In the same Decision that the CPUC is considering voting out on suspending 
Direct Access, the CPUC is considering a SoCal Edison recommendation to 
suspend further payment of the Negative CTC to marketers.

The Decision would find that the earlier Stipulation does not require SCE to 
make a cash payment in lieu of a bill credit (even though SCE has already 
paid cash in previous periods for the Negative CTC).
The Decision orders SCE to not make cash payments to satisfy the Negative CTC 
credit.
The Decision is unclear as to whether or not this is simply a suspension of 
payment or would be permanent.
The Decision would apply the same findings and rulings to PG&E and SDG&E.

The key issue is that rather than having a cash receivable, EES would now 
have a bill credit receivable.  In addition, because EES re-sourced its 
customers, the Utility account that holds the bill credit is EES, not the 
customer account.  The only method to obtain the economic value of the bill 
credit is to utilize the Utilities' services.  Even if EES physically serves 
the customers going forward, it may not be the same account that has the bill 
credit.  

The outcome of this case would impact our current Complaint, but it is 
unclear exactly how the CPUC would apply this Decision to that case.

We are intending to (a) try to remove this issue from the CPUC Decision, (b) 
trying to clarify the suspension is not meant as a vehicle to deny us 
payment, and (c) trying to determine that the Utilities' tariff would allow 
us to be paid if our account became "inactive".

One other option to consider (at least for SCE) would be to contact SCE 
management to work out a bill credit application process to allow EES to 
route the economic value to our DA customers.  

If anyone has any questions, please call me to discuss.

Jim