Both coded rows are from the fourth ("last bill") pricing model, the specification the paper's conclusions rest on; the deregulation-period elasticity (-0.096, from coef -1.340) is quoted as -0.10 in the Introduction, and the post-freeze twin (-0.101, from coef -0.843) is headlined as evidence of continued curtailment (abstract's "Even months after the utility restored low historic rates customers continued curtailing demand"). || "During the months when retail rates were deregulated for all SDG&E customers, we estimate an elasticity of demand with respect to lagged prices (which nearly doubled by August, 2000) equal to -0.10." (p. 495, printed); "The price coefficient is only -0.843 (s.e. of 0.270)... The implied 'elasticity' during this period is similar (-0.101)" (p. 504, printed)
Bushnell, J. B., & Mansur, E. T. (2005): 'Consumption under noisy price signals: A study of electricity retail rate deregulation in San Diego.' Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(4), 493-513.