) b (n=527) c (n=554) d (n=279) e (n=808) f (n=846) g (n=194) h (n=41) i (n=113) j (n=795) k (n=173) l

Was Useful 47% 55% A 54% A 51% 62% F 49% 53% 49% 49% 52% 54% L 45%

Was easy to understand 46% 53% A 57% A 56% 62% F 54% 57% 54% 51% 55% 57% 52%

Had a look and feel that got your attention 37% 48% DA 46% A 42% 55% F 41% 45% 41% 41% 43% 45% 39%

Caused you to take action 26% 33% A 38% AD 32% 48% F 31% 37% H 30% 29% 36% 36% L 28%

35

• The Summer and Winter newsletters are rated higher than the Welcome Kit among TOU-4 participants. The newsletters also caused more TOU-4 participants to take action than TOU-5 participants.

• CARE customers have higher agreement ratings across all of the communications measures than Non-CARE.


Evaluation of Pilot Communications

AW5: [RECEIVED INFORMATION] “How would you rate your level of agreement with the following statements using a 10-point scale where 1 means you completely disagree and 10 means you completely agree, and you can use any number between 1 and 10?”

The information provided By SCE…

Recall of Newsletter Content

QAW13. “To what extent did you read the newsletter or postcard? Did you...”QAW14. “Do you recall any of the following from the newsletter or postcard?”

Extend of ReadingBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=1081)

Read all of it thoroughly

Read some of it, skim the rest NA NA NA NARead/skim just the headlines

Not read or skim any of it

Not sure or don’t recall

Content Recall (n=935)

The chart that shows the peak or most expensive periods

Tips to help you save energy specifically for summer and winter

monthsNA NA NA NA

Time-Of-Use winter rates are lower than summer months

You can sign up for text alert reminders

Super Off-Peak rates are available in winter months

Customers changing to Time-Of-Use rates receive a full year of Bill

Protection

36

Most customers who recalled receiving a newsletter said they read at least some of it (25% “all of it” and 45% “some of it”). The peak chart, tips, and that winter rates are lower than summer are content elements recalled by about half or more.


25%45%

16%7%6%

74%

65%

48%

38%

37%

31%

HH Part of Transition




Read all of it thoroughly 25% 25% 25% 25% 24% 28% 34% 22% 25% 26%Read some of it, skim the

rest NA NA 47% 44% 38% 48% E 46% 46% 37% 45% 45% 48%Read/skim just the

headlines 16% 17% 16% 16% 17% 15% 10% 20% L 17% L 10%

Not read or skim any of it 7% 7% 10% F 6% 7% 6% 5% 5% 8% 6%Not sure or don’t recall 5% 8% 10% F 5% 6% 5% 15% H 7% 6% 10% K

Content Recall (n=460) c (n=475) d (n=217) e (n=718) f (n=729) g (n=173) h (n=33) i (n=99) j (n=690) k (n=146) l

The chart that shows the peak or most expensive periods NA NA 73% 76% 65% 77% E 74% 74% 85% G 79% 74% 74%

Tips to help you save energy specifically for summer and

winter months64% 66% 65% 65% 65% 68% 58% 66% 63% 74% K

Time-Of-Use winter rates are lower than summer months 49% 47% 49% 48% 47% 49% 55% 47% 49% L 42%

You can sign up for text alert reminders 40% D 35% 39% 37% 36% 43% 45% 39% 38% 37%

Super Off-Peak rates are available in winter months 37% 38% 40% 36% 38% 32% 52% H 37% 38% 36%

Customers changing to Time-Of-Use rates receive a full year of

Bill Protection31% 31% 32% 30% 31% 29% 36% 27% 31% 32%

37

• CARE customers are more likely to have skimmed/not read the news letter or to not recall reading it than Non-CARE. CARE are also less likely to recall the chart about peak times.


QAW13. “To what extent did you read the newsletter or postcard? Did you...”QAW14. “Do you recall any of the following from the newsletter or postcard?”

Recall of Newsletter Content

Key Findings: Unmet Information Needs

and Information Sought / Found

38

Unmet Information Needs

AW7: “Do you feel that you have received sufficient information about your Time-of-Use rate plan?”AW8: [AW7=No or Not Sure) “What information do you feel was missing or that was unclear, or what unanswered questions do you have?”

Received Sufficient Information

BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=) (n=2023)

Yes

No NA NA

Not sure

Missing or Unclear (n=1202) (n=908) (n=335) (n=1089)

Confused/Need more clarityDid Not Receive Any Information NA

Unsure of Cost SavingsNeed Comparisons

Lack of Choice/ControlRate Increases

When is this Happening Feeling SCE Isn't Honest

OtherNot SureRefused

39

19%21%

8%8%5%3%3%2%

19%8%6%

Almost half (46%) of customers believe they received sufficient information, up from 37% in Survey 1a.• Of those who thought something was missing, many cited being confused/needing more clarity,

not recalling receiving any information, and a lack of choice/control.


26%1%

16%14%15%

7%2%4%

35%10%

3%

20%18%

9%8%6%3%3%3%

21%7%6%

46%

39%

15%

20%16%

6%7%11%

5%5%

1%24%

16%2%

45%

43%

12%

37%

49%

13%

• CARE customers and Desert dwellers are more likely to say they received sufficient information, while Non-Benefiters are less likely.

• CARE and Coastal customers are more likely to say they are confused.



Sufficient Information TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Yes 46% 46% 51% F 44% 46% 45% 56% H 48% L 49% L 33%No NA NA 39% 39% 34% 40% E 39% 40% 36% 37% 37% 46% JK

Not sure 15% 15% 14% 15% 15% I 15% I 8% 14% 14% 21% JKMissing or Unclear (n=184) a (n=151) b (n=546) c (n=543) d (n=246) e (n=843) f (n=852) g (n=209) h (n=28) i (n=112) j (n=743) k (n=234) l

Confused/Need more clarity 26% C 26% 18% 22% 25% F 19% 22% H 14% 18% 20% 21% 18%Did Not Receive Any

Information 1% 2% 18% A 15% B 15% 17% 15% 20% 18% 13% 16% 20%

Unsure of Cost Savings 17% C 15% D 5% 6% 7% 5% 6% 5% 4% 8% 6% 5%Need Comparisons 14% C 13% D 8% 6% 5% 7% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 9%

Lack of Choice/Control 14% 17% D 12% 10% 7% 13% E 10% 12% 32% GH 12% 11% 12%Rate Increases 6% 7% 5% 5% 7% 5% 5% 3% 11% 4% 5% 5%

When is this Happening 2% 3% 6% A 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% - 4% 6% 5%Feeling SCE Isn't Honest 5% CB 2% 2% 1% - 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1%

Other 37% C 33% D 22% 26% 22% 25% 23% 29% G 21% 19% 25% 22%Not Sure 10% 10% 16% A 15% B 13% 16% 16% I 15% 7% 18% 15% 15%Refused 3% 4% 2% 1% 4% F 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 1% 2%

40


Unmet Information Needs

AW7: “Do you feel that you have received sufficient information about your Time-of-Use rate plan?”AW8: [AW7=Not Enough or DK] “What information do you feel was missing or that was unclear, or what unanswered questions do you have?”

Information Sought

AW9: “In the last six months, did you seek out additional information about your new Time-of-Use rate plan from SCE?”AW10: [AW9=YES] “Where did you go for this additional information?”

Seek Out Additional Information






(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Yes

No NA

Don’t Recall

Where did you go? (n=410) (n=201) (n=195) (n=207)

Went online to SCE’s website

Called SCE NAWent online to My SCE

AccountWent in-person to a SCE

office -

Some other sourceNot sure

14%

81%

5%

41

51%

24%

22%

9%

14%

The majority of customers did not seek additional information (84%). One in ten did, unchanged from Survey 1b and down from Survey 1a (14%). • Of those who sought more information, the top sources are sce.com, calling SCE, and going on

My Account, also unchanged.


10%

82%

9%

44%

31%

30%

3%

9%

10%

19%

77%

4%

47%

35%

25%

1%

8%

10%

10%

84%

6%

45%

31%

30%

1%

15%

5%

Information Sought• CARE customers are more likely to have sought out additional information than

Non-CARE.• Of those who sought more information, TOU-4 participants are more likely to have

gone online, while TOU-5 are more likely to have called SCE.



Seek Out Information TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Yes 10% 9% 11% 10% 13% F 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 11% 8%No 81% 83% 83% 84% 77% 86% E 82% 87% G 89% 87% K 82% 86% K

Don’t Recall 9% C 8% D 7% 6% 10% F 5% 7% HI 3% 2% 4% 7% J 5%Where did you go? (n=99) a (n=96) b (n=108) c (n=99) d (n=67) e (n=140) f (n=164) g (n=37) h (n=6) i (n=19) j (n=159) k (n=29) l

Went online to SCE’s website 44% 44% 55% D 35% 36% 50% E 45% 43% 83% GH 26% 49% J 38%

Called SCE 36% B 25% 26% 37% BC 31% 31% 30% 30% 83% GH 16% 33% J 34%Went online to My SCE

Account 24% 35% A 31% 28% 19% 35% E 29% 32% 33% 37% 31% 21%

Went in-person to a SCE office 3% 3% 1% - 1% - 1% - - 5% - -

Some other source 5% 12% A 15% A 15% 19% 13% 15% 14% 17% 16% 14% 17%Not sure 9% 10% 4% 7% 9% 4% 5% 5% - 5% 5% 7%

42


AW9: “In the last six months, did you seek out additional information about your new Time-of-Use rate plan from SCE?”AW10: [AW9=YES] “Where did you go for this additional information?”

Type of Information Sought

AW9a: [AW9=YES] “What additional information did you look for?”

Information Looked ForBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=230)

RatesOptions

Comparison NA NA NA NAUsage / Peak Hours

How it worksGeneralSaving

SolarDiscounts

Changing backWho to contact

NothingOther -

Don't know/Refused

43

Among the one in ten who sought additional information, the most common information they were looking for includes: rates, options, comparison, usage / peak hours, and how the new rate plan works.


20%16%13%12%10%10%8%

3%3%2%1%

15%

2%

Type of Information Sought• TOU-4 participants are more likely to have sought information about “rates” than those

on TOU-5.• CARE customers are more likely to have sought information about “discounts” than

Non-CARE.



Seek Out Information TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=115) c (n=115) d (n=63) e (n=167) f (n=184) g (n=38) h (n=8) i (n=22) j (n=171) k (n=37) l

Rates 25% D 16% 17% 22% 19% 32% - 27% 21% 14%Options 14% 17% 16% 16% 14% 29% G - 18% 15% 19%

Comparison 14% 11% 10% 14% 13% 13% - 5% 15% J 8%Usage / Peak Hours 16% 9% 8% 14% 11% 16% 25% 23% 11% 11%

How it works 11% 10% 6% 12% 10% 11% 12% - 12% 11%General 9% 12% 13% 10% 11% 8% - 14% 9% 14%Saving 5% 10% 10% 7% 8% 5% 12% 5% 6% 16%

Solar 5% 2% 3% 4% 3% 5% 12% 5% 4% 3%Discounts 3% 3% 10% F 1% 4% - 12% - 4% 3%

Changing back 1% 3% - 2% 2% - - - 2% 3%Who to contact - 1% 2% - 1% - - 5% - -

Nothing 10% 19% C 16% 14% 15% 11% 25% 9% 16% 14%Don't know/Refused 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% - - - 1% 5%

44


AW9a: [AW9=YES] “What additional information did you look for?”

Ability to Find Information

AW11. [SOUGHT OUT ADDITIONAL INFO] “Did you find or receive the information you were looking for?”AW12. [DIDN”T SEEK OUT ADDITIONAL INFO] “Why didn’t you seek out more information about your new Time-of-Use rate plan?”


45

Among those who sought additional information, two-thirds (68%) said they found what they were looking for, up from 56% in Survey 1a.• Those who did not seek additional information (even though they felt they did not receive sufficient

information about their TOU rate plan) mentioned they were not sure where to go, they did not think they would need it, and it was not worth their time or effort – similar to the reasons in Survey 1a.

Found Desired InformationBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017

Survey 1aDef TOU Pilot Apr 2018



(n=) (n=412) (n=) (n=207)

Yes

No NA NA

Not Sure

Reasons Didn’t SeekAdditional Information (n=) (n=948) (n=) (n=922)

Was not sure where to go

Didn’t think SCE would be able to help NA NA

Wasn’t worth the time or effort

Didn’t think I would need it

Some other reason

Don’t recall or not sure

56%

32%

12%

68%

24%

8%

19%

9%

16%

16%

41%

13%

20%

15%

23%

17%

16%

20%

• TOU-5 participants are less likely to have found what they were looking for than TOU-4.• TOU-5 participants also are more likely to say they did not know where to go for the

information they thought was missing.



Found Desired Information TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5

Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben

(n=) a (n=) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Yes 71% 64% 67% 68% 66% 70% 83% 74% 67% 69%

No NA NA 19% 29% C 25% 24% 26% 19% 17% 26% 23% 28%Not Sure 9% 7% 7% 9% 8% 11% - - 10% 3%

Reasons Didn’t SeekAdditionalInformation (n=) a (n=) b (n=460) c (n=461) d (n=191) e (n=730) f (n=711) g (n=184) h (n=26) i (n=100) j (n=616) k (n=205) l

Wasn’t worth the time or effort 20% 26% C 21% 23% 23% 20% 31% 23% 24% 21%

Was not sure where to go 16% 23% C 23% 19% 20% 19% 19% 17% 20% 20%

Didn’t think I would need it 19% D 15% 13% 18% E 18% I 16% I 4% 23% L 17% 14%Didn’t think SCE would be

able to help 15% 15% 14% 15% 14% 14% 27% 14% 15% 13%

Some other reason 17% 15% 13% 17% 15% 18% 15% 14% 15% 20%

Don’t recall or not sure 22% 18% 23% 19% 21% 20% 12% 23% 20% 19%


46

Ability to Find Information

AW11. [SOUGHT OUT ADDITIONAL INFO] “Did you find or receive the information you were looking for?”AW12. [DIDN”T SEEK OUT ADDITIONAL INFO] “Why didn’t you seek out more information about your new Time-of-Use rate plan?”

Key Findings: Feelings about New TOU Rate Plans

47

Feelings about New TOU Rate Plans

AW6: “Do the new Time-of-Use rate plans leave you feeling…?”

Evoked Feelings (%8-10)






(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Confused or unclear

Well-Informed NAIn Control

Optimistic

Worried

Helpless

Excited

Angry

Feelings of AngstWorried and Helpless and

AngryWorried and Helpless, or

Worried and Angry, orHelpless and Angry

NA

Worried, or Helpless, or Angry

Neither Worried nor Helpless nor Angry

34%28%

21%21%26%

21%14%12%

10%

13%

23%

53%

48


Overall, more customers (61%) say they have no ill feelings, up from 57% in Survey 1b and 53% in Survey 1a, with reported feelings of worry and confusion being down significantly. Feelings of being in control and optimistic are up from Survey 1b. • Those with multiple negative feelings are down as well in Survey 2.

31%29%

24%22%22%19%16%

12%

8%

13%

22%

57%

32%30%

23%19%25%

21%13%13%

10%

13%

23%

54%

27%30%29%26%

19%18%16%

12%

7%

11%

21%

61%

Feelings about New TOU Rate Plans

AW6: “Does this transition to new Time-of-Use rate plans leave you feeling…?”

• Those defaulted to TOU-5 have less confusion and worry in Survey 2 than in Survey 1b.• CARE customers are more likely to have each of these feelings, except for confusion and anger.• Coastal customers have more positive feelings, while those in the Desert have more negative feelings.• Benefiters and Neutral customers are more likely than Non-Benefiters to have positive feelings, though

the negative feelings are similar across these three groups.



Evoked Feelings (%8-10) TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


Confused or unclear 29% 34% DA 27% 27% 29% 27% 27% 26% 31% 28% 27% 27%Well-Informed 28% 30% 29% 32% 41% F 27% 32% H 24% 25% 36% L 32% L 19%

In Control 23% 24% 28% A 30% B 38% F 26% 31% HI 22% 22% 37% KL 30% L 16%Optimistic 20% 24% A 25% A 26% 38% F 22% 27% H 19% 22% 29% L 27% L 19%

Worried 21% 22% D 19% 18% 22% F 17% 18% 17% 38% GH 18% 19% 18%Helpless 19% 19% 18% 18% 21% F 17% 17% 17% 31% GH 18% 17% 20%

Excited 15% 17% 17% 15% 27% F 12% 17% HI 12% I 5% 17% L 17% L 9%Angry 11% 13% 13% 11% 12% 12% 11% 13% 19% 10% 12% 13%

Feelings of AngstWorried and Helpless and

Angry 7% 9% 7% 7% 9% 7% 7% 7% 17% GH 8% 7% 7%Worried and Helpless, or

Worried and Angry, or Helpless and Angry

13% 12% D 12% 9% 12% 10% 11% 10% 12% 11% 10% 11%

Worried, or Helpless, or Angry 20% 24% A 19% 22% 22% 20% 21% 20% 23% 18% 20% 23%

Neither Worried nor Helpless nor Angry 59% B 55% 62% 61% B 57% 63% E 62% I 63% I 47% 63% 62% 60%

49

Letters indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between subgroupsAW6: “Do the new Time-of-Use rate plans leave you feeling…?”

Key Findings: Understanding of TOU Transition Changes:Bill Impacts, Peak Times, and Bill Protection

50

Understand (%8-10, Mean)BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)Under Time-of-Use rate plans, the

amount you owe on your electric bill is based on two factors: how much

energy your household uses, and the time of day you use it

NA

7.2 6.8 7.2 7.5

That you can switch to another rate plan

NA NA4.9 6.6 6.1

How you may be able to save money by shifting electricity use to other lower-priced times of day on your

Time-of Use rate plan 5.5 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.8

How changes to current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you adjust some of your

electricity use 5.5 6.5 6.1 6.6 6.7

How to manage your electric bill using the rate plan that you are

currently on 6.0 6.3 5.8 6.2 6.4

How your bill is or will be impacted by a Time-of-Use rate plan

5.0 6.0 5.6 6.0 6.3

59%

49%

48%

44%

42%

Understanding of TOU Bill Impacts

UN1: “How well would you say you understand each of the following concepts?

27%

33%

33%

38%

28%

50%

41%

39%

38%

33%

32%

Metric 3

51

METRIC 3 is up significantly from Survey 1b, with 48% (rating 8-10) on “how rate plan changes mean you could be paying more unless . . .” and 44% for “how to manage bill on current plan.”• All other understanding metrics are up significantly from Survey 1b as well.


53%

45%

43%

38%

36%

55%

46%

45%

44%

40%

38%

Understand(%8-10, Mean)




Under Time-of-Use rate plans, the amount you owe on your

electric bill is based on two factors: how much energy your

household uses, and the time of day you use it

52% 54% 58% 59% 56% 59% 58% 61% 72% GH 62% L 59% L 53%

7.1 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.6 8.3 GH 7.7 L 7.5 L 7.1

How you may be able to save money by shifting electricity use

to other lower-priced times of day on your Time-of Use rate

plan

44% 47% 49% A 48% 50% 48% 49% 45% 61% GH 50% L 50% L 43%

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 7.5 GH 6.9 6.9 L 6.4

How changes to current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you adjust some of

your electricity use

41% 44% A 47% A 49% B 44% 49% E 47% 51% 61% G 50% L 49% L 42%

6.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.7 GH 6.9 L 6.8 L 6.2

How to manage your electric bill using the rate plan that you are

currently on

37% 39% 45% A 43% B 46% 43% 43% 45% 50% 45% L 46% L 35%

6.1 6.3 6.4 A 6.4 6.7 F 6.3 6.4 6.4 7.0 6.7 L 6.6 L 5.7

How your bill is or will be impacted by a Time-of-Use rate

plan

34% 38% 41% A 42% B 42% 42% 41% 42% 56% GH 43% L 43% L 33%

5.9 6.0 6.3 A 6.3 B 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 7.1 GH 6.5 L 6.4 L 5.7

UN1: “How well would you say you understand each of the following concepts?”

• CARE customers have higher understanding than Non-CARE about how to manage their electric bill but lower about how changes could mean you could be paying more.

• Desert dwellers have greater understanding on most measures, while Non-Benefiters have lower.

Metric 3

52


Understanding of TOU Bill Impacts

Understanding of Peak Times

UN1.1: “To the best of your knowledge, what hours is electricity the most expensive to use based on your current rate plan?”

More customers have correctly identified that peak times can be in the 6-9 pm range in Survey 2 than in Survey 1b, though there is also an increase in those identifying peak hours from 11 pm to 6 am. • Slightly fewer incorrectly identify peak times between 12 noon to 4 pm.

Peak TimesBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017

Survey 1a Def TOU Pilot Apr 2018



(n=2144) (n=1434) (n=1979) (n=1985)12 midnight-12:59 am

1:00-1:59 am2:00-2:59 am3:00-3:59 am4:00-4:59 am5:00-5:59 am6:00-6:59 am7:00-7:59 am8:00-8:59 am9:00-9:59 am

10:00-10:59 am11:00-11:59 am

12 noon-12:59 pm1:00-1:59 pm2:00-2:59 pm3:00-3:59 pm4:00-4:59 pm5:00-5:59 pm6:00-6:59 pm7:00-7:59 pm8:00-8:59 pm9:00-9:59 pm

10:00-10:59 pm11:00-11:59 pm

2%2%2%2%3%5%7%11%16%18%19%21%

31%30%35%37%

46%55%53%

48%36%

20%10%

6%

Peak

53


3%2%2%2%3%6%8%11%15%15%18%19%

30%29%32%34%

47%62%

58%51%

36%18%

9%5%

3%3%3%3%4%5%8%10%16%18%19%21%

31%31%

38%40%

49%58%55%

50%36%

20%10%

5%

5%4%4%4%6%8%10%13%17%17%18%20%

28%27%31%34%

47%64%61%

56%41%

20%10%7%

UN1.1: “To the best of your knowledge, what hours is electricity the most expensive to use based on your current rate plan?”

• Among the TOU-4 group, about 60% correctly identify 4-8 as peak, but fewer correctly identify 8-9 pm (47%, up from 42%).

• Non-CARE are more likely to identify hours from 5-9 pm than CARE. Coastal are more likely to identify morning hours (6 am-noon) as peak, while Desert dwellers are less likely to identify non-peak hours as being peak times.

Peak Times




12 midnight-12:59 am 3% 3% 5% A 4% B 6% F 4% 5% I 5% 2% 4% 5% 3%1:00-1:59 am 2% 2% 4% A 4% B 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% J 5% J2:00-2:59 am 3% 2% 4% 4% B 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4%3:00-3:59 am 3% 2% 4% 4% B 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% J 4%4:00-4:59 am 5% B 2% 6% A 5% B 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6%5:00-5:59 am 6% 6% 8% A 8% 9% 8% 8% 7% 5% 9% 8% 8%6:00-6:59 am 9% 8% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% HI 7% 5% 11% 10% 9%7:00-7:59 am 13% 10% 13% 13% B 11% 14% E 14% HI 9% 6% 13% 14% L 10%8:00-8:59 am 17% B 13% 18% 17% B 19% 17% 18% HI 14% I 6% 19% 18% 14%9:00-9:59 am 17% 14% 16% 17% B 17% 17% 18% HI 14% I 6% 19% 17% 14%

10:00-10:59 am 19% 17% 18% 18% 20% 17% 19% I 16% 10% 20% 18% 16%11:00-11:59 am 21% 18% 21% 19% 23% F 19% 21% I 18% 11% 22% 20% 18%

12 noon-12:59 pm 31% 29% 29% 27% 30% 27% 29% 25% 24% 31% 28% 27%1:00-1:59 pm 30% 29% 27% 26% 29% 26% 27% 24% 23% 26% 26% 28%2:00-2:59 pm 33% 31% 31% 31% 33% 31% 31% 32% 31% 29% 30% 35% K3:00-3:59 pm 36% 33% 36% D 32% 35% 33% 33% 36% 32% 31% 33% 37%4:00-4:59 pm 58% B 36% 59% D 35% 46% 47% 46% 53% G 48% 48% 46% 51%5:00-5:59 pm 62% 62% 62% 65% 56% 66% E 63% 66% 68% 61% 63% 66%6:00-6:59 pm 58% 58% 60% 62% B 53% 64% E 61% 59% 66% 57% 61% 63%7:00-7:59 pm 51% 51% 54% 57% B 46% 59% E 56% 55% 60% 52% 57% L 52%8:00-8:59 pm 42% B 31% 47% AD 35% B 37% 43% E 41% 41% 50% 36% 43% JL 37%9:00-9:59 pm 20% B 17% 23% AD 17% 22% 19% 20% 18% 23% 13% 22% JL 16%

10:00-10:59 pm 9% 9% 11% 10% 12% F 9% 10% I 10% 5% 7% 11% J 8%11:00-11:59 pm 5% 5% 7% A 6% B 8% 6% 7% 7% 5% 5% 7% 6%

Peak

54


Understanding of Peak Times

Understanding Impacts of Reducing Use

UN4a: “How would you rate your agreement with each of the following statements, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means you do not agree at all and 10 means you agree completely? Reducing your electricity use will … ”

Reducing your electricity use will……

Agreement (%8-10,Mean)BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Allow you to save moneyNA

7.3 7.4 7.4 8.3

Reduce negative impacts on the environment

NA

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.9

Improve reliability of the electric grid to lower the possibility of

frequent outages

NA

7.2 7.3 7.5 7.9

Allow you to control the amount of your bill

NA

7.1 7.1 7.2 7.9

Metric 456%

52%

52%

50%

55

Almost two-thirds of customers have strong understanding of the impacts of reducing electricity use, up significantly from Survey 1b. • The mean ratings for all measures have also increased.


57%

53%

54%

52%

56%

52%

51%

51%

70%

62%

61%

64%

UN4a: “How would you rate your agreement with each of the following statements, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means you do not agree at all and 10 means you agree completely? Reducing your electricity use will … ”

Agreement(%8-10,Mean)




Allow you to save money58% 55% 71% A 70% B 72% 69% 70% 72% 67% 72% 71% L 66%7.51 7.38 8.26 A 8.23 B 8.51 F 8.16 8.29 8.13 7.80 8.36 8.28 8.04

Reduce negative impacts on the environment

53% 54% 62% A 61% B 67% F 60% 63% HI 57% 48% 65% L 62% L 57%7.40 7.34 7.87 A 7.87 B 8.35 F 7.72 8.00 HI 7.44 7.18 7.98 L 7.94 L 7.51

Improve reliability of the electric grid to lower the

possibility of frequent outages

54% 54% 61% A 61% B 65% F 60% 62% 60% 55% 64% 61% 58%

7.51 7.39 7.85 A 7.85 B 8.30 F 7.70 7.93 I 7.67 6.97 8.05 L 7.89 L 7.57


51% 52% 64% A 63% B 66% 63% 64% 64% 59% 65% L 65% L 57%7.21 7.17 8.02 A 7.87 B 8.22 F 7.85 7.97 7.91 7.52 8.02 8.00 L 7.65

Reducing your electricity use will……

Metric 4

56

• CARE customers have greater understanding across all of the “reducing use” impacts than Non-CARE.

• Coastal customers have greater understanding about environmental benefits than Valley or Desert customers.

• Benefiters and Neutrals have greater understanding than Non-Benefiters.


Understanding Impacts of Reducing Use

Understanding Impacts of Shifting Use

UN4b: “For the same statements, how would you rate your agreement that shifting or changing the time you use electricity will … ”

Agreement (%8-10,Mean)BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Improve reliability of the electric grid to lower the possibility of

frequent outages

NA

7.0 7.1 7.3 7.6

Allow you to save money

NA

6.8 6.9 7.2 7.8


NA

6.8 6.8 7.1 7.7

Reduce negative impacts on the environment NA

6.7 6.8 7.0 7.4

48%

46%

44%

43%

Shifting or changing the time you use electricity will……

Metric 4

57

All measures of the benefits of shifting use are up significantly from Survey 1b, following increases from Survey 1a. • However, the benefits of reducing use are still recognized by more customers than the

benefits of shifting use.


50%

51%

50%

47%

47%

46%

45%

43%

56%

60%

58%

53%

UN4b: “For the same statements, how would you rate your agreement that shifting or changing the time you use electricity will … ”

Agreement(%8-10,Mean)




Improve reliability of the electric grid to lower the

possibility of frequent outages

50% 50% 58% AD 54% B 63% F 54% 57% I 53% I 42% 57% 57% L 52%

7.32 7.21 7.69 A 7.51 B 8.04 F 7.46 7.69 I 7.41 6.67 7.90 L 7.61 7.39

Allow you to save money

50% 52% 62% A 59% B 65% F 59% 60% I 61% I 47% 63% 61% 56%

7.17 7.21 7.85 A 7.70 B 8.09 F 7.68 7.80 I 7.84 I 6.91 7.97 L 7.81 7.53


50% 49% 59% A 57% B 61% F 57% 58% I 59% I 47% 58% 58% 56%

7.07 7.07 7.74 A 7.62 B 8.03 F 7.57 7.71 I 7.70 I 6.95 7.80 7.73 L 7.43

Reduce negative impacts on the

environment

48% 45% 55% A 51% B 61% F 51% 55% HI 49% 39% 55% L 54% L 47%

7.08 6.95 7.46 A 7.36 B 7.96 F 7.23 7.54 HI 7.02 6.45 7.60 L 7.45 L 7.13

Shifting or changing the time you use electricity will……

Metric 4

58

• CARE customers have greater understanding across all of the “shifting use” impacts than Non-CARE.

• Coastal and Valley customers have greater understanding about the benefits of shifting use than Desert.


Understanding Impacts of Shifting Use

Awareness of Bill Protection

QNEW3: “Prior to today, did you know your household’s Southern California Edison bill was covered by bill protection for up to 12 months?”

Awareness of Bill Protection at 17% is down significantly from 23% in Survey 1b, back to the Survey 1a level.

Know Covered by Bill Protection






(n=) (n=2224) (n=1446) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Yes

No NA

Not Sure

17%

75%

8%

59


23%

66%

11%

21%

70%

10%

17%

74%

9%

• Non-CARE customers have greater awareness of bill protection than CARE.• Desert dwellers have greater awareness than Coast and Valley customers.

Know Covered by Bill Protection




Yes 23% C 24% D 17% 18% 14% 18% E 17% 15% 28% GH 18% 17% 15%No 65% 67% 75% A 73% B 75% 73% 73% I 78% GI 59% 71% 73% 77%

Not Sure 12% CB 10% 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 7% 12% 10% 9% 8%

60


Awareness of Bill Protection

QNEW3: “Prior to today, did you know your household’s Southern California Edison bill was covered by bill protection for up to 12 months?”

Importance of Bill Protection

QNEW4: [IF AWARE OF BILL PROTECTION] “How important was bill protection in your decision to try the new Time of Use rate?”QNEW5: “How important was bill protection in your decision to stay on the new Time-of-Use rate?”

Among those who knew about it, over half the customers in Survey 2 rated bill protection as “very important” (8-10 rating) for both trying and staying on their new TOU rate plan.• Bill protection is just as important for staying on the new TOU rate as for trying it initially.

In Trying TOUBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=457) (n=) (n=) (n=345)

Top 3 Box (8-10)

Middle 4 Box (4-7) NA NA NA

Bottom 3 Box (1-3)

Not Sure

Mean 6.4 6.9

In Staying on TOU

Top 3 Box (8-10)

Middle 4 Box (4-7) NA NA NA NA

Bottom 3 Box (1-3)

Not Sure

Mean 6.9

61


49%

17%

28%

6%

54%

17%

26%

6%

52%

19%

20%

9%

Importance of Bill Protection…

Importance of Bill Protection

QNEW4: “How important was bill protection in your decision to try the new Time of Use rate?”QNEW5: “How important was bill protection in your decision to stay on the new Time-of-Use rate?”

• CARE customers rated bill protection higher in importance than did Non-CARE for both trying TOU and for staying on TOU.

62


In Trying TOU




Top 3 Box (8-10) 50% 57% 66% F 50% 54% 52% 56% 50% 55% 51%Middle 4 Box (4-7) NA NA 19% 15% 15% 18% 16% 21% 22% 18% 17% 19%Bottom 3 Box (1-3) 25% 20% 11% 26% E 23% 25% 17% 25% 22% 25%

Not Sure 5% 7% 8% 6% 7% H 2% 6% 8% 6% 6%Mean 6.6 7.1 8.1 F 6.5 6.9 6.6 7.1 6.7 7.0 6.5

In Staying on TOUTop 3 Box (8-10) 50% 54% 71% F 47% 54% 45% 44% 50% 54% 45%

Middle 4 Box (4-7) NA NA 19% 19% 15% 20% 17% 21% 33% 22% 18% 19%Bottom 3 Box (1-3) 22% 18% 8% 24% E 20% 25% 11% 18% 19% 26%

Not Sure 9% 9% 5% 10% 9% 9% 11% 10% 9% 9%Mean 6.7 7.1 8.4 F 6.5 7.0 6.4 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.2

Importance of Bill Protection…

Understanding of Bill Protection

Q42: “What is your understanding of what bill protection means?”

Most customers (70%) admitted that they do not understand what bill protection means, unchanged from Survey 1a. • Just 17% correctly identified that bill protection credits the difference after the first year.

Meaning of Bill Protection






(n=) (n=2201) (n=1456) (n=) (n=2023)

I don’t understand or know about bill protection.

SCE will credit me the difference after the first

year if my total electricity bill for the year were

higher than it would have been

NA NA

For the first year, I will receive a bill credit every

month my electricity bill is higher than what it would

have been

While I’m covered by Bill Protection, I don’t have to

pay my electricity bill.

63


71%

20%

7%

2%

72%

21%

11%

5%

70%

17%

10%

2%

Understanding of Bill Protection• Non-CARE customers are more likely than CARE, and Non-Benefiters are more likely

than Benefiters or Neutrals, to say they do not understand bill protection.

64


Meaning of Bill Protection




I don’t understand or know about bill protection. NA NA 70% 70% 66% 72% E 70% 72% 66% 67% 70% 75% JK

SCE will credit me the difference after the first year if

my total electricity bill for the year were higher than it would

have been

NA NA 16% 18% 17% 17% 18% H 14% 19% 16% 18% L 14%

For the first year, I will receive a bill credit every month my electricity bill is higher than

what it would have beenNA NA 10% 10% 13% F 9% 10% 11% 14% 14% KL 10% 9%

While I’m covered by Bill Protection, I don’t have to pay

my electricity bill.NA NA 3% D 2% 4% F 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Q42: “What is your understanding of what bill protection means?”

Bill Protection Information Access

BIL6. “Bill protection allows you to try a Time-of-Use rate for 12 months without paying more than you would with your previous rate plan. Would you want information about bill protection to be available on your bill, on SCE’s website, both the bill and the website, or do you have no preference?”


65

A majority of customers (75%) want to see Bill Protection information elsewhere, with most preferring it on both their bill and SCE’s website. Relatively few want it on just the website.

Would Want Bill ProtectionInformation Available …





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=2023)

On the bill only

On the web site/MyAccount only NA NA NA

Both the bill and web site

No preference

23%

8%

43%

25%

• CARE customers are more likely to want bill protection information on the bill only, while Non-CARE are more likely to want it on the web only or on both the web and their bill.

Would Want Bill ProtectionInformationAvailable …




On the bill only NA NA 24% 23% 30% F 21% 23% 24% 20% 27% 23% 23%On the web

site/MyAccount only NA NA 8% 9% 5% 9% E 8% 11% G 11% 6% 9% J 9%

Both the bill and web site NA NA 43% 43% 37% 45% E 45% H 38% 42% 42% 43% 43%

No preference NA NA 25% 26% 27% 25% 25% 27% 27% 26% 25% 25%


66

Bill Protection Information Access

BIL6. “Bill protection allows you to try a Time-of-Use rate for 12 months without paying more than you would with your previous rate plan. Would you want information about bill protection to be available on your bill, on SCE’s website, both the bill and the website, or do you have no preference?”

Key Findings: Knowledge About SCE Resources

and Assistance

67

PA1: “Are you aware that SCE provides energy savings programs, tools, and tips to help you save energy and money on your bill?”

Aware SCE ProvidesInfo/Assistance






(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Yes

No

Not Sure

70%

23%

7%

64%

33%

3%

Metric 5

68

Awareness that SCE provides rebates, energy savings programs, tools, and tips remains unchanged from Survey 1b, with 7 in 10 (69%) aware.


Awareness of SCE Resources

69%

21%

10%

73%

20%

7%

69%

22%

10%

Awareness of SCE Resources

PA1: “Are you aware that SCE provides energy savings programs, tools, and tips to help you save energy and money on your bill?”

Aware SCE Provides Info/Assistance




Yes 68% 70% 69% 68% 72% F 68% 68% 71% 73% 68% 69% 70%No 22% 20% 22% 21% 20% 22% 21% 24% 22% 19% 22% 22%

Not Sure 10% 9% 9% 10% 8% 10% E 11% HI 6% 5% 13% L 10% 8%

Metric 5

69

• CARE customers have higher awareness of these SCE resources than Non-CARE.


Knowledge of Where to Go for Information

PA2: “Do you know where to go to get information about energy savings programs, tools, and tips offered by SCE?”

Know Where to Get Info/Assistance






(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Yes

No

Not Sure

52%

36%

12%

57%

41%

2%

Metric 2

70

Knowing where to go for assistance is unchanged from Survey 1b at 52%, and remains below the baseline of 57%.


53%

33%

14%

56%

31%

12%

52%

34%

13%

PA2: “Do you know where to go to get information about energy savings programs, tools, and tips offered by SCE?”

Know Where to Get Info/Assistance




Yes 53% 53% D 56% D 49% 53% 52% 51% 56% G 61% 52% 52% 54%No 34% 33% 32% 37% BC 37% 33% 35% I 33% 25% 34% 35% 32%

Not Sure 14% 14% 12% 15% C 10% 15% E 14% 11% 14% 14% 13% 14%

Metric 2

71

• Fewer TOU-5 participants in Survey 2 know where to go for assistance than either TOU-4 or TOU-5 in Survey 1b.

• Coastal customers also have less knowledge about where to go for assistance than Valley or Desert.


Knowledge of Where to Go for Information

Key Findings: Actions to Reduce or Shift with Barriers, Technologies, and Programs to Assist

72

Actions to Shift or Reduce

QNEW1: “Since transitioning to a Time-Of-Use rate plan in March 2018, have you reduced or shifted your electricity usage during higher priced peak hours in the afternoon and evenings?” Q19: [NEW1=YES] “In the last six months, which of the following actions have you taken to reduce your household’s electricity usage in the late afternoon and early evenings, even if you only took the action occasionally?”

Four in 10 customers said they took action to shift or reduce, unchanged from Survey 1b, but more say “no” and fewer are “not sure” than in Survey 1b. • Equal numbers reduced (19%) as shifted (21%). All actions are down; however, in Survey 2 these

are “actual”, while in Survey 1b actions were “planned.”

73

Reduced or Shifted Usage?BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=2101) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

YesNo NA

Not SureNot on TOU

What Actions Did You Take?(n=600) (n=379) (n=811) (n=1106)

Avoided doing laundry

Avoided running the dishwasher

Reduced using or adjusted the use of your home's air conditioning on warm afternoons and evenings

Reduced using or adjusted the use of your home's heating equipment on cold afternoons and evenings NA

Turned off entertainment systems NA

Turned off office equipment NAPre-cooled the home by running air conditioning earlier

in the day NA

Avoided running my spa or pool pump NA

26%27%32%

16%

73%

64%

65%

74%

65%

69%

50%

24%


40%26%28%

6%

80%

71%

65%

28%27%27%

18%

74%

65%

66%

73%

64%

66%

50%

28%

40%34%

19%6%

67%

58%

59%

56%

49%

48%

37%

18%

19% Reduce21% Shift

• CARE customers are more likely to reduce use, while Non-CARE are more likely to shift usage. Non-CARE customers are also more likely to take more of the actions than CARE.

• Desert dwellers are more likely to shift usage than Coast or Valley dwellers, and they are more likely to take more of the actions.

74

Reduced or Shifted Usage?




Yes - reduced 38% C 42% DA 19% 19% 24% F 18% 19% 20% 14% 22% 19% 21%Yes - shifted 21% 22% 14% 24% E 21% 21% 36% GH 23% 22% L 18%

No 26% C 26% D 36% A 33% B 33% 35% 34% 36% 30% 32% 34% 36%Not Sure 30% B 25% 19% A 20% B 24% F 18% 20% H 16% 14% 17% 20% 19%

Not on TOU 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6%What Actions Did You Take? (n=390) a (n=421) b (n=546) c (n=560) d (n=279) e (n=827) f (n=867) g (n=199) h (n=40) i (n=121) j (n=808) k (n=177) l

Avoided doing laundry 82% C 78% D 65% 68% 61% 68% E 64% 73% G 82% G 61% 67% 70%Avoided running the dishwasher 68% C 74% DA 59% 57% 42% 63% E 56% 63% G 72% G 55% 57% 63%

Reduced using or adjusted the use of your home's air conditioning on warm

afternoons and evenings63% 67% D 60% 59% 53% 61% E 55% 71% G 82% GH 59% 57% 71% JK

Reduced using or adjusted the use of your home's heating

equipment on cold afternoons and evenings

NA NA 57% 56% 49% 59% E 53% 67% G 65% 55% 54% 67% JK

Turned off entertainment systems NA NA 50% 47% 61% F 44% 50% H 42% 52% 52% 48% 50%

Turned off office equipment NA NA 47% 49% 52% 47% 49% 44% 50% 56% K 46% 53% KPre-cooled the home by running

air conditioning earlier in the day

NA NA 36% 39% 39% 37% 35% 45% G 52% G 33% 35% 50% JKAvoided running my spa or pool

pump NA NA 18% 17% 19% 18% 17% 22% 15% 31% KL 16% 19%


Actions to Shift or Reduce

QNEW1: “Since transitioning to a Time-Of-Use rate plan in March 2018, have you reduced or shifted your electricity usage during higher priced peak hours in the afternoon and evenings?” Q19: [NEW1=YES] “In the last six months, which of the following actions have you taken to reduce your household’s electricity usage in the late afternoon and early evenings, even if you only took the action occasionally?”

Barriers to Reduce or Shift

Q23: “Which of the following, if any, has kept you from reducing or shifting your electricity usage in the afternoon and evenings in the last six months?”

Top reasons for not reducing or shifting include statements that there is nothing more they can do (“have done all I can,” “already use very little electricity”). • Working from home, being comfortable, their schedule, and having children are also mentioned.

75

Kept you from reducing or shiftingSurvey 1a (Total)Def TOU Pilot Apr 2018




(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=2023)

I have done all I can do

My household already uses very little electricity NA NA NAWorking from or being at home most of the day

makes it difficult to use less electricityNothing keeps me from shifting or reducing my

usageMy home gets uncomfortable if I try to reduce

electricity usage

My schedule doesn’t allow me to reduce my usage

Children in the household make it difficult to change our routines

Elderly household member makes it difficult to change our routines

I didn’t know I needed to shift or reduce my electricity usage

I have old appliances that use a lot of energy

Disabled household member makes it difficult to change our routines

I don’t know what actions to take to reduce or shift my electricity usage


35%

31%

21%

20%

17%

16%

15%

9%

9%

8%

7%

5%

• Non-CARE customers are more likely than CARE to mention working from home, home gets uncomfortable, and schedule as barriers to reduce or shift. Valley and Desert dwellers are more likely to mention they’ve done all they can, home gets uncomfortable, and an elderly household member.

• Non-Benefiters have more barriers including working from home, schedule, and children and elderly members.

76

Kept you from reducing or shifting




I have done all I can do 35% 35% 37% 34% 34% 39% G 45% G 36% 36% 31%My household already uses very

little electricity NA NA 32% 29% 33% 30% 31% 29% 25% 32% L 33% L 23%Working from or being at home

most of the day makes it difficult to use less electricity

21% 21% 17% 23% E 21% 23% 27% 15% 22% J 22% J

Nothing keeps me from shifting or reducing my usage 19% 20% 18% 20% 20% 20% 23% 22% 19% 20%

My home gets uncomfortable if I try to reduce electricity usage 17% 17% 14% 18% E 16% 21% G 27% G 14% 16% 26% JK

My schedule doesn’t allow me to reduce my usage 17% 16% 12% 18% E 16% 17% 19% 13% 16% 19% J

Children in the household make it difficult to change our routines 15% 15% 17% 14% 15% I 16% I 6% 11% 14% 22% JK

Elderly household member makes it difficult to change our

routines9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 12% G 23% GH 10% 9% 13% K

I didn’t know I needed to shift or reduce my electricity usage 10% 8% 10% 9% 9% 9% 6% 9% 9% 9%

I have old appliances that use a lot of energy 7% 8% 9% 7% 7% 10% G 11% 7% 7% 9%

Disabled household member makes it difficult to change our

routines7% 7% 9% 6% 7% 7% 16% GH 7% 7% 9%

I don’t know what actions to take to reduce or shift my electricity

usage5% 5% 6% 4% 5% H 3% 3% 6% 5% 4%


Barriers to Reduce or Shift

Q23: “Which of the following, if any, has kept you from reducing or shifting your electricity usage in the afternoon and evenings in the last six months?”

New Technology or Improvements Installed

QEX5: “Did your household use or install any new technologies, appliances, or other energy efficiency improvements as a result of transitioning to the Time-of-Use pricing plan?”QEX6: “Which new technologies, appliances, or improvements has your household installed or used in response to the new Time-of-Use pricing plan?”

About one in six (17%) said they made energy efficiency improvements as a result of the transition to TOU. • Among those who did, improvements include LED lights (66%), new appliances (49%), new HVAC

(25%), new windows (22%), and internet connected “smart” thermostats (21%).

77

Install New Technology?BaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=961)

YesNo NA NA NA NA

UnsureWhich New Technology? (n=139)

Standard LED light bulbsEnergy efficient or smart appliances NA NA NA

Heating or air conditioning systemNew windows

Internet connected “smart” thermostatWater heater

Smart lighting or Wi-Fi lighting controlsSmart outlets or other electronics controls

InsulationSolar panels

Don’t know


17%80%

3%

66%49%

25%22%21%18%

14%12%9%7%

3%

• Non-CARE customers are more likely than CARE to have installed new HVAC, new windows, or a “’smart” thermostat.

78

Install New Tech?




Yes NA NA 17% 17% 19% 17% 18% H 13% 18% 24% K 16% 19%No 80% 80% 79% 80% 79% 84% 80% 75% 82% 77%

Unsure 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5%Which New Tech? (n=69) c (n=70) d (n=29) e (n=110) f (n=113) g (n=21) h (n=5) i (n=18) j (n=98) k (n=23) l

Standard LED light bulbs 64% 69% 66% 66% 68% I 67% I 20% 67% 68% 57%Energy efficient or smart

appliances NA NA 55% 43% 45% 50% 50% I 48% 20% 50% 49% 48%

Heating or air conditioning system 28% 23% 10% 29% E 21% 48% G 20% 28% 23% 30%

New windows 23% 20% 10% 25% E 24% H 10% 20% 33% 21% 13%Internet connected “smart” thermostat 22% 20% 7% 25% E 15% 52% G 20% 28% 17% 30%

Water heater 16% 20% 21% 17% 19% 14% 20% 17% 17% 22%

Smart lighting or Wi-Fi lighting controls 12% 17% 14% 15% 14% 14% 20% 22% 14% 9%

Smart outlets or other electronics controls 9% 14% 10% 12% 13% - 20% 11% 13% 4%

Insulation 10% 9% 10% 9% 10% 10% - 22% L 8% 4%

Solar panels 12% D 3% 3% 8% 6% 10% 20% 6% 7% 9%

Don’t Know 1% 4% 3% 3% 4% - - - 3% 4%


New Technology or Improvements Installed

QEX5: “Did your household use or install any new technologies, appliances, or other energy efficiency improvements as a result of transitioning to the Time-of-Use pricing plan?”QEX6: “Which new technologies, appliances, or improvements has your household installed or used in response to the new Time-of-Use pricing plan?”

Signed Up or Enrolled in SCE Programs

QNEW7: “Have you signed up for or enrolled in any Southern California Edison programs or services since you transitioned to a Time-of-Use rate plan, such as My Account, Summer Discount Plan, or usage alerts?”QNEW8: “What did you sign up for or enroll in?”

One in seven (14%) said they signed up for or enrolled in an Edison program since the transition. • Among those who signed up, top programs include: text alerts (27%), Budget Assistant (17%),

CARE/FERA (15%), and Summer Discount Plan (10%).

79

Signed up / EnrolledBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=961)

YesNo NA NA NA NA

UnsureWhich Program? (n=138)

Text Alerts

Budget Assistant NA NA NA NACARE / FERA

Summer Discount Plan

Level Pay PlanAppliance Energy Use Cost

Estimator

Smart Thermostat Rebate

Email Alerts

Something else

None of these


14%77%

8%

27%17%15%

10%8%7%7%7%4%

22%

• CARE customers are more likely than Non-CARE to have signed up for an Edison program since the transition, and they specifically are more likely to mention CARE. Non-CARE are more likely to mention signing up for text and email alerts, Summer Discount Plan, and the Appliance Energy Use Cost Estimator.

80

Signed up / Enrolled



TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=) a (n=) b (n=468) c (n=493) d (n=198) e (n=763) f (n=745) g (n=176) h (n=40) I (n=102) j (n=710) k (n=149) l

Yes NA NA 16% 13% 23% F 12% 15% 13% 12% 12% 15% 14%

No 76% 78% 65% 81% E 76% 81% 85% 81% 76% 80%

Unsure 7% 9% 12% F 7% 9% I 6% 2% 7% 9% 6%Which Program? (n=74) c (n=64) d (n=45) e (n=93) f (n=110) g (n=23) h (n=5) i (n=12) j (n=105) k (n=21) l

Text Alerts 31% 22% 13% 33% E 25% 35% 40% 25% 25% 38%Budget Assistant NA NA 20% 12% 24% 13% 18% 9% 20% 8% 17% 19%

CARE / FERA 18% 12% 40% F 3% 19% - - 8% 18% L 5%Summer Discount Plan 5% 16% C 2% 14% E 9% 9% 40% - 11% 10%

Level Pay Plan 8% 8% 4% 10% 7% 9% 20% 25% 7% 5%Appliance Energy Use

Cost Estimator 4% 9% 2% 9% E 7% 4% - 17% 6% 5%

Smart Thermostat Rebate 7% 8% 4% 9% 6% 13% - - 7% 14%

Email Alerts 7% 6% 2% 9% E 7% 4% - 8% 7% 5%Something else 5% 3% 7% 3% 5% - - 8% 5% -

None of these 26% 17% 18% 24% 17% 43% G 20% 25% 21% 24%


Signed Up or Enrolled in SCE Programs

QNEW7: “Have you signed up for or enrolled in any Southern California Edison programs or services since you transitioned to a Time-of-Use rate plan, such as My Account, Summer Discount Plan, or usage alerts?”QNEW8: “What did you sign up for or enroll in?”

Key Findings: Bill Review

81

Bill Review

BIL1. “Did you look at or review your electric bill since your March 2018 transition to a Time-of-Use rate plan?”


82

About half (48%) reviewed their bill since the transition to TOU.

Reviewed Bill Since TOU TransitionBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=2023)

Yes

No NA NA NA

Not Sure

48%

43%

9%



Reviewed Bill Since TOU Transition

TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


Yes NA NA 46% 50% C 40% 51% E 47% 49% 64% GH 50% 48% 48%

No 45% D 41% 46% F 42% 43% I 44% I 33% 41% 43% 43%

Not Sure 9% 9% 13% F 7% 10% HI 7% 3% 9% 9% 9%


83

• More TOU-5 report reviewing their bill than TOU-4 since the transition. • More Non-CARE customers reviewed their bill than CARE.• More Desert dwellers reviewed their bill than Coastal or Valley dwellers.

Bill Review

BIL1. “Did you look at or review your electric bill since your March 2018 transition to a Time-of-Use rate plan?”

Section ReviewedBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=536) (n=976)

How much you owe

Due date NA NAWhat your peak time period is

Your Time-of-Use electricity usage graph

What rate you were on

Contact information for SCEYour status regarding or information about bill

protection

Easy to Find (n=445) (n=717)

How much you owe

Due date NA NAWhat your peak time period is


What rate you were on

Contact information for SCEYour status regarding or information about bill

protection

Bill Review Content

BIL3. [IF BIL2 = YES] “Which of the following did you review on the bill?”BIL4. [IF BIL3 = YES] “Was it easy to find…”


84

Among those who viewed the bill, almost all looked at the amount owed. To a lesser extent, they looked at the due date, peak time, TOU graphs, and their rate. • Fewer reviewed some of these details in Survey 2 than in Survey 1b. • Most customers found it easy to find what they were looking for.

98%83%

67%66%64%

39%25%

98%99%88%93%87%93%

79%

99%98%

86%87%85%89%

73%

96%73%

68%70%

64%33%

19%

• CARE customers are more likely to have looked at due date, contact info, and their bill protection status than Non-CARE, while Non-CARE are more likely to have looked at their peak time periods.

• Desert dwellers are more likely to have looked at what their peak period is and what rate they are on than Coastal and Valley customers.



Section Reviewed TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=263) a (n=273) b (n=474) c (n=502) d (n=204) e (n=772) f (n=748) g (n=187) h (n=41) i (n=109) j (n=698) k (n=169) l

How much you owe 98% C 98% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 100% GH 94% 97% 96%

Due date 83% C 84% D 74% 73% 79% F 72% 73% 75% 71% 69% 73% 80% JK

What your peak time per. Is 67% 67% 67% 68% 62% 69% E 66% 72% 73% 72% 67% 67%Your Time-of-Use electricity

usage graph 65% 67% 72% A 68% 71% 69% 69% 72% 73% 78% K 68% 71%

What rate you were on 63% 66% 65% 63% 64% 64% 63% 66% 76% G 63% 65% 60%

Contact information for SCE 41% 37% 35% 31% 51% F 28% 33% 33% 37% 34% 33% 32%Your status or information

about bill protection 26% C 24% D 19% 19% 27% F 17% 19% 18% 24% 20% 19% 20%

Easy to Find (n=217) a (n=228) b (n=350) c (n=367) d (n=161) e (n=556) f (n=548) g (n=140) h (n=29) i (n=75) j (n=507) k (n=135) l

How much you owe 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 100% GH 98% 99% 98%

Due date 99% 99% 97% 98% 99% 97% 98% 98% 100% GH 99% 98% 97%

What your peak time per. Is 89% C 87% 82% 89% C 85% 86% 85% 89% 87% 89% 85% 86%Your Time-of-Use electricity

usage graph 96% CB 90% 86% 88% 88% 86% 86% 87% 93% 93% KL 87% 82%

What rate you were on 87% 87% 81% 90% C 86% 85% 85% 88% 87% 88% 86% 81%

Contact information for SCE 93% 93% 90% 89% 93% F 88% 90% 85% 100% GH 84% 90% 91%Your status or information

about bill protection 75% 82% 73% 73% 80% 70% 72% 73% 90% G 59% 74% 79%


85

BIL3. [IF BIL2 = YES] “Which of the following did you review on the bill?”BIL4. [IF BIL3 = YES] “Was it easy to find…”

Bill Review Content

Bill Review Content

BIL5. [IF BIL3 = YES] “Was it helpful to see…?”


86

Almost all customers who reviewed the following bill components agree that it is helpful to see them.• The helpfulness of the peak time period information even increased in Survey 2.

Helpful to SeeBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=357) (n=565)


What your peak time period is NA NAYour status regarding or information about bill

protection

92%

86%

86%

92%

91%

88%

• Those on CARE found this information more helpful than Non-CARE.



Helpful to See TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=175) a (n=182) b (n=262) c (n=303) d (n=108) e (n=457) f (n=419) g (n=120) h (n=26) i (n=70) j (n=398) k (n=97) l

Your Time-of-Use electricity usage graph 94% 90% 92% 91% 95% F 91% 91% 94% 89% 92% 92% 89%

What your peak time period is 86% 86% 92% A 91% 95% F 90% 90% 93% 96% 87% 92% 92%

Your status regarding or information about bill

protection88% 83% 91% 86% 91% 87% 88% 88% 89% 92% 91% 77%

87

Bill Review Content

BIL5. [IF BIL3 = YES] “Was it helpful to see…?”Letters indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between subgroups

*Caution: small sample size

New Bill Positives and Negatives

BIL7. “Was there anything that stood out as particularly positive or negative about the new bill, other than the amount of the bill, such as the layout or information provided?


88

One-fourth of customers said something stood out on the new bill – 21% said something positive stood out and 5% (down from 12%) said something negative.

Anything Positive or NegativeBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=536) (n=976)

Yes, positive

Yes, negative NA NA

No

Not sure

21%

12%

55%

12%

21%

5%

56%

18%

• CARE customers are more likely to have mentioned something about the new bill. • Coastal and Valley customers are more likely to say something positive stood out.• Neutral customers are more likely to say something positive stood out.



Anything Positive or Negative TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


Yes, positive 20% 22% 21% 21% 30% F 18% 22% HI 17% I 7% 17% 23% L 16%Yes, negative 9% C 14% DA 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% G 7% 4% 5% 5%

No 56% 55% 57% 56% 47% 59% E 56% 58% 59% 58% 56% 57%Not sure 15% B 10% 18% 19% B 18% 18% 18% 18% 27% 22% 17% 21%

89


Letters indicate significant difference at the 90% confidence level between subgroups*Caution: small sample size

BIL7. “Was there anything that stood out as particularly positive or negative about the new bill, other than the amount of the bill, such as the layout or information provided?


BIL8. [BIL7 = POS or NEG] “What was Positive / Negative about the bill?”


90

Among those who noticed something positive or negative, customers mentioned easy to read (37%), TOU information/detail (31%), graphs (13%), and lower cost (7%) as positives. These have shifted considerably compared to Survey 1b. • The most frequently mentioned negatives are hard to understand (33%, up from 11%) and higher

costs (28%, down from 63%).

Positive FeaturesBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=112) (n=203)

Lower costEasy to read NA NA

GraphsTOU information/detail

OtherRefusedNot Sure -

Negative Features (n=62) (n=46)Higher cost/charges

TOU information/detailHard to understand

GraphsOther

Refused -

36%24%21%

15%2%2%1%

63%15%

11%3%8%

7%37%

13%31%

9%1%

28%17%

33%11%9%

2%

• TOU-4 participants have more comments about “lower cost” than TOU-5 customers.• Non-CARE have more comments about “easy to read” than CARE.



Positive Features TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=56) a (n=56) b (n=99) c (n=104) d (n=62) e (n=141) f (n=168) g (n=32) h (n=3) i (n=18) j (n=158) k (n=27) l

Lower cost 34% C 38% D 11% D 4% 10% 6% 8% 3% - 17% 8% -Easy to read 20% 29% 38% A 37% 26% 43% E 37% 44% - 28% 39% 33%

Graphs 25% C 16% 9% 16% 11% 13% 11% 22% - 6% 13% 19%TOU information/detail 20% 11% 28% 33% B 34% 29% 32% H 19% 67% H 33% 29% 37%

Other - 4% 9% 10% 15% 7% 9% 9% 33% 17% 9% 7%Refused 2% 2% 2% - 3% - 1% - - - 1% 4%Not Sure - 2% - - - - - - - - - -

Negative Features (n=25) a (n=37) b (n=21) c (n=25) d (n=10) e (n=36) f (n=29) g (n=14) h (n=3) i (n=4) j (n=33) k (n=9) l

Higher cost/charges 68% C 59% D 19% 36% 30% 28% 17% 43% G 67% G 75% KL 24% 22%TOU information/detail 8% 19% 14% 20% 20% 17% 24% 7% - - 24% -

Hard to understand 8% 14% 38% A 28% 30% 33% 38% 29% - - 36% 33%Graphs 4% 3% 10% 12% 10% 11% 10% 7% 33% - 9% 22%

Other 12% 5% 19% - 10% 8% 7% 14% - - 6% 22%Refused - - - 4% - 3% 3% - - 25% - -

91


BIL8. [BIL7 = POS or NEG] “What was Positive / Negative about the bill?”


Amount Paid on TOU

BIL9. “Do you think the amount you pay with the Time-of-Use rate plan is more, about the same, or less than you would have paid with your previous rate plan?”


92

Among those with an opinion, more customers believe they pay more with their new TOU rate plan than pay less by a margin of 22% vs. 16%. Most customers say they pay about the same amount (33%) or they are not sure (30%).

Amount Paid on TOUBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017




(n=) (n=) (n=) (n=2023)

More

About the Same NA NA NALess

Not sure

22%

33%

16%

30%

• Non-CARE customers are more likely to believe they pay more on their new TOU rate than CARE.• Desert dwellers are more likely than Valley, who are in turn more likely than Coastal to believe

they pay more on their new TOU rate.• Similarly, Non-Benefiters are more likely than Neutrals, who are more likely than Benefiters to

believe they pay more on their new TOU.



Amount Paid on TOU TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


More NA NA 22% 22% 19% 22% E 20% 27% G 39% GH 14% 21% J 30% JKAbout the Same 33% 33% 35% 32% 33% 31% 30% 32% 34% L 28%

Less 15% 16% 18% 15% 16% I 14% 9% 25% KL 16% L 10%Not sure 31% 29% 28% 30% 31% I 28% 22% 28% 30% 32%

93

Amount Paid on TOU


BIL9. “Do you think the amount you pay with the Time-of-Use rate plan is more, about the same, or less than you would have paid with your previous rate plan?”

Key Findings: Attitudes Toward SCE

94

OE1_SCE. “Suppose you were to talk with friends, family, or co-workers about Southern California Edison. Would your comments be favorable or unfavorable, on a “1” to “10” scale where “1” means “not favorable at all” and “10” means “extremely favorable”?”

SCE Favorability

95

SCE FavorabilityBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Very Favorable (8-10)

SomewhatFavorable (4-7)

Not Favorable (1-3)

Not Sure

Mean 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8

57%

35%

6%

2%

60%

32%

3%

5%

Favorability toward SCE is unchanged (61% rated 8-10) in Survey 2 from Survey 1b or 1a. The mean has remained higher than the baseline since Survey 1a.


62%

31%

4%

3%

58%

33%

4%

4%

61%

31%

4%

4%

OE1_SCE. “Suppose you were to talk with friends, family, or co-workers about Southern California Edison. Would your comments be favorable or unfavorable, on a “1” to “10” scale where “1” means “not favorable at all” and “10” means “extremely favorable”?”

96



SCE Favorability TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Very Favorable (8-10) 61% 63% 60% 61% 76% F 56% 63% HI 52% 50% 61% L 64% L 48%Somewhat Favorable

(4-7) 32% B 29% 33% 30% 20% 35% E 29% 38% G 33% 30% 29% 43% JK

Not Favorable (1-3) 4% 4% 4% 5% 2% 5% E 3% 6% G 16% GH 6% 4% 5%

Not Sure 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4%

Mean 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 8.6 F 7.5 7.9 HI 7.3 6.9 7.7 L 7.9 L 7.2

• The most favorable groups are those on CARE, Coastal dwellers, and Benefiter and Neutral groups.

• The least favorable are the Desert dwellers and the Non-Benefiters.


SCE Favorability

Demographics of Survey Respondents

97

Household Characteristics

H1: “Do you own or rent your home?”D1: “Including you, how many people live in your household?”

Two-thirds (62%) are homeowners and 35% are renters. • The mean household size is 2.9 versus 3.0 in Survey 1b.

98

Own or RentBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Own

Rent or Lease

Something ElseNot Sure or Prefer not

to answer

# in HouseholdOne

Two

Three

Four

Five or moreMean 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9

62%

36%

1%

2%

59%

38%

1%

2%

<

20%

32%

15%

14%

16%

19%

30%

19%

17%

15%


63%

33%

1%

3%

17%

30%

18%

18%

17%

65%

32%

1%

2%

<

20%

32%

18%

16%

14%

62%

35%

1%

3%

20%

30%

18%

16%

16%

<

H1: “Do you own or rent your home?”D1: “Including you, how many people live in your household?”

99



Own or Rent TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Own 63% 63% 63% 62% 35% 71% E 57% 79% G 81% G 59% 60% 72% JKRent or Lease 33% 34% 34% 35% 61% F 26% 40% HI 18% 14% 36% L 37% L 25%

Something Else 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 3% *% 1% *%Not Sure or Prefer

not to answer 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% F 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3%

Number of People in Household

One 19% B 16% 20% 20% B 19% 20% 20% 18% 20% 30% KL 21% L 9%Two 31% 28% 30% 31% 19% 34% E 29% 31% 47% GH 32% L 31% L 25%

Three 17% 19% 19% 17% 17% 18% 18% I 19% I 9% 17% 17% 23% JKFour 18% 18% 16% 16% 17% 16% 16% 15% 14% 11% 15% 25% JK

Five or more 15% 19% A 16% 16% 28% F 12% 16% I 17% I 9% 10% 16% J 18% JMean 2.9 3.1 DA 2.9 2.9 3.3 F 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.9 J 3.3 JK


• CARE customers are more likely to be renters and to have large (5+) households, while Non-CARE are more likely homeowners in two-person households.

• Coastal dwellers are more likely to be renters than Valley or Desert dwellers.• Non-Benefiters have a higher proportion of homeowners, and have larger households.

Household Characteristics

Age of Decision Maker & Seniors in HH

D2: “What is your age?”D2a: [IF D2 NOT 65 OR OLDER] “Is anyone else in your household 65 or older?

Household decision maker ages are distributed normally with a peak in the 55 year old category. One in three (35%) households has a senior (65 or older).

100

Age of Decision Maker






(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

18 to 24 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 to 74 years

75 or older

Prefer not to answer

Seniors (65+) in HHYes (NET)Yes –Self

Yes – Someone elseNo


3%

15%

17%

16%

18%

15%

11%

6%

1%

11%

18%

20%

20%

15%

9%

5%

37%27%

10%60%

4%

33%25%

8%65%

3%


1%

10%

18%

20%

21%

15%

10%

5%

34%25%

9%64%

3%

1%

10%

17%

19%

21%

17%

10%

6%

35%27%

8%62%

3%

1%

10%

17%

19%

22%

17%

9%

4%

35%26%

9%62%

3%

D2: “What is your age?”D2a: [IF D2 NOT 65 OR OLDER] “Is anyone else in your household 65 or older?

101



Age of Decision Maker TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


18 to 24 years 1% 1% 1% *% 2% F *% 1% *% 1% 1% *%25 to 34 years 10% 9% 10% 10% 13% F 9% 11% H 7% 6% 10% 10% 11%35 to 44 years 18% 18% 18% 16% 19% 16% 18% I 16% I 9% 10% 17% J 22% JK45 to 54 years 20% 21% 20% 19% 20% 19% 20% 19% 16% 18% 20% 19%55 to 64 years 22% 21% 22% 23% 21% 23% 22% 23% 30% 24% 22% 22%65 to 74 years 15% 15% 18% 16% 11% 19% E 16% 17% 31% GH 18% 17% 15%

75 or older 10% C 10% 8% 11% C 9% 9% 9% 11% I 5% 12% L 9% L 6%Prefer not to answer 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3% 6% 4% 4%

Seniors (65+) in Household

Yes (NET) 32% 35% 34% 37% 33% 36% 34% 38% 53% GH 37% 36% 33%Yes –Self 25% 25% 25% 27% 21% 28% E 25% 29% 36% G 30% L 27% L 21%

Yes – Someone else 7% 10% A 8% 10% 13% F 8% 9% 10% 17% G 7% 9% 12% JNo 65% 62% 63% 61% 64% 61% 63% I 59% I 44% 59% 62% 65%

Prefer not to answer 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2%


• CARE customers are more likely in the youngest age groups than Non-CARE. • Desert dwellers include more in the 55-74 age groups (and include more seniors in the household),

while Coastal are more likely in the 25-44.• Non-Benefiters are more likely in the 35-44 age range (which coincides with larger households).

Age of Decision Maker & Seniors in HH

Education & Employment

D3: “What is the last year of school you completed?”D6: “What is your current employment status?”

Over half of Residential customers have an undergraduate degree (36%) or masters or doctorate degree (21%).• A majority are employed full-time (44%) or retired (25%).

102

EducationBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

High School or Less

Trade or Technical School

Undergraduate Degree

Masters or Doctorate Degree


Employment StatusEmployed Full Time

Employed Part Time

Self-Employed

Unemployed

Homemaker or Caregiver

Student

Retired

Semi-Retired


23%12%

37%23%

5%

25%11%

35%21%

9%

46%4%8%5%

1%1%

29%1%6%

48%4%8%

4%4%1%

24%2%6%


25%11%

34%22%

8%

47%6%7%4%3%1%

25%2%6%

<

23%10%

36%22%

9%

47%4%7%4%4%1%

26%2%6%

24%11%

36%21%

8%

44%7%9%

4%3%1%

25%1%6%

D3: “What is the last year of school you completed?”D6: “What is your current employment status?”

103



Education TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

High School or Less 23% 27% A 23% 25% 43% F 17% 24% 22% 34% GH 22% 25% 22%Trade or Tech School 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 11% 10% 14% G 20% G 7% 11% J 12% J

Undergrad Degree 35% 33% 37% 35% 24% 40% E 36% 36% 28% 38% 36% 37%Masters or Doc. Degree 22% 21% 21% 21% 11% 24% E 22% I 19% I 8% 23% 20% 23%

Prefer not to answer 9% 8% 7% 9% 10% F 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 8% 6%

Employment StatusEmployed Full Time 46% 48% D 45% 44% 33% 48% E 45% I 43% 34% 39% 43% 52% JKEmployed Part Time 6% 6% 6% 7% 12% F 5% 7% I 5% 3% 6% 7% 5%

Self-Employed 8% B 5% 10% A 8% B 8% 10% 9% 11% 8% 11% 9% 9%Unemployed 4% 4% 4% 4% 9% F 2% 4% H 2% 3% 1% 4% J 3% J

Homemaker or Caregiver 3% 2% 2% 3% BC 5% F 2% 3% 3% 6% 1% 3% 4% J

Student 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1%Retired 25% 26% 24% 26% 21% 26% E 23% 29% G 31% 31% L 26% L 18%

Semi-Retired 1% 2% DA 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 1% 1%Prefer not to answer 7% 6% 6% 6% 10% F 5% 7% H 4% 9% 8% 6% 7%


• CARE customers are less likely to be college educated, and are less likely to be employed full-time or retired. Desert dwellers are less likely to have a graduate degree or to be employed full time.

• Non-Benefiters are more likely to be employed full-time.

Education & Employment

Ethnicity & Preferred LanguageAbout half of the general population is White (not Hispanic) (46%), with representation of Hispanic (20%), Asian (12%), and African-American (5%).• Most customers speak English, but there are more Spanish speakers in the Default Pilot than in

the baseline, likely due to inclusion of Spanish-language interviewing.

104

EthnicityBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

White (not Hispanic)

Hispanic or Latin American

Asian or Pacific IslanderAfrican – American

Native American

Mixed

Other -Prefer not to answer

Preferred LanguageEnglish

SpanishAsian

(Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese etc..)

Other


48%20%

8%6%

1%3%

14%

43%23%

11%5%

1%3%3%

11%

96%

1%

1%

1%

2%

88%

7%

2%

1%

3%

<

<<


45%22%

11%5%

1%3%2%

11%

87%

8%

2%

1%

2%

<

<

46%19%

12%4%1%3%3%

13%

90%

5%

2%

1%

3%

<

<

46%20%

12%5%

1%3%2%

11%

89%

6%

2%

1%

2%

D4: “What do you consider your ethnicity to be?”D5: “In what languages do you prefer to receive communications?”


D4: “What do you consider your ethnicity to be?”D5: “In what languages do you prefer to receive communications?”

105



Ethnicity TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

White (not Hispanic) 45% 46% 47% 45% 23% 54% E 43% 56% G 61% G 51% 45% 48%Hispanic or Latin

American 22% 22% 19% 21% 40% F 14% 21% HI 18% I 9% 19% 20% 21%

Asian or Pacific Islander 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 13% HI 7% 3% 10% 12% 12%

African – American 4% 5% 6% A 5% 10% F 4% 5% 4% 11% 2% 6% J 5% JNative American *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 3% 1% 1%

Mixed 3% 3% 4% A 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 2%Other 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Prefer not to answer 12% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 10% 11% 12% 11% 9%Preferred Language

English 87% 87% 90% A 89% 74% 94% E 88% 95% G 98% GH 89% 89% 92% KSpanish 8% 9% D 6% 6% 19% F 2% 8% H 2% - 7% 7% L 5%

Asian(Mandarin, Cantonese,

Vietnamese etc..)2% 2% 2% 3% B 5% F 2% 3% H 1% - 1% 3% 2%

Other *% *% *% *% *% *% *% - - - *% *%

Prefer not to answer 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%

• CARE participation and Climate Zone are related to ethnicity and preferred language, with CARE customers more likely to be Hispanic or African-American, and to speak a language other than English, while Desert dwellers are more likely White (not Hispanic).

Ethnicity & Preferred Language

Disability of HH MemberNearly one in five (19%) Residential customers have someone with a disability living in the home, up from 17% in Survey 1b, but similar to Survey 1a. • Main disability types are mobility and chronic disease.

D7a: “Do you or does anyone in your household have a permanent disability, related to mobility, hearing, vision, cognitive, psychological, or chronic disease?”D7b: [IF D7a=YES] “In which category would you classify the disability?”D7c: [IF D7b=VISION] “Would you want to receive communications in large type or braille?”

106

Anyone Disabled in Household






(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

YesNo


Type of Disability(n=167) (n=413) (n=275) (n=346) (n=393)

MobilityChronic disease

HearingCognitive (learning or mental)

PsychologicalVision

Something elsePrefer not to answer

Want communications in large type or braille

18%77%

4%

19%76%

6%

37%15%

8%7%11%8%8%6%4%

35%19%

11%11%

7%4%9%

4%1%


17%77%

6%

28%22%

10%10%8%7%9%

5%3%<

19%76%

6%

33%19%

11%9%6%4%10%8%

1%

19%76%

5%

30%22%

9%9%7%8%10%7%4%

D7a: “Do you or does anyone in your household have a permanent disability, related to mobility, hearing, vision, cognitive, psychological, or chronic disease?”D7b: [IF D7a=YES] “In which category would you classify the disability?”D7c: [IF D7b=VISION] “Would you want to receive communications in large type or braille?”

107



Anyone Disabled in Household TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben


Yes 16% 18% 20% A 19% 29% F 16% 19% 20% 34% GH 17% 20% 20%No 78% B 75% 76% 76% 65% 80% E 77% I 76% I 58% 76% 76% 77%

Prefer not to answer 5% 7% D 4% 5% 7% F 4% 5% 4% 8% 6% L 5% 3%Type of Disability (n=166) a (n=180) b (n=204) c (n=189) d (n=144) e (n=249) f (n=294) g (n=77) h (n=22) i (n=37) j (n=287) k (n=69) l

Mobility 23% 32% A 33% A 26% 29% 30% 28% 31% 55% GH 38% 27% 36%Chronic disease 23% 21% 21% 22% 22% 21% 21% I 30% I 5% 16% 22% 22%

Hearing 11% 9% 6% 13% C 5% 12% E 8% 13% 18% 22% K 8% 10%Cognitive (learning or

mental) 13% B 8% 11% D 6% 8% 9% 10% 5% - 8% 9% 6%

Psychological 7% 9% 5% 8% 8% 6% 7% 4% 5% - 8% 4%Vision 7% 7% 9% 6% 9% 7% 9% H 4% 9% - 9% 7%

Something else 8% 10% 7% 12% 11% 9% 11% 6% 9% 11% 9% 12%Prefer not to answer 7% B 3% 6% 7% B 8% 6% 7% 6% - 5% 8% L 3%

Want communications in large type or braille 2% 3% 4% 3% 6% F 2% 4% 4% - - 4% 3%


• CARE customers are more likely to have a disabled household member and to want communications in large type or braille than Non-CARE.

• Desert dwellers are also more likely to have a disabled person in the household.

Disability of HH Member

Household Income & Gender

D8: “What is your annual household income before taxes?”D9: GENDER

One in three Residential customers (29%) did not provide their income, with the rest being distributed around a median in the $50k-$100k range. • Just over half (53%) of respondents are female.

108

Household IncomeBaselineDef Eligible Nov 2017





(n=906) (n=2224) (n=1473) (n=2016) (n=2023)

Less than $25,000

$25,000 to < $50,000

$50,000 to < $100,000

$100,000 or moreNot Sure or Prefer not to

answer

Gender

Female

Male

Self Identified or Other NA

Prefer Not to Answer NA

9%

14%

21%

21%

35%

12%

17%

24%

19%

28%

51%

49%

53%

42%

1%

4%

<


12%

16%

21%

21%

30%

53%

42%

1%

5%

<

10%

15%

23%

21%

30%

50%

45%

1%

5%

<

14%

15%

22%

20%

29%

53%

43%

1%

4%

<

D8: “What is your annual household income before taxes?”D9: GENDER

109



Household Income TOU4 TOU5 TOU4 TOU5 Yes No Coast Valley Desert Benefiter Neutral Non-Ben(n=1015) a (n=1001) b (n=1021) c (n=1002) d (n=505) e (n=1518) f (n=1579) g (n=380) h (n=64) i (n=217) j (n=1456) k (n=350) l

Less than $25,000 10% 13% A 13% A 14% 39% F 5% 15% HI 9% 8% 14% 14% L 10%$25,000 to <

$50,000 16% 16% 15% 15% 26% F 12% 16% 13% 19% 14% 16% 13%

$50,000 to < $100,000 21% 21% 23% 22% 9% 27% E 21% 28% G 27% 19% 23% 22%

$100,000 or more 22% 21% 21% 19% 2% 26% E 19% 24% GI 16% 18% 18% 30% JKNot Sure or

Prefer not to answer 31% 29% 29% 29% 24% 30% E 29% 26% 31% 35% KL 28% 25%

GenderFemale 53% 52% 51% 54% 61% F 50% 53% 50% 50% 51% 54% 50%

Male 42% 42% 45% 42% 34% 46% E 42% 48% G 42% 45% 42% 46%Self Identified or

Other *% *% *% *% *% *% *% - - - *% -

Prefer Not to Answer 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% H 2% 8% 4% 4% 4%


• As expected, CARE customers are more likely to be lower income, as are Coastal dwellers.

• Non-Benefiters are more likely higher income ($100k or more).

Household Income & Gender

Appendix C

Default TOU Pilot Dashboard 2017-18

Default TOU Pilot Dashboard 2017-18 Program Goal: Default 400,000 customers to new TOU rates to inform our full rollout strategy in areas including system operability, default TOU rate design, customer retention on TOU rates and load shifting, and to refine customer education tactics.

Report Date: 1/14/19

Key Insights Customer Observations Customer Selections

Customer Engagement by Channel

Default Summary

Pilot Status: • As of 1/2, 278,942 customers remain on a TOU rate., Outreach Activity: • Planning of end of Bill protection letters expected to launch in Q1 2019 Customer Engagement: • Survey 2: 2,023 interviews /surveys completed by phone or web – 1,021 TOU-D-4 and

1,002 TOU-D-5 customers. Surveys conducted between October 22 and November 27. High level results show: • Awareness of TOU (73% vs. 72%) and Tiered rates (66% vs. 68%) is unchanged from

Survey 1b. • Almost half (46%) of the Pilot customers are satisfied with their current rate. • Among customers defaulted to a Pilot rate, positive feelings are increasing and

negatives are decreasing • Overall favorability toward SCE at 61% (8, 9, or 10 rating on a 10-point scale) is

unchanged from Survey 1b • Opt-out survey conducted in November 2018 showed the following results:

• Main reasons for leaving default TOU rate was due to high bills, TOU periods not working for customers and tiered plan worked better

• Approx. 38% of customers knew that they were protected with 12 months of bill protection

TOU Rates Page Activity Call Volume Pilot Direct #

Customer Call Disposition

Current Status

Rate Changes by Channel

Rate Changes by Rate

Customer Disconnections/Arrears

% of Customers Who Experience 1 or more Disconnects/Arrears (last 30 days)

Bill Protection

Note: Customers who defaulted and opted in to the default rates were defined to be on the pilot

All Customers %of Total CARE/FERA Initial Population 399,994 100% 83,601 Closed 14,921 4% 3,057 Ineligible 2,579 1% 324 Opt-Out 48,241 12% 10,842 Optional TOU 25,054 6% 3,878 Opt-in Default 3,402 1% 825 Defaulted 305,797 76% 64,675

Pre-Default Default Benefiter 40,744 34,421 Neutral 270,928 216,116 Non-Ben 68,987 48,877 X-Non-Ben 19,335 9,785 Total 399,994 309,199

Pre-Default Default Cool 219,963 174,180 Moderate 106,764 81,728 Hot 21,834 15,856 Zone 10 51,433 37,435 Total 399,994 309,199

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecClosed 3,147 4,696 6,569 8,044 10,638 11,711 11,711 12,757 Switch to TOU5 29 32 38 42 45 45 45 46 Switch to other TOU 529 636 749 844 1,030 1,092 1,092 1,185 Switch to Tiered 439 619 729 846 1,142 1,180 1,180 1,196 Remain on TOU4 148,905 147,066 144,964 143,273 140,195 139,021 139,021 137,865

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecClosed 3,219 4,763 6,609 8,008 9,594 10,735 11,803 12,891 Switch to TOU4 7 7 9 13 13 15 16 16 Switch to other TOU 483 572 671 764 894 955 1,025 1,080 Switch to Tiered 399 564 649 745 950 1,020 1,058 1,086 Remain on TOU5 152,042 150,244 148,212 146,620 144,699 143,425 142,248 141,077

TOU4

TOU5

47,000

48,000

49,000

50,000

51,000

52,000

53,000

54,000

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Calls Cum

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Bill Protection Inquiry Explained TOU Rates High Bill InquiryTOU Opt Out Escalation

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Hits Marketing Drops

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

Control TOU-D-4 TOU-D-5

% w/ Disconnects

8.0%

8.5%

9.0%

9.5%

10.0%

10.5%

Control TOU-D-4 TOU-D-5

% in Arrears

0

100

200

3/4 4/4 5/4 6/4 7/4 8/4 9/4 10/4 11/4 12/4Online CCC

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Domestic TOU-D-4 TOU-D-5 TOU-D-A TOU-D-B TOU-D-T

TOU-D-4 TOU-D-5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

$-

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Acco

unts

Ear

ning

Cre

dits

(li

ne)

Aggr

egat

e Cr

edit

Earn

ed

(Col

umns

)

Active BP Paid Closed BP Paid Active # SA Closed # SA

Baseline (Nov 17)

Survey 1A (Apr 18)

Survey 1B (Jun 18)

Survey 2 (Nov 18)

AwarenessAwareness of TOU Rates 47% 62% 72% 73%Awareness of Tiered Rates 63% 67% 68% 66%Awareness of TOU Transition NA 34% 49% 48%Awareness of Rate Choices NA 75% 65% 49%Understanding of Bill Protection NA 17% 23% 17%Awareness of SCE Resources 64% 70% 69% 69%


STATE OF CALIFORNIA


R.12-06-013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY’S (U 338-E) FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS OF RESIDENTIAL RATE REFORM on all parties identified on the attached service list(s) for R.12-06-013 Service was effected by one or more means indicated below:

Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address. Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by US

Mail to the offices of the Commissioners(s) or other addresses(s).

ALJ Patrick Doherty ALJ Sophia Park CPUC 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Executed this February 1, 2019, at Rosemead, California.

/s/ Sandra Sedano Sandra Sedano Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

CPUC Home

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONService Lists

PROCEEDING: R1206013 - CPUC - OIR TO CONDUC FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: JANUARY 17, 2019

Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files

Back to Service Lists Index

Parties

BRAD HEAVNER MARGIE GARDNER CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSN. CAL. ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDUSTRY COUNCIL EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES FOR: CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSOCIATION (CALSEIA) INDUSTRY COUNCIL

MICHAEL CALLAHAN SACHU CONSTANTINE REG. COUNSEL DIR - POLICY MARIN CLEAN ENERGY CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: MARIN CLEAN ENERGY (MCE) FOR: CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

SCOTT BLAISING STEPHANIE C. CHEN BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN P.C. THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: LOCAL ENERGY AGGREGATION NETWORK FOR: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE

KEVIN T. FOX CHAIRMAN / PRESIDENT KEYS & FOX LLP LAT. BUS. CHAMBER OF GREATER L.A. 1580 LINCOLN STREET, STE. 880 634 S. SPRING STREET, STE 600 DENVER, CO 80203 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 FOR: SUNRUN, INC. FOR: LATINO BUSINESS CHAMBER OF GREATER LOS ANGELES

Page 1 of 19CPUC - Service Lists - R1206013

2/1/2019https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servicelists/R1206013_80447.htm

DANIEL W. DOUGLASS DANIEL W. DOULGASS ATTORNEY DOUGLASS & LIDDELL DOUGLASS & LIDDELL 4766 PARK GRANADA, STE. 209 4766 PARK GRANADA, SUITE 209 CALABASAS, CA 91302 CALABASAS, CA 91302 FOR: NEST LABS, INC. FOR: WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM/ALLIANCE FOR RETAIL ENERGY MARKETS/DIRECT ACCESSS CUSTONER COALITION

ROBIN MEIDHOF JANE KRIKORIAN, J.D. SR. ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR - ADMIN AND ADVOCACY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE 3405 KENYON STREET, SUITE 401 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR: UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK (UCAN)

MICHAEL SHAMES, ESQ. STEVEN C. NELSON SAN DIEGO CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK CHIEF REGULATORY COUNSEL 6975 CAMINO AMERO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32D FOR: SAN DIEGO CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (SDG&E)

MARK E. WHITLOCK, JR. CATHY ZHANG EXE. DIR. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECUMENICAL CTR. FOR BLACK CHURCH STUDIES CHINESE AM. INSTITUTE FOR EMPOWERMENT 46 MAXWELL ST 15 SOUTHGATE AVE., STE. 200 IRVINE, CA 92618 DALY CITY, CA 94015 FOR: ECUMENICAL CENTER FOR BLACK CHURCH FOR: CHINESE AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES (JT. PARTY) EMPOWERMENT (JT. PARTY)

FAITH BAUTISTA JOSEPH F. WIEDMAN PRESIDENT / CEO SR. REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE ANALYST NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY 15 SOUTHGATE AVE, STE. 200 400 COUNTY CENTER, SIXTH FL. DALY CITY, CA 94015 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 FOR: NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION FOR: PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY (PCE)

MARC D JOSEPH ELLISON FOLK ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, PC ATTORNEY 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 396 HAYES STREET FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 EMPLOYEES (CCUE) FOR: INTERSTATE RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL, INC.

HAYLEY GOODSON SHERYL CARTER STAFF ATTORNEY NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 111 SUTTTER ST., 20TH FLR. 785 MARKET ST., STE. 1400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-4540 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 FOR: NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FOR: TURN



CHRISTOPHER J. WARNER LARISSA KOEHLER ATTORNEY SENIOR ATTORNEY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 77 BEALE STREET, MC B30A, RM 3145 123 MISSION STREET, 28TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

NORA SHERIFF BRIAN CRAGG ATTORNEY ATTORNEY BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, DAY & LAMPREY 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS FOR: INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSOC./ENERGY PRODUCERS USERS COALITION ASSOCIATION

JEANNE ARMSTRONG SARA STECK MYERS ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP 122 28TH AVENUE 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOR: SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY

CHRIS S. KING WILLIAM NUSBAUM CHIEF POLICY OFFICER 1509 SYMPHONY CIRCLE EMETER, A SIEMENS BUSINESS BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 4000 E. THIRD AVE., 4TH FLOOR FOR: CFC FOUNDATION F/K/A CONSUMER FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA FOR: EMETER, A SIEMENS BUSINESS

CHRIS CONE DAVID WOOLEY POLICY MANAGER OF COUNSEL EFFICIENCY FIRST CALIFORNIA KEYES & FOX LLP 1000 BROADWAY, STE. 435 436 14TH STREET, STE. 1305 OAKLAND, CA 94607 OAKLAND, CA 94612 FOR: EFFICIENCY FIRST CALIFORNIA FOR: SOLARCITY CORPORATION

MARK FULMER TIM LINDL MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC COUNSEL 1814 FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 720 KEYES & FOX LLP OAKLAND, CA 94612 436 14TH STREET, STE. 1305 FOR: MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC OAKLAND, CA 94612 FOR: THE ALLIANCE FOR SOLAR CHOICE

MELISSA W. KASNITZ ALEX MORRIS CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY SR. DIR., POLICY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 3075 ADELINE STREET, SUITE 220 CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE BERKELEY, CA 94703 2150 ALLSTON WAY, SUITE 210 FOR: CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY BERKELEY, CA 94704 FOR: CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE (CESA)

ANDY KATZ BRAD BORDINE LAW OFFICES OF ANDY KATZ DISTRIBUTED ENERGY CONSUMER ADVOCATES



2001 ADDISON STREET, STE. 300 516 WHITEWOOD DRIVE BERKELEY, CA 94704 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 FOR: SIERRA CLUB FOR: DISTRIBUTED ENERGY CONSUMER ADVOCATES

TIM MCRAE STEVEN S. SHUPE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP GENERAL COUNSEL 2001 GATEWAY PLACE, STE. 101E SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY SAN JOSE, CA 95110 50 SANTA ROSA AVE., 5TH FL. FOR: SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 FOR: SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY (SCPA)

JORDAN PINJUV WAYNE AMER COUNSEL PRESIDENT CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR MOUNTAIN UTILITIES (906) 250 OUTCROPPING WAY PO BOX 205 FOLSOM, CA 95630 KIRKWOOD, CA 95646 FOR: CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM FOR: MOUNTAIN UTILITIES OPERATOR CORPORATION (CAISO)

ERIC EISENHAMMER ROBERT CASTANEDA COALITION OF ENERGY USERS PROTEUS, INC. 4010 FOOTHILLS BLVD., STE 103 NO. 115 1830 N. DINUBA BLVD. ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 VISALIA, CA 95814 FOR: COALITION OF ENERGY USERS FOR: PROTEUS, INC.

SCOTT BLAISING CHASE KAPPEL ATTORNEY ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. 2600 CAPITOL AVE., SUITE 400 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FOR: VOTE SOLAR FOR: CITY OF LANCASTER

LAURA FERNANDEZ KAREN NORENE MILLS ATTORNEY ATTORNEY BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 2300 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CA 95822 SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 FOR: SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY FOR: CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AUTHORITY

WILLIAM MAGUIRE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LEGAL DIVISION 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834 FOR: PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE (FORMERLY ORA)

Information Only

AARON (YICHEN) LU AHMAD FARUQUI PROGRAM COORDINATOR THE BRATTLE GROUP CITY OF SAN DIEGO EMAIL ONLY



EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

ANDREW BROWN ANDY BLAUVELT ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE SOLAR HOMES EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: THE MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE SOLAR HOMES COALITION

BARBARA BARKOVICH BRIAN GEISER CONSULTANT EMAIL ONLY BARKOVICH & YAP EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

C. C. SONG CARMELITA L. MILLER SR. POLICY ANALYST LEGAL COUNSEL MARIN CLEAN ENERGY THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: MARIN CLEAN ENERGY

CASE COORDINATION DAMON FRANZ PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIRECTOR - POLICY & ELECTRICITY MARKETS EMAIL ONLY TESLA, INC. EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

DAVID HUANG DONALD LIDDELL LEGAL FELLOW DOUGLASS & LIDDELL THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

EBCE REGULATORY ELI HARLAND EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION EMAIL ONLY ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DIV. EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

FRANCOIS CARLIER GAIL L. SLOCUM CODA STRATEGIES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

GARY HO GEOFF MCLENNAN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

HANNA GRENE JACK F. PARKHILL CENTER FOR SUSTAINBLE ENERGY EMAIL ONLY



EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

JEREMY WAEN JOELLE STEWARD SR. REGULATORY ANALYST PACIFICORP MARIN CLEAN ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, OR 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

JOSH BODE KAREN HERTER NEXANT HERTER ENERGY RESEARCH SOLUTIONS EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

KAREN SHEA KAVYA BALARAMAN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY STAFF WRITER / REPORTER EMAIL ONLY CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

MARCUS COLE MARY HOFFMAN ZIMMER PARTNERS SOLUTIONS FOR UTILITIES, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

MATTHEW FREEDMAN MCE REGULATORY THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK MARIN CLEAN ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

MELISSA P. MARTIN NAT TREADWAY SENIOR REGULATORY COUNSEL DISTRIBUTED ENERGY FINANCIAL GROUP STATESIDE ASSOCIATES EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, TX 00000 EMAIL ONLY, VA 00000

OWEN SANFORD PATTI LANDRY TESLA, INC. REGULATORY ANALYST EMAIL ONLY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

PAUL D. HERNANDEZ PAUL D. HERNANDEZ PUBLIC POLICY & GOV. RELATIONS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ENVOY TECHNOLOGIES INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

PAUL NELSON RICK AS. WALTMAN BARKOVICH & YAP UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS



ASSOCIATION

ROGER LEVY SCOTT ENGSTROM LEVY ASSOCIATES EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

SEAN P. BEATTY SEPHRA A. NINOW, J.D. DIRECTOR - WEST REGULATORY AFFAIRS REGULATORY AFFAIRS MGR. NRG WEST CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

SHALINI SWAROOP SHARON YANG REGULATORY COUNSEL DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES MARIN CLEAN ENERGY LIBERTY UTILITIES (WEST REGION) EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, AA 00000

STEPHEN GEORGE STEPHEN LUDWICK NEXANT ZIMMER PARTNERS EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

SUSANNAH CHURCHILL TADASHI GONDAI SOLAR POLICY ADVOCATE SR. ATTORNEY / DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS VOTE SOLAR NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

TIM MASON MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC POLICY DIRECTOR EMAIL ONLY LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

HERTER ENERGY CAMERON-DANIEL, P.C. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

BENJAMIN AIRTH DAVID MARCUS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000-0000 EAMIL ONLY, CA 00000-0000

NANCY BROCKWAY PAUL CHERNICK NBROCKWAY & ASSOCIATES PRESIDENT 10 ALLEN STREET RESOURCE INSIGHT BOSTON, MA 02131 5 WATER ST. ARLINGTON, MA 02476

SUSAN GELLER ABRAHAM SILVERMAN



SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE ASSIST. GEN. COUNSEL - REGULATORY RESOURCE INSIGHT NRG ENERGY, INC. 5 WATER ST. 211 CARNEGIE CENTER DRIVE ARLINGTON, MA 02476 PRINCETON, NJ 08540 FOR: NRG HOME

MICHAEL PANFIL PATRICK JOBIN ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC 257 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, FLOOR 16 ONE MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10010 NEW YORK, NY 10010

JAMES (JIM) VON RIESEMANN ARMAN TABATABAI MIZUHO SECURITIES USA, INC. RESEARCH 320 PARK AVENUE, 12TH FLOOR MORGAN STANLEY NEW YORK, NY 10022 1585 BROADWAY, 38TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 10036

GREGORY REISS DAN DELUREY MILLENNIUM MANAGEMENT LLC DEMAND RESPONSE AND SMART GRID COALITION 666 FIFTH AVENUE, 8TH FLOOR 1301 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW, STE. 350 NEW YORK, NY 10103 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 FOR: DEMAND RESPONSE AND SMART GRID COALITION

PAUL M. PIETSCH RUTH HUPART RESEARCH COORDINATOR SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION DRSG COALITION 1220 19TH STREET, NW, STE. 800 1301 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW, STE. 350 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

KATHERINE HOFFMASTER DAVID P. LOWREY SR. REGULATORY AFFAIRS ANALYST DIRECTOR, REGULATORY STRATEGY NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES COMVERGE, INC. 700 UNIVERSE BLVD., FEJ/JB 999 18TH STREET, SUITE 2300 JUNO BEACH, FL 33405 DENVER, CO 80202

KELLY CRANDALL RICK GILLIAM EQ RESEARCH, LLC VOTE SOLAR 1400 16TH ST., 16 MARKET SQR., STE. 400 1120 PEARL STREET DENVER, CO 80202 BOULDER, CO 80302

MATTHEW H. LANGER NANCY WHANG COO GENERAL COUNSEL CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 90013 EMAIL ONLY, CA 90013

EDWARD JACKSON JUDY NEYMAN DIR - REVENUE REQUIREMENTS COLEMAN INC. LIBERTY UTILITIES (CALIFORNIA) 87 E. GREEN STREET, SUITE 205 9750 WASHBURN ROAD / PO BOX 7002 PASADENA, CA 91105 DOWNEY, CA 90241-7002



PEGGY COLEMAN CASE ADMINISTRATION COLEMAN INC. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 87 E. GREEN STREET, SUITE 205 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800 PASADENA, CA 91105 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

CONNOR FLANIGAN RAQUEL IPPOLITI ATTORNEY PROJECT ANALYST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. 2244 WANUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ROSEMED, CA 91770 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

RUSSELL GARWACKI SPENCER EDMISTON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CORPORATE FINANCIAL PLANNING 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. EDISON INTERNATIONAL ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

WILLIAM K. BRIGGS NGUYEN QUAN ATTORNEY MGR - REGULATORY AFFAIRS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY GOLDEN STATE WATER CO. - ELECTRIC OP. 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. / PO BOX 800 630 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 SAN DIMAS, CA 91773 FOR: GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY / BEAR VALLEY ELECTRIC

COURTNEY COOK DAVID CROYLE PARALEGAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK 3405 KENYON STREET, SUITE 401 3405 KENYON STREET, STE. 401 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

EDWARD LOPEZ JOHN W. LESLIE, ESQ. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ATTORNEY UTILITY CONSUMERSâ€™ ACTION NETWORK DENTONS US LLP 3405 KENYON ST. SUITE 401 4655 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, STE. 700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121

ANNLYN FAUSTINO CENTRAL FILES REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE SDG&E / SOCALGAS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP31-E 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

CHRIS BENDER GREGORY ANDERSON SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY CALIFORNIA REGULAROTY AFFAIRS 8690 BALBOA AVE., STE. 10 (CPA01) SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

HORACE TANTUM JOHN A. PACHECO MARKETING MGR., RESCH & ANALYTICS SR. COUNSEL SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8326 CENTURY PARK CT., CP62E 8330 CENTURY PARK CT., CP32



SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

MICHELLE SOMERVILLE ROLAND MULLEN REGULATORY CASE MGR. MARKETING MGR. AND RESEARCH SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F 8690 BALBOA AVENUE, CPA03 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

SABRINA BUTLER SANDRA BAULE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY RATE REFORM MGR, CUSTOMER SVC. 9305 LIGHWAVE AVE. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 8335 CENTURY PARK CT., CP12F SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

CHARLES R. MANZUK CYNTHIA FANG DIR. - RATES & REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32E 8330 CENTURY PARK CT, CP31E SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1530 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1530

DANA GOLAN STEVE RAHON SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DIR., TARIFF & REGULATORY ACCTS 8330 CENTURY PARK CT., CP421 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (902) SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1530 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32C SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1548

WILLIAM FULLER SHEILA LEE CALIF. REGULATORY AFFAIRS SR. POLICY ADVISOR SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F 8335 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP 12H SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1548 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1569

JANETTE OLKO JEFF HIRSCH ELECTRIC UTILITY DIVISION MANAGER JAMES J. HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 12185 PRESILLA ROAD 14325 FREDERICK ST., STE. 9 SANTA ROSA VALLEY, CA 93012-9243 MORENO VALLEY, CA 92552

MONA TIERNEY-LLOYD CATHY DEFALCO, EJD, C.P.M. SR. DIR., WESTERN REG. AFFAIRS ENERGY MGR. - REGULATORY ENEL X NORTH AMERICA, INC. CITY OF LANCASTER PO BOX 378 44933 FERN AVENUE CAYUCOS, CA 93430 LANCASTER, CA 93534

AARON J. LEWIS ROBERT GNAIZDA COUNSEL OF COUNSEL NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION 15 SOUTHGATE AVE., STE. 200 15 SOUTHGATE AVE., STE. 200 DALY CITY, CA 94015 DALY CITY, CA 94015

EDWARD G. CAZALET SUE MARA CEO CONSULTANT TEMIX, INC. RTO ADVISORS, LLC



101 FIRST STREET, STE. 552 164 SPRINGDALE WAY LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062

DAVID A. SILBERMAN NIRIT ERIKSSON GENERAL COUNSEL SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE 400 COUNTY CENTER, 6TH FL. 400 COUNTY CENTER, 6TH FL. REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 FOR: PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR: PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY

MARC D. JOSEPH MILA A. BUCKNER ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO ATTORNEY 601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080

HILARY STAVER LAURA D. BEATON REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE ANALYST ATTORNEY SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 333 W. EL CAMINO REAL, STE. 290 396 HAYES STREET SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 FOR: SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY (SVCE)

PATRICK DOHERTY ROSANNE O'HARA CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES LEGAL DIVISION ROOM 5044 ROOM 5039 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

ADAM GERZA ERIC BORDEN SULLIVAN SOLAR POWER OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ENERGY POLICY ANALYST 169 11TH STREET THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 785 MARKET STREET, STE. 1400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

MARCEL HAWIGER MERRIAN BORGESON STAFF ATTORNEY SR. SCIENTIST, ENERGY PROGRAM THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 785 MARKET ST., STE. 1400 111 SUTTER ST., 21ST FL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

MICHAEL SULLIVAN ALLEN F. SMITH FREEMAN SULLIVAN & CO. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 101 MONTGOMERY ST., 15TH FLOOR 77 BEALE STREET, ROOM 978 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

BUCHALTER DOCKET CATHERINE TARASOVA BUCHALTER PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 77 BEALE ST., RM. 1053, MC B10A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105



CHARLES R. MIDDLEKAUFF DEREK JONES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. 77 BEALE STREET, B30A / BOX 7442 ONE MARKET ST., SPEAR TOWER, SUITE 1200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

JAMIE FINE JANE OLIVEIRA SR. ECONOMIST PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 77 BEALE STREE B10B 123 MISSION ST., 28TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FOR: ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

LISA M. RAYMOND MARGOT EVERETT BUCHALTER SENIOR DIRECTOR 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 77 BEALE ST., B10B SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

MELICIA CHARLES MIKE CADE SUNRUN INC. BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 595 MARKET STREET, 29TH FL. 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

SHIREY A. WOO BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEY 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 77 BEALE STREET, B30A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

EVELYN KAHL LILLIAN RAFII ATTORNEY ATTORNEY BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 55 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1700 55 SECOND STREET, STE. 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3493 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3493

TONY ROBERTS ANDY SCHWARTZ CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA TESLA, INC. 150 POST STREET, STE. 442 444 DE HARO ST., STE. 101 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107

CHARLIE BUCK ELIAH GILFENBAUM MGR, MARKET DEV. & REGULATORY AFFAIRS DEPUTY DIR ORACLE / OPOWER TESLA, INC. WEST DIVISION 444 DE HARO STREET, STE. 101 680 FOLSOM STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107

FRANCESCA WAHL SERJ BERELSON SR. POLICY ASSOCIATE, BUS. DEVELOPMENT OPOWER TESLA, INC. 680 FOLSOM STREET, 3RD FLOOR 444 DE HARO STREET, STE. 101 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107



ALEX SHARKEY KATIE EDSON DDB SAN FRANCISCO ACCOUNT SUPERVISOR 600 CALIFORNIA ST, 7TH FLOOR DDB SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 600 CALIFORNIA ST, 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108

MATT PERRY MOLLY BRASSER DDB SAN FRANCISCO DDB SAN FRANCISCO 600 CALIFORNIA ST, 7TH FLOOR 600 CALIFORNIA ST, 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108

OLETTA REED CASSANDRA SWEET DDB SAN FRANCISCO REPORTER 600 CALIFORNIA ST, 7TH FLOOR DOW JONES NEWSWIRES SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 201 CALIFORNIA ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

VIDHYA PRABHAKARAN VIDHYA PRABHAKARAN ATTORNEY ATTORNEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DAVIS WRIGHT & TREMAINE LLP 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC

BRIAN ORION CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS LAWYERS FOR CLEAN ENERGY 425 DIVISADERO ST STE 303 656A CLAYTON STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117-2242 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117

STEPHEN M. BARRAGER MELISSA BRANDT BAKER STREET PUBLISHING, LLC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC OCMPANY 2703 BRODERICK STREET PO BOX 770000, MC B10A SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177

RICK COUNIHAN MARC KOLB NEST LABS, INC. TESLA, INC. 3400 HILLVIEW AVENUE 3055 CLEARVIEW WAY PALO ALTO, CA 94304 SAN MATEO, CA 94402

BONNIE DATTA KERRY HATTEVIK SIEMENS USA REG. DIR.- WEST GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 4000 E. THIRD AVENUE NEXT ERA ENERGY RESOURCES LLC FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 829 ARLINGTON BLVD. EL CERRITO, CA 94530

MATTHEW BARMACK MELISSA BRANDT DIR. - MARKET & REGULATORY ANALYSIS EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY CALPINE CORPORATION 1111 BROADWAY, SUITE 3000 4160 DUBLIN BLVD., SUITE 100 OAKLAND, CA 94607 DUBLIN, CA 94568

CATHY YAP JASON B. KEYES



BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. ATTORNEY PO BOX 11031 KEYES & FOX LLP OAKLAND, CA 94611 436 14TH STREET, STE. 1305 OAKLAND, CA 94612

MATTHEW VESPA REKHA RAO SR. ATTORNEY NEXTILITY SIERRA CLUB 2015 SHATTUCK AVE., 5TH FLOOR 2101 WEBSTER ST., STE. 1300 BERKELEY, CA 94704 OAKLAND, CA 94612

TOM BEACH ANDREW G. CAMPBELL PRINCIPAL EXEC.DIR.- ENERGY INSTITUTE AT HAAS CROSSBORDER ENERGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 213A 2547 CHANNING WAY BERKELEY, CA 94710 BERKELEY, CA 94720-5180

NATHANIEL MALCOLM JASON SIMON REGULATORY LAW CLERK DIR - POLICY STRATEGY MARIN CLEAN ENERGY ENPHASE ENERGY 1125 TAMALPAIS AVE. 1420 N. MCDOWELL BLVD. SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 PETALUMA, CA 94954

JENNIFER HOLMES C. SUSIE BERLIN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT LAW OFFICES OF SUSIE BERLIN PO BOX 4235 1346 THE ALAMEDA, STE. 7, NO. 141 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95063 SAN JOSE, CA 95126

JIMI NETNISS SCOTT VAN VUREN MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1231 11TH STREET 1231 11TH STREET MODESTO, CA 95354 MODESTO, CA 95354

BRIAN THEAKER WILLIAM MARCUS DIRECTOR - MARKET AFFAIRS MCPM ECONOMICS NRG ENERGY, INC. 618 COURT ST., STE. C 3161 KEN DEREK LANE WOODLAND, CA 95695 PLACERVILLE, CA 95667 FOR: TURN

CURT BARRY DAN GRIFFITHS SENIOR WRITER ATTORNEY CLEAN ENERGY REPORT BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. 717 K STREET, SUITE 503 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

EYITEJUMADE SOGBESAN JUSTIN WYNNE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ATTORNEY DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. 300 Capitol Mall 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 Sacramento, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 FOR: CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION (CMUA)



KEVIN WOODRUFF NANCY SARACINO CONSULTANT MANAGING ATTORNEY WOODRUFF EXPERT SERVICES WESTERN ENERGY & WATER 1127 - 11TH STREET, SUITE 514 500 CAPITOL MALL, STE. 2350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

REGULATORY CLERK SARAH KOZAL BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, PC ATTORNEY 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 WESTERN ENERGY & WATER SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 500 CAPITOL MALL, STE. 2350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

STEVEN KELLY RONALD LIEBERT POLICY DIR ATTORNEY AT LAW INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS 1215 K STREET, STE. 900 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 FOR: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & TECHNOLOGY ASSN

LYNN HAUG ANN L. TROWBRIDGE ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS L.L.P. ATTORNEY 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 DAY CARTER & MURPHY LLP SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-5931 3620 AMERICAN RIVER DR., STE. 205 SACRAMENTO, CA 95864

BOB DODDS CALIFORNIA PACIFIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC 933 ELOISE AVENUE 933 ELOISE AVENUE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA 96150 FOR: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC

SARA BIRMINGHAM CATHIE ALLEN SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION DIR - REGULATORY AFFAIRS 3300 NE 157TH PLACE PACIFICORP PORTLAND, OR 97230 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST., STE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97232

SARAH WALLACE DYLAN KENT SENIOR ATTORNEY IPSOS PACIFICORP 1299-1201 3RD AVE 825 NE MULTNOMAH, STE. 1800 SEATTLE, WA 98101 PORTLAND, OR 97232 FOR: PACIFICORP

JUDI HARRIS NKECHI OGBUE IPSOS MGR - REGULATORY AFFAIRS 1299-1201 3RD AVE ECOBEE, INC. SEATTLE, WA 98101 250 UNIVERSITY AVE. SUITE 400 TORONTO, ON M5H 3E5 CANADA



State Service

BENJAMIN GUTIERREZ JESSICA T. HECHT CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ALJ ORA - ECPCP CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

NOEL OBIORA PAUL S. PHILLIPS ATTORNEY CPUC CPUC ENERGY DIV EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

SCOTT MURTISHAW SHANNON O'ROURKE ENERGY ADVISOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CPUC - EXEC DIV ENERGY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

TIM DREW TORY FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION EMAIL ONLY ENERGY DIVISION - RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

WHITNEY RICHARDSON ZAIDA C. AMAYA CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ENERGY DIVISION - RETAIL RATES ENERGY DIVISION - RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

AVA N. TRAN CHARLOTTE CHITADJE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BROADBAND, POLICY & ANALYSIS BRANCH ENERGY COST OF SERVICE & NATURAL GAS BRA AREA 4-A AREA 3-C 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

CHERIE CHAN CHRISTOPHER HOGAN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM AREA AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

CODY NAYLOR DAVID PECK CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION ENFORCEMENT BRANCH PRESIDENT PICKER AREA ROOM 4108 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

DEVLA SINGH DEXTER E. KHOURY



CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CARRIER OVERSIGHT AND PROGRAMS BRANCH ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ROOM 3-F ROOM 4209 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

ERIC DURAN GABRIEL PETLIN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN ROOM 4011 AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JAMES SIMMONS JAMIE ORMOND CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WATER BRANCH PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND OVERSIGHT BRANC ROOM 4209 AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

LEE-WHEI TAN LOUIS M. IRWIN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ROOM 4102 ROOM 4209 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

MARNA ANNING MARZIA ZAFAR CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION UTILITY & PAYPHONE ENFORCEMENT BRANCH POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION AREA ROOM 5119 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

MASOUD FOUDEH MATTHEW A. KARLE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM AREA ROOM 4108 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

MICHELE KITO NATHAN BARCIC CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND OVERSIGHT BRANC INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND PERMITTING B AREA 4-A AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

NATHAN CHAU NEHA BAZAJ CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN AREA AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214



RAJAN MUTIALU ROBERT LEVIN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION ENERGY DIVISION AREA 4-A AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

SEAN A. SIMON SOPHIA PARK CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMISSIONER RECHTSCHAFFEN DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AREA 4-A ROOM 5019 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

STEPHEN C. ROSCOW STEPHEN ST. MARIE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION ROOM 5015 ROOM 5119 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

VALERIE KAO YULIYA SHMIDT CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES COMMISSIONER RECHTSCHAFFEN ROOM 5005 ROOM 4209 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

ZHEN ZHANG LYNN MARSHALL CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONSULTANT DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION ROOM 5041 1516 9TH STREET, MS-20 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

MATT COLDWELL PATRICK SAXTON CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION ADVISOR TO COMM. ANDREW MCALLISTER ELECTRICITY ANALYSIS OFFICE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-20 1516 NINTH ST., MS-37 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

ROBERT RIDGLEY TIFFANY MATEO ENERGY COMMISSION SPECIALIST I MECHANICAL ENGINEER CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-26 BLDG & COMPLIANCE OFFICE, EFFICIENCY DIV SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-26 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512

BRIDGET SIEREN-SMITH CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DEMAND RESPONSE, CUSTOMER GENERATION, AN 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95834



TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS



BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ... · 1/2/2019 · Community-Based...

Documents

Transcript of BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ... · 1/2/2019 · Community-Based...