Public Affairs and Communications - Home | San Diego Gas ... · Public Affairs and Communications 1. In response to DR6, No. 3, you indicate that “$129,000 has been provided for

UCAN DATA REQUEST NUMBER 16 A.02-12-028

SDG&E RESPONSE Public Affairs and Communications 1. In response to DR6, No. 3, you indicate that “$129,000 has been provided for support work”. Please

identify the SDG&E accounts from which these monies were paid. SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects to this question on the grounds, among others, that it exceeds the scope of this proceeding and is irrelevant. Without waiving any objections to UCAN's request, however, SDG&E responds as follows: The SDG&E account from which these monies were paid is 183, in support of Transmission Capital.


SDG&E RESPONSE 2. In response to DR6, Nos. 3 & 4, you state that “SDG&E does not seek to recover any costs associated

with the Valley-Rainbow project in A. 02-12-027”. However, in response to DR6, no. 7, SDG&E lists numerous vendors who may have worked on Valley-Rainbow related projects. Please clarify whether any of the costs listed in Response No. 7 include Valley-Rainbow related costs and, if so, quantify that amount.

SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects on the grounds of relevance. SDG&E does not seek to recover any costs associated with the Valley-Rainbow project in A. 02-12-028. Without waiving any objections to UCAN’s request, SDG&E responds as follows: In the base year 2001, approximately $354,000 was paid for non -Valley Rainbow related expenditures and is included in this proceeding.


SDG&E RESPONSE 3. In response to DR6, No. 7, you request that we indicate specific vendors for which we seek itemized

project detail. While we will forego asking for specific itemized details for each vendor transaction at the present time (so as to minimize burdens on SDG&E), we do request that you provide detailed descriptions of the roles of each of the following vendors in the years indicated and the accounts to which these costs were charged. In so doing, please specify whether any of the costs are attributable to activities relating to the Valley-Rainbow issue:

a. Premier Food Services (2002-2003) b. Primacy Group (2001) c. O’Reilly Public Relations (2001-2) d. Mac Strobl (2001) e. Temecula Creek Inn (2001) f. Coors Amphitheatre (2001) g. San Diego Baseball (2002) h. Paul L. O’Neal (2002) i. Maryann Edwards (2001) j. Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin & Assoc. (2003) k. Encinitas Chamber of Commerce (2002) l. Brian P. Simpson (2002-3) m. San Diego Ballpark Funding (2002) n. San Diego Padres (2002) o. Democracy Data Communications (2002) p. Southwest Strategies LLC (2003)

SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects on the grounds of relevance. SDG&E does not seek to recover any costs associated with the Valley-Rainbow project in A. 02-12-028. Without waiving any objections to UCAN’s request, SDG&E responds as follows:

a. Premier Food Services (2002-2003)

Internal catering services – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

b. Primacy Group (2001)

Consulting Services for SDG&E Franchise – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

c. O’Reilly Public Relations (2001-2)

Consulting Services for Valley Rainbow – Account 183, in support of Transmission Capital These charges are not included in the Cost of Service filing.


SDG&E RESPONSE Response to Question 3 (Continued) d. Mac Strobl (2001)


e. Temecula Creek Inn (2001)

Services provided for rental of facilities and catering related to the Valley Rainbow project – Account 183, in support of Transmission Capital These charges are not included in the Cost of Service filing.

f. Coors Amphitheatre (2001)

Season concert tickets – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

g. San Diego (State University) Baseball (2002)

Tickets to SDSU Aztec Baseball Alumni Weekend – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

h. Paul L. O’Neal (2002)


i. Maryann Edwards (2001)


j. Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin & Assoc. (2003) Assessment of proposed governmental actions that impact SDG&E customers and the reliability of service – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

k. Encinitas Chamber of Commerce (2002)

Event Sponsor – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.


SDG&E RESPONSE Response to Question 3 (Continued) l. Brian P. Simpson (2002-3)

Consulting Services for Valley Rainbow – Account 183, in support of Transmission Capital. SDGE’s internal accounting record description shows ‘Brian Simpson’, another vendor, rather than the actual recipient Brian Bilbray; this is a transcription error by a miscommunication in the Accounting Department regarding the accounting information. These charges are not included in the Cost of Service filing.

m. San Diego Ballpark Funding (2002) San Diego Padres season tickets – Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

n. San Diego Padres (2002)

San Diego Padres season tickets - Account FC9210002100 No charges related to Valley Rainbow for this vendor.

o. Democracy Data Communications (2002)

Database collection and management of employees and retirees for projects in SDG&E’s service territory – Account FC9210002100 Consulting Services for Valley Rainbow – Account 183, in support of Transmission Capital. These charges are not included in the Cost of Service filing.

p. Southwest Strategies LLC (2003)

See UCAN 006, question number 14


SDG&E RESPONSE

4. Please quantify the total amount of costs incurred by the Regional Public Affairs division for which SDG&E is seeking recovery in FERC Docket ER03-601-000.

SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects to this question on the grounds, among others, that it exceeds the scope of this proceeding, is vague and ambiguous, and is irrelevant.


SDG&E RESPONSE 5. Please indicate the subset of the costs identified in response to Question 4 that are being sought for

recovery of Valley-Rainbow related costs. SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects to this question on the grounds, among others, that it exceeds the scope of this proceeding, is vague and ambiguous, and is irrelevant.


SDG&E RESPONSE 6. In response to UCAN DR6, no. 9, you indicate that a Public Affairs Manager spent 15 hours and a

Regional Public Affairs Manager spent 57 hours in 2003 on the REPAC issue. Please provide time sheets or any other accounting of hours spent by these employees for the following dates:

January 9, 2003 February 6, 2003 March 6, 2003 April 3, 2003 April 24, 2003 May 8, 2003 May 22, 2003 May 23, 2003 June 12, 2003 July 2, 2003

SDG&E Response: San Diego Gas & Electric and Regional Public Affairs are not required to prepare time sheets for their employees and do not account for employee time on an hourly basis unless it is required. The hours spent thus far on the REPAC issue in 2003 did not meet this requirement, therefore, were not mandatory to track. The estimates of hours provided were obtained from the managers involved.


SDG&E RESPONSE 7. Please provide a listing of dates and number of hours during which either the Public Affairs Manager or

the Regional Public Affairs Manager met with representatives of the San Diego Regional Energy Office during 2003. (Please exclude REPAC meetings from this listing)

SDG&E Response: We are unable to document with certainty all dates of contact by any means in this effort; however, this is a list of dates we know contact had been made. The Regional Public Affairs department met with representatives of the San Diego Regional Energy Office on the following dates: January 22, 2003 for approximately five hours. February 10, 2003 for approximately one hour. May 16, 2003 for a one and half hours. July 1, 2003 for approximately two hours. July 28, 2003 for approximately two hours.


SDG&E RESPONSE 8. In response to DR8, No. 1 you provided an organizational chart for the “Privatization Project” (no. 896)

showing three positions staffed. Please provide a description of this project and the costs associated with the project for 2003.

SDG&E Response: The Federal Accounts department is organized in a functional design that allocates resources in sections to most efficiently address customer activity. One of these sections is the Privatization group. This section is staffed with employees addressing all aspects of military privatization as described below. The Federal government is attempting to comply with the Defense Reform Initiative Directive (DRID 49) and therefore is aggressively pursuing Utilities Privatization (UP) of federally owned utility distribution systems on various domestic military bases. Federal Accounts responds to the government initiatives in two specific ways, and separates these activities into two sections: 1). Customer Support Functions – Activities that must take place regardless of SDG&E’s position in the federal RFP process. These activities are cited in Ed Fong’s testimony (EF-72) and include responding to various federal government inquires and analysis to ensure the continued safe delivery of gas and electricity to SDG&E’s Federal customers as well as other customers adjacent to the affected bases. (See Workpapers, EF-O-15, Line 28, 29). SDG&E is requesting recovery for these customer support functions under FERC 903.1. 2). Evaluation of military gas and electric distribution systems and responding to RFP’s. SDG&E is requesting recovery for these costs under A&G. Tasks performed that provide ratepayer benefit include:

- Monitoring Government UP activities and its impacts on SDG&E customers. - Analyzing business impacts of other providers being chosen to privatize the local military bases and the

impacts on customers served by the utility. - Evaluating bidding strategy to ensure ratepayers do not subsidize any privatization activities. - Preparing proposal template in advance of RFP issuance.

- Monitoring the Government’s solicitation methodology and actively participating in the process.

- Utility privatization proposal development and submission A majority of RFPs are expected to be released by the government in the years 2003 and 2004. Forecasted 2003 costs for privatization as described above ($ thousands) Cost type 903.1 920 & 930 Labor $158 $310 Non-labor $74 $186


SDG&E RESPONSE 9. In response to DR8, No. 1 you provided an organizational chart for the Customer Service Major Markets

(no. 629). Please provide a description of this division that includes descriptions of job functions for each of the managers in this department and a quantification of the total number of employees (full and part-time) that serve in the departments in this division (e.g. staff in all sub-departments including, but not limited to nos. 896, 904, 911, 914, 926)

SDG&E Response: Customer Service Major Markets has primary responsibility for the SDG&E’s and SCG’s largest customers, including electric generators, wholesalers and the large commercial and industrial customers. In aggregate, those customers account for approximately 65 percent of total system gas deliveries on the combined SCG and SDG&E systems and 38 percent of the electric load on the SDG&E system. The organization manages the company's pipeline and storage capacity products, energy efficiency programs and services for commercial and industrial customers, energy-services provider relations, and technology development. The Major Markets organization develops and provides transportation products and services to commercial customers for SDG&E and SCG and is responsible for account management for all large customers.

Job descriptions for the SDG&E directors and managers within Major Markets are attached. NOTE: In Commercial and Industrial Markets, the Commercial New Construction Manager and Energy Efficiency Programs Manager job descriptions are not included as they are funded outside this Cost of Service filing. 896 Federal Accounts

911 Market Analysis & Planning

914 Commercial and Industrial Markets

926 Commercial and Industrial Services The following worksheet summarizes the total number of employees (full and part-time) that serve in the departments in this division.


SDG&E RESPONSE 10. In response to DR8, No. 1 you provided an organizational chart for the Marketing Analysis and Planning

(no. 895). Please the following information for this group:

a. provide a description of the functions of each of the managers in the group and subgroups (nos. 912 & 913)

b. provide a quantification of the total number of employees (full and part-time) that serve in the departments in this division (e.g. staff in all sub-departments including, but not limited to nos. 912 and 913)

c. provide a copy of each and all of the forecasts, reports and analysis performed by this group (as referenced in PJF-25) during 2002 and 2003. (Question 10c was modified per phone conference w/ M. Shames to identify such documents and approximate quantities in which they have been produced)

SDG&E Response: a. Job descriptions for the Director – Market Analysis and Planning, Market Analysis Manager, and Market Strategy

Manager are attached below: b. The schedule below provides a quantification of SDG&E’s total number of employees for the Market Analysis

Planning group.

San Diego Full Time Employees by FERC Account

Year Dept. Name 903 / 910 920 Total 2001 Business Analysis 10.75 16.25 27 2002 Market Analysis & Planning (895) 0 3.5 3.5 Market Analysis Sub-Group (912) 4.75 3.75 8.5 Market Strategy Sub-Group (913) 1 0 1 Other Departments in Division 5 0 5 Other Departments not in Division 2 9 11 Subtotal 12.75 16.25 29 2003 Market Analysis & Planning (895) 0 3.5 3.5 Market Analysis Sub-Group (912) 5.75 3.75 9.5 Market Strategy Sub-Group (913) 1 1 2 Other Departments in Division 6 0 6 Other Departments not in Division 2 9 11 Subtotal 14.75 17.25 32


SDG&E RESPONSE Response to Question 10 Continued) c. Market Analysis & Planning – Major Markets (“MAP”)(identified as department 895) is responsible for

developing and analyzing major markets customer segment data, performing market analysis and evaluation, and the formulation of recommendations to support workable regulatory, legislative and customer-related policies. In fulfilling this role, MAP is responsible for the analysis and evaluation of customer and business-related proposals in preparation for regulatory filings and addressing customer specific and class issues. In support of this effort, tools are developed in MAP to assist customer services personnel to communicate bill impacts of electric and gas rate changes to customers. Additionally, MAP has responsibility for several mandated reports and analyses, such as maintaining the Dynamic Load Profile (DLP) on a daily basis, and meeting the quarterly and annual data reporting requirements of Title 20 to the California Energy Commission.

Specifically, MAP provides the following types of forecasts, reports and analyses. Quantities, and specific project names when provided, assume the time period 1/1/2002 through June 30, 2003. All customer usage data analyses and forecasts are confidential.

Forecasts: MAP does not perform specific Demand or Sales Forecasting for SDG&E, but does provide a regular forecast to the Electric and Gas Procurement Department regarding Direct Access Load (to separate out from System Load for procurement). This is done bi-weekly, and would consist of 156 reports in this timeframe. Additionally, customer usage data is frequently gathered by analysts in this group, but provided to other groups who develop the forecasts.

Reports/Analyses: Reports and Analyses are performed regularly by MAP analysts, which fall into several broad categories:

• Dynamic Load Profiles (DLPs): 545 daily reports DLPs are comprised of SDG&E’s major rate classes.

Eight major rate class loads are estimated on an hourly basis and are provided in near real-time for ESP and SDG&E commodity billing as required per D.97-10-086.

• Annual Load Studies: Each year a study is completed to analyze customer electric usage by rate class. In 2002, load studies were completed for the years 2000 and 2001 data

• Interval Data requests: These requests can require small to large, complex reports, developed on a daily basis. • Bill Impact / Rate Change Analyses: 20 reports/analyses have been completed since December '02, • Customer Data Analyses: 334 jobs since 1/2002, Many of these jobs are mandated reports, reporting on such

CPUC programs as Direct Access, 20/20, and CEC mandated reports such as the Quarterly Fuels and Energy Report (QFER) and Residential Appliance Saturation Study.

• MAP analysts is consistently called upon for analytical support in regulatory proceedings. For example this group supported the Baseline OIRs R.01-05-047 (Phase 1 and 2), and is currently providing measurement and evaluation support and implementation support for the Demand Response Program (DRP) Decisions (Working Group 2 and Working Group 3) D.03-06-032 and D.03-03-036 respectively.


SDG&E RESPONSE 11. In response to DR8, No. 1 you provided an organizational chart for the Community Relations (no. 629).

While PJF-25 provides an overview of the department, it does not provide a position by position description. Please provide a description of the functions (job description) of each of the positions including and under the Director of Community Relations (e.g. Community Relations Manager, Community Relations Analyst, Administrative Assoc).

SDG&E Response: Attached are job descriptions for the Director of Community Relations, Community Relations Manager and Community Relations Analyst.


SDG&E RESPONSE 13. Please provide a copy of each of the printed newsletters and/or communications developed by

and distributed by the SDG&E Employee Communications Group during the 2001-2003 time period. (For each of response and conservation of paper, UCAN is willing to accept these publications in electronic form).

SDG&E Response: Please see the attached newsletters/communications for the year 2001. The 2002-2003 newsletters have already been provided in UCAN Data Request Number 12, Question 10. These items attached are not available in electronic form.


SDG&E RESPONSE 14. In response to DR8, No. 1 you provided an organizational chart for Communications and

Investor Relations (No. 1118). While FHA-31 provides an overview of the department, it does not provide a position by position description of job functions. Please provide a description of the functions (job description) of each of the positions including and under the Director of Public Relations and Director of Communications and Advertising (Nos. 1184 & 1185; (e.g. Public Relations Manager, Marketing Communications – Acct. Exec).

SDG&E Response: Attached are the job descriptions requested.


SDG&E RESPONSE 15. In response to DR6, No. 7, you provided an accounting of RPA expenditures for third-party

vendors. Please provide a similar accounting of third-party expenditures for the Public Relations Dept (A-8) for the years 2001-2003.

SDG&E Response:

Below is an accounting of third-party vendors for the Corporate Center Public Relations Department, in total. This table does not consider the allocated portion that went to SDG&E only. Public Relations’ costs in 2001 were allocated by the Multi-Factor Basic, but changed in 2002 to the Multi-Split method (See FHA-Exhibit A).

Third Party Vendor Description 2001 2002Jan - June

2003

BSMG Worldwide/Weber ShandwickMedia Consultant - company changed names from BSMG to Weber Shandwick in December 2001 131,947$ 98,080$ 84,055$

Media Clips - Various venders

On-line services for daily media clips (e.g., PR Newswire, News Monitoring Services, Dow Jones News Service, etc.) 22,995$ 41,398$ 18,954$

Subscriptions - Various venders Subscriptions to newspapers, periodicals, etc. 2,328$ 1,929$ 1,229$ Addison Design Design Consultant for Annual Report 124,252$ 122,033$ -$ Steven Goldstein Associates Design Consultant for Annual Report 18,470$ 18,655$ -$ George Rice & Sons Printing for Annual Report 404,390$ -$ -$ R. R. Donnelley Printing and layout for Annual Report -$ 115,517$ 135,205$ Graphic Press Printing and layout for Annual Report -$ 189,434$ 184,555$ Gary Baker Company Design Consultant for Annual Report -$ 61,486$ 28,817$ Photographers - Various venders Photographers for Annual Report 35,675$ 44,672$ 42,605$ Creative Focus Contract Labor for Annual Report -$ 24,895$ -$ Aquent Contract Labor for Annual Report -$ -$ 14,775$ Heidi Clevenger Communication Proofreading for Annual Report 4,062$ -$ 2,213$ Alex Hemerick Media Consultants 5,092$ 172$ -$ David Johnson Media Consultants 1,560$ -$ -$ CKR Communications Media Consultants -$ 1,329$ -$ AIM Communications Media Consultants 9,034$ -$ -$ NCG Porter Novelli Media Consultants 10,125$ -$ Making History Video Productiojn 1,281$ 600$ -$ Edmark Graphics Inc Printing of Sempra stationary 1,556$ 1,243$ -$ Faison Office Products Company Office Supplies 2,581$ 2,263$ 745$ Neil Frank & Company - Recruiting Employee Recruiting 7,000$ -$ -$ Act 1 Prsonnel Serv. Contract Labor 5,668$ 2,806$ 6,671$ Arch Wireless Pagers 3,896$ 1,504$ 752$ Airtouch Cellular Cell Phone Costs 4,443$ 4,830$ 1,500$

786,228$ 742,970$ 522,075$


SDG&E RESPONSE 16. Please provide a list of all newspapers in which SDG&E and/or Sempra has placed a FULL-

PAGE advertisement during the 2000-2003 time period. For each such advertisement, please provide a listing of the date, cost and the account to which the cost was charged.

SDG&E Response: Full-page print ads are used when the subject matter requires detailed explanation and the space is needed to adequately cover the topic. This need for additional space was particularly true during the energy crisis. Full-page ads have also been run in smaller publications to avoid resizing the original layout of an ad, which if re-sized, could result in type being too small to be easily read. Attached is a list of all full-page ads run by SDG&E and or Sempra from January 2000 through June 2003. The ads listed as “En Eff” were Demand-Side Management (DSM) messages and accordingly charged to various DSM programs with costs recovered through that process.


SDG&E RESPONSE Commercial/Industrial Customer Service 17. At EF-32, Mr. Fong references the Commercial Industrial Customer Service department

(CICS). However, in response to DR8, No. 1, UCAN could not find an organizational chart for this department. Please provide copies of the organization chart for this specific department.

SDG&E Response: In April 2002, the SDG&E and SoCalGas organizations were integrated. At that time, Commercial Industrial Customer Services (CICS) became Commercial/Industrial Services - Major Markets. Portions of the original organization moved to other organizations including:

• DRP moved to Commercial Industrial Markets-Major Markets • Small Commercial Industrial moved to Mass Markets • Strategic Planning function moved to Market Analysis and Planning • Energy Markets function moved to Energy Markets & Capacity Products • Distributed Generation Program (AB970) moved to Commercial Industrial Markets-Major Markets • Builder Relations function moved to Mass Markets

For the COS Application, dollars for those portions of these organizations that previously resided in CICS were forecast pre-integration as part of the CICS organization and not included as part of their reorganized organizations. However, the organization charts provided in DR8, No.1 were the current post-integration charts. For this response, attached is SDG&E-DR-UCAN-16-Q17_CICS Org Chart, the post-integration CICS detailed organizational chart (excluding the moved functions).


SDG&E RESPONSE

18. For CICS, please the following information for this group:

a. provide a description of the functions of each of the managers in the group and subgroups of this department;

b. provide a quantification of the total number of employees (full and part-time) that serve in the departments and sub-departments

SDG&E Response: a. The SDG&E CICS department (post integration) includes a Director and three groups. They are

listed here with their attached Director/Manager job functions and responsibilities.

Commercial/Industrial Services-Major Markets

Commercial/Industrial Services

Commercial/Industrial Project Coordination

Commercial/Industrial Technical Support Also, attached is the job description for the Strategic Accounts Manager. This position is responsible for the Demand Response Program (DRP) that was included in the CICS COS forecast, but post-integration moved to Commercial Industrial Markets-Major Markets. (Note: this was the additional manager in the pre-integration CICS organization.) b. The SDG&E departments and total number of employees included in the COS request for CICS

post integration are as follows:

• Director and staff – 3 FTE’s (currently 2 full-time, plus 1 vacancy/request) • Commercial/Industrial Services – 19 FTE’s (currently 15 full-time, plus 4

vacancies/request) • Commercial/Industrial Project Coordination – 21 FTE’s (currently includes 17 full-

time, plus 4 positions which are currently filled by 2 loaned labor full-time employees and 2 agency employees)

• Commercial/Industrial Technical Support – 8.5 FTE’s (currently 6 full-time, 1 part-time intern, 1 full-time loaned to another department and 1 vacancy/request)

(Note: this excludes the 14 full-time positions moved to other post integration organizations as mentioned in UCAN 16 question 17 above. This results in 52 FTE’s remaining in CICS/Major Markets-CI Services, plus 14 moved to other organizations for a total requested in the CICS COS Forecast of 66 FTE’s.)


SDG&E RESPONSE 19. Please acknowledge that as part of the job descriptions of the employees in CICS, employees

are permitted to invite SDG&E customers assigned to their account for dining or events for which SDG&E assumes the cost.

SDG&E Response: Although not a part of the job descriptions, but as a company practice, Managers and Account Executives in CICS do invite SDG&E customers assigned to their accounts for business discussions concerning SDG&E programs, services and rates that may include dining or events for which SDG&E assumes the cost.


SDG&E RESPONSE 20. In response to DR6, No. 7, you provided an accounting of RPA expenditures for third-party

vendors. Please provide a similar accounting of third-party expenditures for the CICS (F1-F5) for the years 2001-2003.

SDG&E Response: Attached is a spreadsheet (with three worksheets) that lists third party vendor expenditures for CICS for the years 2001 through June year-to-date 2003.


SDG&E RESPONSE

21. Please also provide an accounting and general description for all costs reimbursed to CICS employees during the 2002-2003 time period.

SDG&E Response: Attached is a spreadsheet that lists business expense reimbursements to CICS employees during the 2002 through June year-to-date 2003 time period. Not included in this response are reimbursements (such as educational, 401k, FSA, medical, dental, etc.) that all SDG&E employees have access to as a company benefit.


SDG&E RESPONSE 22. At EF-79, you discuss the Customer Communications department and its need for additional

funding. Please provide any reports, memos or analysis conducted by SDG&E which compared the efficacy and cost of using third-party vendors compared to in-house employees for the communications needs of SDG&E performed by this department.

SDG&E Response:

There have been no formal studies comparing the effectiveness and cost of using third party vendors versus in-house employees. The cost increases for the Customer Communications department are primarily driven by the increased cost of local media, which is projected to grow at 7% per year. Copies of invoices demonstrating these cost increases were submitted as part of ORA Data Request 66, question 5.

The Customer Communications department uses third party vendors to supply needed services and expertise as required for various projects.


SDG&E RESPONSE 23. Please provide any reports, memos or analysis developed by Customer Services Operations

that discuss the cost effectiveness or efficacy of using Web-based services as a substitution for or complement to other customer outreach functions.

SDG&E Response:

There have been no studies that specifically discuss the cost effectiveness or efficacy of using Web-based services as a substitution or complement to other customer outreach functions. Studies have been conducted on using the Web-based services in as a new means of providing services to customers, notably the Doculabs study on on-line billing. A copy of this report is included in the response to UCAN 15, Question 15.


SDG&E RESPONSE 24. Please provide an accounting for all of SDG&E’s customer-service related web costs for the

years 2000-2003 (as referenced at EF-43, for example). This should include the costs attributable to web-content development and the cost of web maintenance for customer information and customer service, but should not include meter data measurement costs.

SDG&E Response: SDG&E does not track internal web area costs (salaries, etc.) by specific project, therefore, customer information and customer services costs cannot be determined precisely. Additionally, prior to April 2002, the web area was a corporate center function housed at Sempra Energy with appropriate costs charged to SDG&E through an accounting procedure. After April 2002, the utility web area was transferred to SDG&E. It provides service to both SDG&E and SCG; with SCG being billed their share of the costs. Below are total web costs. This includes both internal costs (i.e., labor and non-labor) and the cost of outside suppliers. These costs cover both internet and intranet for SDG&E and SCG. The vast majority of customer service and information content is developed internally, with outside suppliers hired on an as-needed basis due to deadline and other constraints. The area handles all maintenance for customer information and customer service on www.sdge.com.

WEB COSTS

2000 2001 2002 2003 (JUNE YTD)

SDG&E total costs1

2 2 $528,900

$396,639 (Actual April to Dec., 2002)

$132,213

(Estimated Jan. to April

2003)

$177,909

Total Corporate Center Costs

531,593 425,583 3

1 Total web area costs include costs for internet and intranet, and costs billed to SCG. 2 Costs for SDG&E percentage of Sempra Energy Corporate Center total not available. 3 Costs for January to April 2002 are not readily available due to integration; therefore, costs have been estimated based on the nine-month expenditures of $396,639.


SDG&E RESPONSE General 25. Please identify any memberships to golf courses and/or country clubs owned or paid for by Sempra,

SDG&E or SoCalGas. For each such payment between 2000-2003, please provide the amount and the account to which this cost is booked.

SDG&E Response: SoCalGas owns 5 country club memberships. These memberships are reflected as non-operating assets on the Balance Sheet in account 124.002 – Other Investments and are not included in SoCalGas’ ratebase. The following represents the value of the membership and not the monthly dues paid during the year.

Description 2000 2001 2002 2003Oakmont Country Club 35,400$ 20,800$ 20,800$ 20,800$ Redlands Country Club * 22,000$ 22,000$ 22,000$ -$ Santa Ana Country Club 37,400$ 37,400$ 37,400$ 37,400$ Wilshire Country Club 22,500$ 22,500$ 22,500$ 22,500$ Lowes Island Country Club 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$

* Membership sold back to the Country Club in June 2003

The monthly dues for Oakmont and Lowes Island are not made by the utilities and no portion is allocated to the utilities. The monthly dues for Wilshire are paid by Sempra Energy and a portion allocated to the utilities. This amount has been removed from the 2004 SoCalGas and SDG&E forecasts. The monthly dues for Redlands and Santa Ana Country Clubs are as follows:

Description FERC Account 2000 2001 2002 2003*Redlands Country Club** 920.047 3,000$ 3,090$ 1,060$ -$

870.700 -$ -$ 2,220$ 570$

Santa Ana Country Club 920.047 5,040$ 5,690$ 1,560$ -$ 870.700 -$ -$ 4,740$ 3,480$

* Represents expenses through June 2003** Membership sold in June 2003


SDG&E RESPONSE Response to Question 25 (Continued) SDG&E has incurred monthly expenses related to the Bernardo Heights Country Club as shown below. The 2001 amount includes a $10,000 initial fee. Description FERC Account 2000 2001 2002 2003*Bernardo Heights Country Club** 921.000 -$ 12,380$ 2,964$ 1,571$

* Through June 2003** 2001 includes the initial membership cost

The monthly dues for SoCalGas, SDG&E, and the portion of the Wilshire club allocated from Sempra Energy have been inadvertently included in “above the line” accounts in recorded and in the 2004 forecast. These expenses will be moved to a non-operating “below the line” expense account in the Cost of Service update filing and removed from SoCalGas’ and SDG&E’s 2004 forecast. Corporate Center dues paid to golf courses and/or country clubs are provided in the following table.

Yearly Dues to Golf Courses and/or Country Clubs Allocation 2000 2001 2002 2003

Oakmont Country Club - paid for by employee - not by Corporate SDG&E -$ -$ -$ -$

SoCalGas -$ -$ -$ -$ Global/Retained -$ -$ -$ -$

Lowes Island Club SDG&E -$ -$ -$ -$ SoCalGas -$ -$ -$ -$ Global/Retained 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,600$ 3,900$

Wilshire Country Club SDG&E 2,280$ 2,035$ 1,698$ 1,491$ SoCalGas 2,873$ 2,795$ 1,973$ 1,802$ Global/Retained 547$ 870$ 2,029$ 2,407$

L.A. Country Club SDG&E -$ -$ -$ -$ SoCalGas -$ -$ -$ -$ Global/Retained 6,600$ 6,600$ 6,600$ 6,600$

The dues erroneously allocated to SDG&E and SoCal Gas for the Wilshire Country Club will be reversed in the upcoming Errata filing.


SDG&E RESPONSE 26. Please identify any private residences and/or rural retreat residences that are owned by or paid for by

Sempra, SDG&E or SoCalGas. For each such payment between 2000-2003, please provide the amount and the account to which this cost is booked.

SDG&E Response: SDG&E objects to this question as applied to Sempra on the grounds of relevance. Without waiving that objection SDG&E states that no costs are charged to the Utilities for any Sempra “owned or paid for” private residences. SDG&E has recently signed a five-month lease (June 15, 2003 – November 14, 2003) for a furnished condo in San Francisco to be used during the Cost of Service proceedings. The monthly lease is $6,500, and the expense is currently recorded to FERC Account 931.


SDG&E RESPONSE 27. Please provide a list of any and all video presentations developed and/or paid for by SDG&E that have

been prepared for showing to the public. SDG&E Response: The following videos were prepared by Corporate for SDG&E, and have been available to the public:

• SDG&E: Holiday Safety video • SDG&E: Meter Reader Safety video • SDG&E: Tree Smart (AKA Tree Trimming) • SDG&E: Rolling Blackouts: are you prepared? • SDG&E: Making the Most of Summer • Working with SDG&E Underground Electric and Gas (AKA Ditch Digging) • SDG&E Underground Service Alert (AKA Ditch Digging)

o VHS and CDs made • SDG&E Powerful Careers, Powerful Future

o Engineer Recruiting CD Rom o VHS and CDs made

• BIA/SAM Awards (Two separate videos produced) o These videos highlighted SDG&E’s Residential New Construction

• SDG&E Emergency Operating Center promotion/public awareness video shown at SDG&E exhibit at the Del Mar Fair.

• SDG&E: Environmental and Land Services – promotional vide on SDG&E Raptor Protection Program, shown at community events.

• SDG&E: NGV Refueling • SDG&E: Promotion Video shown at Gold Coast Classic Football Game


SDG&E RESPONSE 28. Please identify the number of employees during each year from 2000-2003 who have been

issued a company credit card with which they can charge travel or entertainment expenditures. SDG&E Response: The following represents the number of new corporate credit card that were issued to SDG&E employees:

2000 53 2001 23 2002 29 2003 26 (January – June)


SDG&E RESPONSE 29. Please provide an annual sum for each year from 2000 through 2003 of the costs charged to

company credit cards. SDG&E Response: The corporate credit card program requires that the cards be in the name of the employee and it is the responsibility of the employee to make the payments required. Employees submit only their business-related expenses through proper approvals for reimbursement. Because the program is set up where the employee is responsible for the charges on the card, we do not track the annual spending on these cards. Our corporate credit card provider only retains 18 months of data, so we can only provide information for 2002 and 2003. The amounts shown below represent the charges posted to the cards, not necessarily the amount reimbursed by the company to the employee card holders. SDG&E corporate credit card Charges:

2002 $1,891,890 2003 $1,052,710 (January – June)


SDG&E RESPONSE 30. Please state what, if any, current per diem or cost caps are in effect for company employees for lodging

and dining costs incurred during travel. If these caps differ among employees, please provide a range of the current caps/per Diems.

SDG&E Response:

Per Diem is available for union represented employees and the cost cap or maximum per diem, is $35.25 per day, for meals and travel related expenses, plus lodging

There is no cap on the amount covered for lodging. However employees are expected to stay at those facilities that are in close proximity of the location where the business will be conducted and, where available, those facilities with which the company has negotiated favorable rates.


SDG&E RESPONSE 31. In response to DR2, no. 14, you provided information concerning housing starts, population

and employment growth forecasts for 2001-2004. Please confirm that these numbers are not consistent with actual numbers for 2002 and 2003. Please also provide any updates – if any have been issued – of these projections.

SDG&E Response:

Actual numbers are not yet available for 2002, and of course, 2003. No updates have been issued. Please note, as an example, “actual” data for population is based on U.S. Census information, and can take can take up to ten years to become “official”.

Documents

Public Affairs and Communications - Home | San Diego Gas ... · Public Affairs and Communications 1. In response to DR6, No. 3, you indicate that “$129,000 has been provided for