opt out of default TOU and bill protection. SDG&E also contends that there is no evidence in the record that there exists any significant number of customers who are eligible but not already identified as qualified for an inperson visit prior to disconnection. Based on customer records, SDG&E’s system is able to identify the customers who require an inperson visit prior to disconnection, and therefore, must be excluded from default TOU pursuant to Section 745(c)(1) and D.1203054. SDG&E’s system is able to identify customers on medical baseline and customers that have provided a certification regarding a serious illness or condition. CforAT raises concerns that there may be a population that is eligible for an inperson visit prior to disconnection but is not identified in SDG&E’s system as requiring an inperson visit. The requirements of Section 745(c)(1) apply to “customers that the commission has ordered cannot be disconnected from service without an inperson visit from a utility representative” in D.1203054. We agree with SDG&E that there is a distinction between customers that require an inperson visit pursuant to D.1203054 and customers that may be eligible for an inperson visit. For example, D.1203054 orders that customers on medical baseline shall not be disconnected without an inperson visit but does not impose this same requirement with respect to customers that may be eligible for medical baseline but not enrolled on the program. We find that SDG&E’s plan to identify and exclude the customers identified in D.1203054 as requiring an inperson visit prior to disconnection complies with the mandates in Section 745(c)(1) and we do not find that the halting of default TOU to identify additional customers that may be eligible is warranted. Based on the record of this proceeding, there is no clear indication that there are a large number of customers who may be eligible for an inperson
opt out of default TOU and bill protection. SDG&E also contends that there is no evidence in the record that there exists any significant number of customers who are eligible but not already identified as qualified for an inperson visit prior to disconnection. Based on customer records, SDG&E’s system is able to identify the customers who require an inperson visit prior to disconnection, and therefore, must be excluded from default TOU pursuant to Section 745(c)(1) and D.1203054. SDG&E’s system is able to identify customers on medical baseline and customers that have provided a certification regarding a serious illness or condition. CforAT raises concerns that there may be a population that is eligible for an inperson visit prior to disconnection but is not identified in SDG&E’s system as requiring an inperson visit. The requirements of Section 745(c)(1) apply to “customers that the commission has ordered cannot be disconnected from service without an inperson visit from a utility representative” in D.1203054. We agree with SDG&E that there is a distinction between customers that require an inperson visit pursuant to D.1203054 and customers that may be eligible for an inperson visit. For example, D.1203054 orders that customers on medical baseline shall not be disconnected without an inperson visit but does not impose this same requirement with respect to customers that may be eligible for medical baseline but not enrolled on the program. We find that SDG&E’s plan to identify and exclude the customers identified in D.1203054 as requiring an inperson visit prior to disconnection complies with the mandates in Section 745(c)(1) and we do not find that the halting of default TOU to identify additional customers that may be eligible is warranted. Based on the record of this proceeding, there is no clear indication that there are a large number of customers who may be eligible for an inperson
249661966.docx