about Commission-authorized utility programs. In addition, this rule as proposed could restrict utility communications on issues unrelated to CCAs, which would not be in the interests of customers. For these reasons, the similar rule proposed in the OIR for the proceeding was removed from the revised rules included in the Scoping Memo. Other rules adopted here already prohibit utilities from marketing against a CCA using ratepayer money, and from providing false or misleading information about utility programs. In the future, if a CCA or other group finds specific instances in which it believes that a communication in or on a billing envelope either violates the requirement that marketing against a CCA is fully shareholder funded or is otherwise in violation of the rules, the CCA may file an expedited complaint. In addition, if a CCA finds examples of information included in or on a billing envelope that it believes is harmful to a CCA or creates a competitive disadvantage for a CCA, it may bring such instances to the Commission’s attention and we may reconsider the need to add such a rule. At this time, however, we decline to adopt such a rule in the absence of a clear indication that it is needed. Affiliate Transaction Rule In its opening comments on the Scoping Memo, PG&E states that the modified draft rules in the Code of Conduct distributed with the scoping memo requires not only that any marketing conducted by a utility against a CCA must go through an “independent marketing division,” but that the rules require that such marketing “must be done through a separate affiliate.” PG&E recommends instead that it is sufficient for marketing to be conducted through a functionally and physically separate division funded by shareholders, and describes the measures that it has taken to ensure proper accounting of such activities. PG&E
about Commission-authorized utility programs. In addition, this rule as proposed could restrict utility communications on issues unrelated to CCAs, which would not be in the interests of customers. For these reasons, the similar rule proposed in the OIR for the proceeding was removed from the revised rules included in the Scoping Memo. Other rules adopted here already prohibit utilities from marketing against a CCA using ratepayer money, and from providing false or misleading information about utility programs. In the future, if a CCA or other group finds specific instances in which it believes that a communication in or on a billing envelope either violates the requirement that marketing against a CCA is fully shareholder funded or is otherwise in violation of the rules, the CCA may file an expedited complaint. In addition, if a CCA finds examples of information included in or on a billing envelope that it believes is harmful to a CCA or creates a competitive disadvantage for a CCA, it may bring such instances to the Commission’s attention and we may reconsider the need to add such a rule. At this time, however, we decline to adopt such a rule in the absence of a clear indication that it is needed. Affiliate Transaction Rule In its opening comments on the Scoping Memo, PG&E states that the modified draft rules in the Code of Conduct distributed with the scoping memo requires not only that any marketing conducted by a utility against a CCA must go through an “independent marketing division,” but that the rules require that such marketing “must be done through a separate affiliate.” PG&E recommends instead that it is sufficient for marketing to be conducted through a functionally and physically separate division funded by shareholders, and describes the measures that it has taken to ensure proper accounting of such activities. PG&E