4. Scoping

The issues to be decided in this proceeding are as follows:³

· Is 70% or more of Complainants' electricity used for "agricultural end purposes"?


· Do Complainants' hulling operations qualify as an agricultural end use?


· Does the hulling of almonds involve the production of an agricultural product for sale?


· Does the hulling of the almonds change the form of the agricultural product?


· Does Complainants' shelling of almonds qualify as an agricultural end use?


· Does the shelling of the almonds involve the production of an agricultural product for sale?


· Does the shelling of the almonds change the form of the agricultural product?


· Is there a viable market for unhulled or unshelled almonds?

· Does a commercial or industrial rate schedule under PG&E's tariffs more appropriately apply to Complainants' almond hulling and shelling operations?


· Are Complainants entitled to a refund for the difference between the amounts previously paid for electricity at a commercial rate and the lower amount that would have been paid applying an agricultural rate?


· If yes, does a three-year statute of limitations apply to claims for these refunds?


· What is the amount of the refund to which each Complainant is entitled?


· Are Complainants entitled to pre- or post-judgment interest on the refund?⁴

Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2(d), this proceeding must be resolved within 12 months of initiation.

³ PG&E's agricultural tariffs define customer eligibility for electric service at an agricultural tariff as follows:

A customer will be served under this schedule if 70% or more of the energy use is for agricultural end uses. Agricultural end-uses include growing crops, raising livestock, pumping water for agricultural irrigation, or other uses which involve production for sale, and which do not change the form of the agricultural product. This schedule is not applicable to service for which a residential or commercial/industrial schedule is applicable, or to customers with a maximum demand of 500 kW or more. (PG&E Schedule A-5-Large Time of Use Agricultural Power.)

At the PHC, counsel for Complainants clarified that Complainants are seeking to receive electric service at an agricultural rate under PG&E Schedule A-5C. PG&E's other agricultural tariffs contain essentially the same language as above.

⁴ This proceeding involves a determination of the eligibility of these particular Complainants for electric service under a PG&E agricultural tariff, rather than a commercial tariff. We therefore need not address broad issues regarding the ratemaking impacts of switching Complainants from a commercial to an agricultural rate here. Moreover, pursuant to the assigned ALJ's February 3, 2004 ruling, the parties met and conferred and filed a joint case management statement, which identified issues to be determined in this proceeding, before the PHC. The parties did not include the broader ratemaking impacts of switching Complainants to an agricultural rate as an issue for determination in the joint case management statement.