3. Discussion

A hearing on the complaint was held on September 11, 2002, in Livermore. We summarize below the issues that were addressed.

A. Complainant Claims the Daily Summer Baseline Allotment for All-Electric Customers in Territory X Should Be 11.5 kWh, Not 11.4 kHw.

We reject this claim because Complainant used an incorrect number of days for the summer season in her calculation. If Complainant had used the correct number of days (184) instead of 183, her answer would have been 11.4 kWh, the same as PG&E.

Moreover, although Complainant has highlighted the seemingly counterintuitive result of PG&E's calculation of the all-electric summer baseline in Territory X, PG&E's result seems to have been properly derived.

B. Complainant Requests that the California 20/20 Rebate Program Apply to Her Electric Bill for the Period 6/28/02 - 7/31/02.

Complainant's meter read date results in her eligibility period beginning on July 31, 2002. Therefore, Complainant will receive the allotted four months of eligibility with her bills presented in August, September, October and November, in accordance with PG&E's tariff. PG&E notes that a 20% credit was applied to Complainant's account on her August 28, 2002, billing.

C. Complainant Claims the Energy Procurement Surcharges Have a Ceiling of 47% Increase to Bills.

This claim is based on a PG&E notification included in customer bills in June 2001, which contained the following reference:

Tier 5: Electricity usage in excess of 300% of Baseline

11.5-cent/kWh Surcharge (up to 47% increase in bill)

Complainant interprets the words in boldface to mean that there is a limitation of 47% for increases to residential bills due to the surcharges. PG&E responds that the words "up to 47% increase in bill" in this notification were approved by the Commission staff as an estimate of the average bill impact on residential customers who have Tier 5 usage. However, according to PG&E's tariff, there is no maximum or limitation to the Tier 5 surcharges for residential usage over 300% of baseline.

We do not dispute that the above wording in the customer notification is confusing. The notification should have explained that the "average customer," whose usage is in Tier 5, will see a bill increase of 47%. Unfortunately, Complainant is not an average Tier 5 customer; her usage is at the high-end of Tier 5. However, it is well settled that in any dispute or ambiguity the utility's tariff controls. The "Rates" portion of PG&E's tariff E-EPS states: "Tier 5 rates apply to use over 300% of the Tier 1 baseline quantity." Therefore, contrary to Complainant's belief, there is no limit (or 47% cap) to customer bills resulting from the surcharges. Accordingly, Complainant's argument is rejected.

D. Complainant Questions the Accuracy of PG&E's Baseline Allowance Calculations.

To address Complainant's concerns, PG&E provided Complainant with a "quick comparison" to show that summer usage of some customers in her neighborhood was close to or higher than Complainant's usage. Of the nine accounts provided, three had errors in the 12-month totals of kWhs used. Based on this, Complainant argues that PG&E is offering an "illusion of accuracy" with regard to baseline quantities.

PG&E responds that it has re-checked its databases and calculations, and has verified its updated Territory X baseline revisions to be correct and in compliance with Commission directives and statutes.

While the arithmetic errors in the quick comparison provided to Complainant could have been avoided by simply checking the totals, we are not persuaded that these errors have any bearing on the accuracy of PG&E's database used to calculate baseline allowances. Accordingly, we reject Complainant's argument.

While it is a unique situation that the all-electric summer baseline quantities in Territory X are lower than the basic-electric summer baseline quantities, the baseline allowances for all territories were calculated in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 739 (d)(1), using a four-year average approved by the Commission. There is no difference in the summer baseline allowance calculation for all-electric or basic-electric residential customers; both receive a baseline allowance of 60% of average recorded usage for each group. It is in the winter heating season that all-electric residential customers are allotted more baseline quantities in terms of using 70% rather than 60% of recorded usage. For climate zone Territory X, the updated all-electric winter baseline quantity is 21.9 kWh per day. The updated basic-electric winter baseline quantity is 13.0 kWh per day. Consequently, although the Complainant has focused on the summer season, Territory X all-electric customers in fact do receive a significantly higher winter baseline allotment than Territory X basic-electric customers, and also receive a higher baseline allowance on an average annual basis as well. Accordingly, we reject Complainant's argument challenging PG&E's baseline allowance calculations.