Prepared Testimony of Faith Bautista on the 2018 …docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/SupDoc/A1609001/493/185576184.pdf · 13. Please provide additional details on the People and Culture

Application of Southern California Edison

Company (U338E) for Authority to Increase its

Authorized Revenues for Electric Service in

2018, among other things, and to Reflect that

increase in Rates.

Application No. 16-09-001

(Filed September 01, 2016)

Prepared Testimony of Faith Bautista on the

2018 General Rate Case Application of Southern California Edison

- Attachments to Testimony

Faith Bautista

CEO, National Diversity Coalition

President and CEO, National Asian American

Coalition

15 Southgate Ave., Suite 200

Daly City, CA 94015

Telephone: (650) 952-0522

On behalf of

NATIONAL DIVERSITY COALITION

(NDC) and

NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN

COALITION (NAAC)

May 02, 2017

Southern California Edison2018 GRC A.16-09-001

DATA REQUEST SET NDC-SCE-004

To: NDCPrepared by: Michelle Ricard

Title: Project Manager Dated: 03/30/2017

Question 13:

13. Please provide additional details on the People and Culture metric of EIC. Specifically, what levels of diversity or representation of minorities must be achieved to meet this target? If levels or details have changed over the years, please provide the metrics used from 2011- 2016.

Response to Question 13:

Please see the attached table, which provides the diversity metrics included in the EIC People and Culture goal each year from 2011-2016. The achievement of the diversity metric each year is based on the improvement in representation of ethnic minorities and women from the previous calendar year.

NDC-Bautista-Testimony-Atch Page 1

NDC-SCE-004 Q.13 Attachment, Page 1 of 2

Southern California Edison

Executive Incentive Plan - People and Culture Goal Diversity Metrics

2011-2016

NDC-SCE-004, Q.13

YearEIC Goal

Diversity Metrics

Met / Not

Met

Results

2011 People and

Culture

No diversity metrics. N/A N/A

2012 People and

Culture

Improve representation of ethnic

minorities and females across executive

population.

Not Met Ethnic minorities: decreased from 26.8% in 2011 to 26.4%

in 2012

Females: decreased from 31.0% in 2011 to 27.7% in 2012

2013 People and

Culture


minorities and women across executive

population.

Met. Ethnic minorities: increased from 26.4% in 2012 to 29.5% in

2013

Women: increased from 27.7% in 2012 to 31.8% in 2013.

2014 People and

Culture



population and leadership pools.

Not Met Ethnic minorities (Executives): increased from 29.5% in

2013 to 30.0% in 2014

Women (Executives): decreased from 31.8% in 2013 to

31.4% in 2014

Ethnic Minorities (Leadership Pools): decreased from 42.7%

in 2013 to 42.0% in 2014

Women (Leadership Pools): increased from 29.8% in 2013

to 30.5% in 2014



2015 People and

Culture




Not Met Ethnic minorities (Executives): decreased from 30.0% in

2014 to 29.5% in 2015

Women (Executives): increased from 31.4% in 2014 to

31.8% in 2015

Ethnic Minorities (Leadership Pools): decreased from 42.0%

in 2014 to 41.4% in 2015

Women (Leadership Pools): decreased from 30.5% in 2014

to 29.5% in 2015

2016 People and

Culture




Not Met Ethnic minorities (Executives): increased from 29.5% in

2015 to 30.0% in 2016

Women (Executives): decreased from 31.8% in 2015 to

29.2% in 2016

Ethnic Minorities (Leadership Pools): increased from 41.4%

in 2015 to 42.1% in 2016

Women (Leadership Pools): decreased from 29.5% in 2015

to 29.4% in 2016






Question 03:

3. For the total amount of Executive Incentive Compensation (EIC) paid to executives in each year since 2011, provide a breakdown of how much was paid for performance in each separate metric of the EIC plan. Please also provide the measured performance level of executives in each EIC metric versus the target goal. (For example, in 2011, $4 million was paid in total EIC, of which $1 million was paid for safety performance. Safety performance level achieved a score of 15, exceeding the goal of 10.)


Please see the attached file, which provides a breakdown of target and actual performance levels for each EIC metric from 2011-2015.




Executive Incentive Plan - Goal Achievement and Target vs. Actual EIC/NOEIP Payout

2011-2015

NDC-SCE-003, Q.03

PLAN

YEAR GOAL

Target

Score

Actual

Score Target EIC Target NOEIP Actual EIC* Actual NOEIP**

Safety 10 0 352,191$ 641,563$ -$ -$

Operational & Service Excellence 20 25 704,383$ 1,283,125$ 910,993$ 1,596,462$

Strategic Initiatives 20 19 704,383$ 1,283,125$ 692,355$ 1,213,311$

People & Culture 10 8 352,191$ 641,563$ 291,518$ 510,868$

Financial Performance 40 53 1,408,766$ 2,566,251$ 1,931,306$ 3,384,499$

100 105 3,521,914$ 6,415,627$ 3,826,172$ 6,705,140$

Operational & Service Excellence+

25 23 918,129$ 1,631,930$ 905,961$ 1,500,624$

Strategic Initiatives 20 27 734,503$ 1,305,544$ 1,063,519$ 1,761,602$

People & Culture 15 10 550,878$ 979,158$ 393,896$ 652,445$


100 140 3,672,517$ 6,527,721$ 5,514,543$ 9,134,234$


20 25 805,917$ 1,251,050$ 1,035,441$ 1,568,480$

Strategic Initiatives 20 30 805,917$ 1,251,050$ 1,242,529$ 1,882,176$

People & Culture 20 35 805,917$ 1,251,050$ 1,449,617$ 2,195,873$


100 135 4,029,584$ 6,255,250$ 5,591,381$ 8,469,794$

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒𝟐

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟏

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟑𝟑

𝟒




25 20 1,129,183$ 1,708,103$ 972,463$ 1,328,465$

Strategic Initiatives 25 60 1,129,183$ 1,708,103$ 2,917,390$ 3,985,394$

People & Culture 10 15 451,673$ 683,241$ 729,347$ 996,348$


100 135 4,516,730$ 6,832,410$ 6,564,127$ 8,967,136$

Regulatory & Legislative Advocacy 15 20 705,160$ 1,059,174$ 914,920$ 1,439,713$

Operational Excellence+

20 15 940,213$ 1,412,231$ 686,190$ 1,079,785$

People & Culture 5 5 235,053$ 353,058$ 228,730$ 359,928$


100 100 4,701,066$ 7,061,157$ 4,574,600$ 7,198,564$

+Includes Safety goal

**For purposes of our GRC showing, SCE includes the Executive Incentive Compensation Plan payouts to non-officer executives (known as

“NOEIP”) together with STIP in a single STIP request. See SCE-06 Vol. 2 Ch. 5 testimony, pp. 22-28.

*Executive Incentive Compensation Plan payouts to Executive Officers (EIC) are included in labor costs in Executive Officers 920/921

activity package. See SCE-06 Vol. 1 testimony, pp. 26-37.

5Refer to 2012 EIX/SCE Joint Proxy Statement, p. 30, for EIC Goals and Target/Actual Scores:

http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/sec-filings-financials/c8098_Joint_Proxy12.pdf


http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/sec-filings-financials/Joint_Proxy13.pdf




http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2016-joint-proxy-statement.pdf2Refer to 2015 EIX/SCE Joint Proxy Statement, p. 34, for EIC Goals and Target/Actual Scores:

http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2015-eix-sce-proxy-statement.pdf

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟐𝟒

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟓






Question 06:

6. Prior to 2015, when there was no separate EIC metric for safety, was any part of any EIC metric related to safety goals? Please explain what metrics were safety related, and how they were measured.


Please see the table below, which provides the safety-specific metrics included in the EIC goals each year from 2011-2014. For a description of how the safety DART target is determined, please refer to SCE-15, Supplemental Testimony on Executive Compensation and Safety, p. 5, submitted to the Commission on January 6, 2017.






Question 05:

5. Please list the components that are evaluated under the Long-Term Incentives (LTI) programfrom exeutives, and explain what percent of total LTI each separate metric comprises. (For example, safety performance comprises 10% of LTI awards, customer service performance comprises 20%, etc.)


Under SCE’s Long-term Incentive (LTI) program, fifty percent of the target number of contingent Performance Shares is subject to Edison International’s (EIX’s) relative total shareholder return (TSR) over a three-calendar-year period compared to the other companies in the Philadelphia Utility Index (these contingent Performance Shares are referred to as “TSR Performance Shares”). The other fifty percent of the target number of contingent Performance Shares is subject to a performance measure based on EIX’s three-year average annual core earnings per share measured against target levels approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors at the beginning of each calendar year (these contingent Performance Shares are referred to as “EPS Performance Shares”). The performance multiple for each calendar year in the performance period will be based on EIX’s actual core earnings per share (“EPS”) performance as a percentage of the EPS target for that year. See table below.

Please refer to our testimony at SCE-06, Volume 2, page 34 for LTI program description and scope. LTI awards may be adjusted based on SCE’s review of each executive’s performance, potential, and/or retention issues.




To: NDCPrepared by: Melodee Black


Question 11:

11. What are the criteria and metrics that SCE uses to evaluate the effectiveness of the current outreach and marketing efforts that specifically or primarily target minority and low-income ratepayers? Provide documentation of the results of these evaluations.


SCE uses multiple criteria and metrics to evaluate the general effectiveness of its marketing and outreach campaigns. The criteria and metrics established will vary based upon campaign objectives. SCE typically tracks the number of impressions (or the point an ad is viewed once by a visitor, or displayed once on a web page) for its general and ethnic media buys, as well as the click-through rate for some campaigns. Other criteria and metrics, such as enrollment and survey results are reported at a campaign level and not by target audience.

For example, the Public Safety Marketing and Outreach campaign tracked metrics for message recall, advertisement impressions, and click-through rates. SCE’s Customer Attitude Tracking (CAT) survey was used to measure the campaign’s message recall rate. The CAT survey is a quarterly tool designed to assess and track attitudes, brand favorability, and awareness of relevant marketing messages among SCE customers. Over the past five years, the CAT survey has witnessed a steady increase of safety message recall. The 2016 survey saw a seven percent increase compared to 2015 (63 percent vs. 56 percent). The 2016 public safety ad campaign generated 1.4 billion impressions. The digital campaign click-through-rate was at 0.16 percent, 14 percent higher than the industry benchmark of 0.14 percent.

Additionally, the Rate Options and Energy Management Marketing and Outreach Campaign used a variety of criteria and metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the marketing campaign. SCE tracked digital results like banner ad(s) performance, traffic (or customer visits) to unique URLs, My Account enrollments and other key metrics that were established with the commission as part of residential rate reform. Attachment 1 provides information on the Rate Options and Energy Management campaign’s objectives, tactics, enrollments, and digital results. Additionally, Attachment 2 is a copy of Rate Reform/TOU Transition ME&O Tracking Survey, Wave 2 report that includes a list of additional campaign metrics and findings from the research study.


The Business Customer Division tracks outreach activities in SCE’s Customer Relationship Management system. Campaign effectiveness is captured through resulting leads and interactions, when customers express interest in or participate in program offering.


NDC-SCE-003 Q.11 Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2

Rate Options and Energy Management Campaign Dashboard

Goal: Awareness Objectives:

• Customers are aware that there are rate plans that may help them mitigate electricity expenditures

• Customers know where to go to get more information about how to manage their energy use

• Customers understand how energy use can impact bills

• Customers understand the benefits of lowering their energy use

• Customers are aware of the rebates, energy efficiency programs, and tips offered by their utility that can help them manage their energy bill

• Customers feel they were provided useful info explaining their bills

• Proportion of customers that are aware of the rate changes and potential impacts on their bills

Business-only Objectives:

• My Account sign ups (3K/month) – Goal Met

• Awareness of TOU Summer on-peak hours Tactics:

• Digital Banners

• Radio

• Social

• Landing Page Views Results

• Residential – 301,269 My Account enrollments (August 1 – November 20)

• Business – 31,015 My Account enrollments (August 1 – November 20) Digital Results:


NDC-SCE-003 Q.11 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2


Page 1

Leading the Way in ElectricityLeading the Way in Electricity

INTERNAL USE ONLYRate Reform / TOU Transition ME&O Tracking Survey

Wave 2: December 2016

January 6, 2017

NDC-SCE-003 Q.11 Attachment 2

Rate Reform / TOU Transition

ME&O Tracking Survey –

Wave 2 Report


Page 2




Background & Metrics

Recently, the CPUC has directed all three California IOUs to track key metrics around the Rate Reform and TOU Transition changes. Given that, the survey was purposely designed around these metrics (shown in the table below).

Metric Nr. Description

1 Customers are aware that there are rate plans that can help them save money

2Customers know where to go to get more information about how to manage their energy use

3Customers understand how energy use can impact bills (based on the rate plan they are on)

4 Customers understand the benefits of lowering their energy use

5Customers are aware of the rebates, energy efficiency programs, and tips offered by their utility that can help them manage their energy bill

6 Customers feel they were provided useful info explaining their bills



Page 3




Objectives

Research objectives of the tracking survey include:

• Measure customer awareness of available rate plan types: Tiered, TOU, NEM

• Measure customer awareness of rate reform changes

• Determine recall of recent communications

• Measure customer takeaway from communications

– Useful, easy to understand, caused you to take action

• Measure customer understanding of rate reform

– How the manage one’s electric bill with existing and TOU rate plans

• Awareness of reasons for rate reform

• Awareness of benefits of rate reform

• Awareness and understanding of SCE assistance

• Identify actions taken once aware of the rate reform changes and/or communications:

– Went to website, called customer care, implemented new energy saving actions, shifted usage, signed up for a program, switch rate plans, review a customized rate comparison, etc.

• Identify segment and demographic differences in awareness, knowledge, and actions



Page 4




Methodology

SCE commissioned HINER & Partners to conduct a telephone survey among three sub-groups of Residential customers: (1) Tier 1 and Tier 2, (2) Tier 3 and Tier 4, and (3) Super Users (SUE). Respondents from these three sub-groups were then randomly included in the “general population” sample in the correct proportions.

• The sub-groups also include proportional representation of CARE, NEM, and demographic-based sub-groups: age groups including seniors, income groups including low income, households with a disabled person, and others. The “central valley” area includes all central valley and desert baseline climate zones, “coastal” includes coastal and inland coastal zones, and “inland valley” includes all inland valley zones.

General Population Tier 1 & 2 Tier 3 & 4 SUE

Wave 1 Wave 2 W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2

Interviewing

Began

Feb 26,

2016

Nov 14,

2016 -- -- -- -- -- --

Interviewing

Completed

Mar 24,

2016

Dec 14,

2016 -- -- -- -- -- --

Completed

Interviews 1,000 1,000 400 400 597 591 310 323

Survey Length 14.4 16.3 14.8 16.0 14.4 16.0 14.1 16.9

Incidence 84% 89% 84% 90% 82% 89% 86% 89%

Participation 50% 33% -- -- -- -- -- --

• Customers were called, and screened to interview the person in the household who usually reviews and / or pays their monthly SCE bill.



Page 5




Executive Summary: Overview

Wave 2 of the ME&O tracking survey for Rate Reform and TOU Transition indicates some increases over the baseline survey measurement completed in March 2016

• Six in ten Residential customers (63%) are aware of the tiered rate plan structure, unchanged from the baseline, while over four in ten (45%, up from 41%) say they have heard of TOU – awareness of TOU is closing the gap with tiered

• Though still relatively high, rate confusion has been reduced. Just under half (44%, down from 50%) do not know what rate plan they have, while 46% (up from 40%) believe they have a tiered rate plan and 7% say they have TOU

• TOU is gaining further consideration: one-third (35%) believe a tiered plan is best for their household, but one-fifth (19%) think TOU would be best; interest in TOU rose as well, from 11% “very interested” (rating 8-10) to 14%

• One in five (21%) have already heard about upcoming rate plan changes, with bill inserts (up from the baseline) being the top source of information (unaided), followed by a separate letter from SCE and then news (down from the baseline)

• Nearly six in ten customers know they are billed under a 4-tier rate plan (57%) and that there is a baseline (54%). Regarding knowledge of rate reform, however, just one in ten know that the number of tiers is being reduced (11%) and the price differences between tiers will be reduced / adjusted (13%, up from 10%).

• Regarding the transition to TOU, one in four (25%) know that a personalized rate plan comparison is available, while much fewer (12%) know that most Residential customers will be transitioning to a TOU rate plan by 2019

• Regarding knowledge about saving energy and money, half (48%) say they are aware that “rate plans are available that could help you save money” (Metric 1). One in three (38%) know that a surcharge will be applied when electricity use is excessively high, suggesting that some customers already infer there is a surcharge with the tiered rate plan. One-third (36%) know they can sign up for Budget Assistant alerts.



Page 6





(continued)

• One in four (24%) say they are aware of the reasons for the transition, with the top reasons mentioned being encourage energy savings, reduce environmental impacts, and make it easier to see how energy use impacts your monthly costs

• About one in three have a strong understanding of “how to manage your electric bill using the rate plan you are currently on” (mean 6.15, up from 5.86; 38% rating 8-10) and “how changes to current rate plans mean you could be paying more unless you can adjust your electricity use” (mean 5.72, 32% 8-10) (Metric 3)

• Residential customers have relatively high awareness / knowledge of the impacts of reducing or shifting their electricity use, with agreement levels ranging from 46% to 53% that these actions will save money & reduce your bill, improve reliability, help the environment, and help you manage for price increases (Metric 4)

• One in three (29%) claim they have received information about how upcoming rate changes will impact their monthly bill, and over half of these (55% with an 8-10 rating, up from 46%) say the information was very useful (Metric 6)

• Two in three (68%) are aware that SCE provides rebates, energy efficiency programs, and tips to help save energy and money on their bill (Metric 5), though fewer (33%) say they recently received this information

• Nearly six in ten (58%) believe they know where to get this type of information (79%, up from 73% mentioned SCE.com and 17% said they would call SCE) (Metric 2)

• 11%, up from 8%, indicate they have taken any action as a result of upcoming changes, with top actions being: taking steps to reduce electricity use, shifting electricity use (up from the baseline), calling SCE for more information, switching rate plans, and signing up for an SCE program



Page 7





In sum, SCE Residential customers show moderate awareness of many of the key metrics – and Metrics 3 and 6 have increased in Wave 2 over the baseline

• Relatively few took any action, though this also increased

• Awareness remains quite low regarding specific details of the changes (e.g., that the number of tiers and the price difference between tiers is being reduced)

• There is also some evidence that customers are confused by some of the changes (e.g., about one in three say they are aware of a high usage surcharge – unchanged from the baseline)

• Going forward, clarity in communicating these details and increases in preparatory actions to get customers ready could likely define success



Page 8




Executive Summary: Key Measures

Metric Key Measures

Baseline

Gen Pop

Wave 2

Gen Pop

Answer

Choice Key Sub-Group Differences

- Aware of Tiered Rate Plan 61% 63% % Yes

SUE > Tier 3/4 > Tier 1/2; Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM;

Inland Valley, Central Valley > Coastal

- Aware of TOU Rate Plan 41% 45%* % Yes SUE > Tier 1/2 & Tier 3/4; Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM

- Have Tiered Rate Plan 40% 46%* % Yes

SUE > Tier 3/4 > Tier 1/2; Non-CARE > CARE; Central Valley >

Coastal, Inland Valley

- Have TOU Rate Plan 7% 7% % Yes SUE > Tier 3/4; NEM > Non-NEM

- Heard of rate plan changes 23% 21% % Yes NEM > Non-NEM; Central Valley > Inland Valley

Knowledge of Rate Reform and TOU Transition Measures

1

Rate plans are available that could help you

save money 50% 48% % Yes SUE > Tier 1/2, Tier 3/4

-

Electricity is currently billed using a 4-tiered

rate plan … 57% 57% % Yes

SUE > Tier 3/4 > Tier 1/2; Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM;

Inland Valley & Central Valley > Coastal

-

Each customer is given a monthly “baseline”

… that is charged at the lowest … tier 54% 57% % Yes

Tier 3/4 & SUE > Tier 1/2; Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM;

Inland Valley & Central Valley > Coastal

-

In the future, the number of tiers in the 4-

tiered rate plan will be reduced to two 11% 13% % Yes Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM

-

In the future, the difference in electricity price

between tiers will be reduced 10% 13%* % Yes NEM > Non-NEM

-

By 2019, most residential customers will be

transitioned onto T-O-U rate plan 10% 12% % Yes NEM > Non-NEM

-

A personalized rate plan comparison is

available to help you choose … 23% 25% % Yes NEM > Non-NEM

-

A surcharge will be applied … whenever

electricity use is excessively high 36% 38% % Yes NEM > Non-NEM

-

Customers can sign up for Budget Assistant

Alerts … 33% 36% % Yes



Page 9





Metric Key Measures

Baseline

Gen Pop

Wave 2

Gen Pop

Answer


Understanding of TOU Impacts

3

How to manage your electric bill using the

rate plan that you are currently on

36%

5.86

38%

6.15*

% 8-10

Mean

rating Tier 1/2 > Tier 3/4 & SUE, CARE > Non-CARE

3

How changes to current rate plans mean you

could be paying more unless you can adjust

your electricity use

33%

5.58

32%

5.72

% 8-10

Mean

rating Tier 1/2 > SUE

Awareness of Reasons / Impacts of Reducing or Shifting / SCE Assistance

- Aware of reasons for transition 21% 24% % Yes

Tier 1/2 > SUE; Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM

Top reasons: encourage energy savings (CARE > Non-CARE),

make it easier to see how energy use impacts costs (Coastal >

Central Valley), and reduce environmental impacts

4

Lowering or shifting electricity use will:

reduce bill & save money, improve reliability,

help environment, manage price increases

45% to 55%

6.59 to 7.13

46% to 53%

6.77 to 7.07

% 8-10

Mean

rating Tier 1/2 > SUE; Non-NEM > NEM

- Received bill impact information 26% 29% % Yes Tier 1/2 > Tier 3/4 & SUE

6 Information was useful

46%

7.11

55%*

7.49*

% 8-10

Mean

rating Tier 1/2 > SUE

5

Aware SCE provides rebates, energy

efficiency programs & tips 65% 68% % Yes

-

SCE recently provided info about rebates,

energy efficiency programs & tips 30% 33% % Yes CARE > Non-CARE

2

Know where to get info about assistance

offered by SCE 58% 58% % Yes

Non-CARE > CARE; NEM > Non-NEM

Top sources: SCE website (79% -- Tier 3/4, SUE > Tier 1/2; Non-

CARE > CARE); called SCE (17% - CARE > non-CARE, Central

Valley > Inland Valley)



Page 10





Metric Key Measures

Baseline

Gen Pop

Wave 2

Gen Pop

Answer


- Took action 8% 11%* % Yes SUE > Tier 1/2, Tier 3/4; NEM > Non-NEM

Actions Taken

- Took steps to reduce electricity use 2% 7%* % Yes

- Called SCE for more info 2% 2% % Yes Tier 3/4, SUE > Tier 1/2; CARE > Non-CARE

- Switched rate plans 2% 2% % Yes NEM > Non-NEM

- Signed up for a SCE program 1% 2% % Yes

-

Shifted electricity use to a lower price time of

day 1% 3%* % Yes SUE > Tier 1/2

- Went to SCE’s website 1% 1% % Yes

-

Completed personalized rate plan

comparison 1% 1% % Yes





To: NDCPrepared by: Melodee Black


Question 01:

1. In SCE’s response to NDC DR003_Q11, Attachment 1 regarding the metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness of outreach efforts, the in-language traffic of the Rate Options and Energy Management Campaign was zero or one for a number of banner ads targeting a number of ethnicities. Please explain what this means, why the numbers are so low, and how SCE is modifying their outreach efforts as a result.


Below is a copy of the In-Language Traffic graph that SCE provided in response to NDC-SCE-003, Question 11. The columns with a zero or a one indicate that SCE did not have a banner ad in that ethnic-market for that campaign. As part of the planning process, SCE identifies the target audience and communication approach for each marketing campaign. Therefore, some campaigns will include messages in multiple languages, while others will be limited to one or two languages. SCE assesses and adjusts its marketing and campaigns based upon a variety of metrics including, advertisement impressions, click-through rates, and enrollment and survey results.




To: NDCPrepared by: Sylvia Hernandez

Title: Analyst Dated: 02/17/2017

Question 14:

14. Provide information on the Capacity-Building workshops that SCE’s Local Public Affairs’ Strategic Engagement team has conducted each year from 2013-2016. Please include information on the topics covered, the numbers of organizations that attended each workshop, the costs to conduct each workshops, and the results and benefits.


The Capacity Building Workshops were provided, at the time, for the benefit of community based organizations and nonprofits to teach them how to increase their operational, financial and staffing capacity to serve low-income and underserved communities. The titles covered in 2013 to 2015 were Grant Writing, Board and Staff Development, Financial Accountability, The Effective Use of Social Media, Social Media & Digital Storytelling, Proven Strategies for Fundraising, Building Stronger Relationship & Community Engagement, Strengthening our Nonprofit Sector, and Meet the Funders Panel.

Year # of Workshops Total Attendees/Organizations*

Cost Per Workshop

2013 9 623 $1,000 - $2,5002014 5 599 $1,000 - $2,5002015 3 495 $1,000 - $2,5002016 0 N/A N/A

* This is the total number of attendees that attended the workshops for each year. The number does not distinguish if organizations/attendees attended more than one in that year. Local Public Affairs (LPA) did not retain documentation of the number of organizations in attendance.

The costs per workshop shown in the table are incremental contractor costs incurred by LPA. In addition to these costs, Local Public Affairs incurred labor and overhead costs for its employees in the Strategic Engagement team who were assigned to conduct these workshops as part of their day-to-day job duties.

Local Public Affairs discontinued its Capacity Building Workshops as of June 2015. Similar


work continues to be performed in other Organizational Units. The information included in this response is for historic Capacity Building Workshops only.




To: NDCPrepared by: Sylvia Hernandez

Title: Analyst Dated: 03/30/2017

Question 02:

2. SCE’s response to NDC DR003_Q14 indicates that capacity building workshops by Local Public Affairs were discontinued in 2015 because other Organizational Units perform similar work. Please describe the similar work being performed by other Organizational Units. Include information on the topics they cover, the attendance numbers, the costs to conduct such work, and any measured results or benefits.


Local Public Affairs discontinued the capacity building workshops it previously did because they were not core to LPA’s function in the company. However, similar workshops were conducted by the Business Customer Division as the business customer-facing organization in the company. The intent of such programs are to inform and educate customers and community organizations about company programs and initiatives.

In June 2016, the Business Customer Division conducted a Faith-Based Business Summit to educate faith-based and non-profit organizations about programs and services available to them as commercial customers, and as non-profit entities. Topics covered included: Grid of the Future, Charge Ready Program; Clean Energy Options; SCE Philanthropy; Energy Efficiency and Demand Response programs; Customer Success stories for the Savings By Design program; Guest presentation by the State Board of Equalization; Payment Scam Avoidance. The summit also included workshops and tours for: HVAC; food-service technologies; income-qualified programs; safety and disaster preparedness; leadership and volunteerism; and grant opportunities.

The benefit of this summit for the customers was receiving information and expert perspectives on a wide range of topics, including current statewide issues; updates about energy efficiency programs, including no-cost programs; and shared best practices. The workshops allowed attendees to take a deeper dive into specific topic areas and ask detailed questions. Customers were also offered follow-up discussions about participating in energy efficiency programs. Twelve follow-up interactions with customers about SCE programs were documented.

There were approximately 88 attendees. Incremental costs associated with this summit were approximately $1,955. In addition to these costs, the Business Customer Division incurred labor


and overhead costs for its employees who were assigned to conduct this summit.

There is an additional Faith-Based Business Summit scheduled for June 23, 2017.






Question 04:

4. Similar to the response provided in NDC DR003_Q03 Attachment, please provide information on the total amount of Executive Incentive Compensation (EIC) paid to executives in 2016. Indicate how much was paid for performance in each separate metric of the EIC plan, and provide the performance levels that were achieved in each EIC metric versus the target goal.


The attachment provided in response to NDC-SCE-003, Q.03 has been updated to include the breakdown of target and actual performance levels for each EIC metric for the 2016 plan year and is attached hereto as NDC-SCE-004_Q.04 Attachment.xlsx.




Executive Incentive Plan - Goal Achievement and Target vs. Actual EIC/NOEIP Payout

2011-2016

NDC-SCE-004, Q.04

PLAN

YEAR GOAL

Target

Score

Actual

Score Target EIC Target NOEIP Actual EIC* Actual NOEIP**

Safety 10 0 $ 322,064 $ 606,454 $ - $ -

Operational & Service Excellence 20 8 $ 644,128 $ 1,212,907 $ 258,737 $ 488,383

Strategic Initiatives 20 21 $ 644,128 $ 1,212,907 $ 679,184 $ 1,282,006

People & Culture 10 8 $ 322,064 $ 606,454 $ 258,737 $ 488,383

Financial Performance 40 53 $ 1,288,256 $ 2,425,814 $ 1,714,132 $ 3,235,539

100 90 $ 3,220,641 $ 6,064,536 $ 2,910,790 $ 5,494,312

Safety 10 0 $ 352,191 $ 641,563 $ - $ -

Operational & Service Excellence 20 25 $ 704,383 $ 1,283,125 $ 910,993 $ 1,596,462

Strategic Initiatives 20 19 $ 704,383 $ 1,283,125 $ 692,355 $ 1,213,311

People & Culture 10 8 $ 352,191 $ 641,563 $ 291,518 $ 510,868


100 105 $ 3,521,914 $ 6,415,627 $ 3,826,172 $ 6,705,140


25 23 $ 918,129 $ 1,631,930 $ 905,961 $ 1,500,624

Strategic Initiatives 20 27 $ 734,503 $ 1,305,544 $ 1,063,519 $ 1,761,602

People & Culture 15 10 $ 550,878 $ 979,158 $ 393,896 $ 652,445


100 140 $ 3,672,517 $ 6,527,721 $ 5,514,543 $ 9,134,234


20 25 $ 805,917 $ 1,251,050 $ 1,035,441 $ 1,568,480

Strategic Initiatives 20 30 $ 805,917 $ 1,251,050 $ 1,242,529 $ 1,882,176

People & Culture 20 35 $ 805,917 $ 1,251,050 $ 1,449,617 $ 2,195,873


100 135 $ 4,029,584 $ 6,255,250 $ 5,591,381 $ 8,469,794

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒𝟐

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟏

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟑𝟑

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔𝟔




25 20 $ 1,129,183 $ 1,708,103 $ 972,463 $ 1,328,465

Strategic Initiatives 25 60 $ 1,129,183 $ 1,708,103 $ 2,917,390 $ 3,985,394

People & Culture 10 15 $ 451,673 $ 683,241 $ 729,347 $ 996,348


100 135 $ 4,516,730 $ 6,832,410 $ 6,564,127 $ 8,967,136

Regulatory & Legislative Advocacy 15 20 $ 705,160 $ 1,059,174 $ 914,920 $ 1,439,713

Operational Excellence+

20 15 $ 940,213 $ 1,412,231 $ 686,190 $ 1,079,785

People & Culture 5 5 $ 235,053 $ 353,058 $ 228,730 $ 359,928


100 100 $ 4,701,066 $ 7,061,157 $ 4,574,600 $ 7,198,564

+Includes Safety goal


http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2017-proxy.pdf

**For purposes of our GRC showing, SCE includes the Executive Incentive Compensation Plan payouts to non-officer executives (known

as “NOEIP”) together with STIP in a single STIP request. See SCE-06 Vol. 2 Ch. 5 testimony, pp. 22-28.

*Executive Incentive Compensation Plan payouts to Executive Officers (EIC) are included in labor costs in Executive Officers 920/921

activity package. See SCE-06 Vol. 1 testimony, pp. 26-37.


http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/sec-filings-financials/c8098_Joint_Proxy12.pdf






http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2016-joint-proxy-statement.pdf2Refer to 2015 EIX/SCE Joint Proxy Statement, p. 34, for EIC Goals and Target/Actual Scores:

http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/investors/corporate-governance/2015-eix-sce-proxy-statement.pdf

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟐𝟒

𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟓


Documents

Prepared Testimony of Faith Bautista on the 2018 …docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/SupDoc/A1609001/493/185576184.pdf · 13. Please provide additional details on the People and Culture