STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

December 27, 2016

Clay Faber - Director
CA & Federal Regulatory
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
8330 Century Park Court
San Diego, CA 92123-1548
Email: cfaber@semprautilities.com
Re: SDG&E’s A.L. 3008-E
Dear Mr. Faber:
The Energy Division staff has reviewed the above mentioned advice letter and the attached Compliance Plan
submitted by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) dated November 21, 2016.
The Compliance Plan San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) submitted with the advice letter is not in
compliance with Commission Resolution E-4864.
SDG&E has filed an application for rehearing on Resolution E-4874. However, that pending application does
not stay the effective date of Resolution E-4874 and does not excuse noncompliance with the requirements of
Resolution E-4874.
Ordering Paragraph (OP) 2 requires SDG&E to “file a revised Compliance Plan, via Tier 2 advice letter,
reflecting the information contained in their data request responses and the directions of these ordering
paragraphs [emphasis added.]” SDG&E’s revised compliance plan does not reflect the directions of OPs 5, 6,
7, and 8, as discussed below.
A.L. 3008-E is not compliant with OP 5. OP 5 requires: “The Independent Marketing Division shall operate
as a “Rule II.B” affiliate and shall be subject to all of the Commission’s Affiliate Transaction Rules.” A.L.
3008-E does not address SDG&E’s status as a Rule II.B affiliate anywhere in the compliance plan, and thus is
non-compliant.
A.L. 3008-E is not compliant with OP 6. OP 6 requires: “The Independent Marketing Division, an affiliate,
shall comply with the logo/disclaimer requirements of Affiliate Transactions Rule V.F.” A.L. 3008-E does not
address the logo/disclaimer requirements of Affiliate Transactions Rule V.F. anywhere in the compliance plan,
and thus is non-compliant.
A.L. 3008-E is not compliant with OP 7. OP 7 requires:
“San Diego Gas and Electric Company shall not share with its Independent Marketing Division,
employees or agents (including contractors or consultants) who are themselves involved in marketing
or lobbying. “Involved in marketing or lobbying” shall be interpreted by review of the job functions of
the personnel in question. This review shall focus on the duties and responsibilities of the personnel,
not merely the title or department.”

 Clay Faber
December 27, 2016
Page 2
Furthermore, Resolution E-4874 explicitly stated:
Because the language of COC [Code of Conduct] Rule 13 specifically prohibits the sharing of
personnel that ‘are themselves engaged in marketing or lobbying‛ and does not specify the
departments or titles of such personnel, we are concerned that unless the job functions are used in
complying with this COC, it would circumvent the purpose of the COC. If job functions are not used
as the determinant, the electrical corporation could use certain titles such as communications, public
affairs, or regulatory relations for personnel actually engaged in lobbying and marketing.
Although SDG&E expanded the term “personnel” to include agents as well as employees, it did not address
how SDG&E would conduct a holistic review of the job functions. SDG&E asserts that permissible shared
services should include regulatory affairs and legal, among other things, and provides no holistic review of
their job functions. Thus, A.L. 3008-E is non-compliant.
A.L. 3008-E is not compliant with OP 8. OP 8 requires:
“San Diego Gas and Electric Company and its Independent Marketing Division, Sempra Services
Corporation, shall conduct training for all its employees and agents, including contractors and
consultants, to ensure that they are in compliance with the Community Choice Aggregation Code of
Conduct and with the Affiliate Transaction Rules. San Diego Gas and Electric Company and Sempra
Services Corporation also shall conduct audits and compliance reviews to ensure the rules are being
followed.”
While A.L. 3008-E does state that CCA COC training will be provided for employees, it does not address
whether CCA COC training will be provided to agents, including contractors and consultants. Thus, A.L.
3008-E is non-compliant.
The Energy Division rejects AL 3008-E for the lack of compliance with the Ordering Paragraphs of
Resolution E-4874, as discussed above. The pending application for rehearing on Resolution E-4874 does not
excuse noncompliance with the above listed requirements. The requirements of Resolution E-4874 remain in
effect unless and until the Commission finds otherwise. The Compliance Plan submitted with AL 3008-E was
updated to reflect information contained in their data request responses, but not updated to reflect the above
listed Ordering Paragraphs.
Consequently, AL 3008-E is non-compliant with Resolution E-4874, and is therefore rejected.
Sincerely,

Edward Randolph
Director-Energy Division

Cc: EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov
Cc: Megan Caulson Regulatory Tariff Manager, mcaulson@semprautilities.com