V. Discussion

We recognize that since compensated metering became available in early 1990 and District filed its complaint in 1999, time has passed, memories may have faded, personnel have left both entities, and neither Edison nor District have a copy of the Rate Book that contains the revised tariffs. Therefore, we must decide this issue based upon the best evidence available: the record and evidence provided by the parties.

Rule 12(c) "New or Revised Rates," provides that:

"Should new or revised rates be established after the time application is made, SCE (Edison) will use such means as may be practicable to bring to the attention of those of its customers who may be affected that such new or revised rates are effective. Customers may be eligible for service under new or revised rates subsequent to notification by the customer and verification by SCE of such eligibility."

Rule 12 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its own terms and conditions. Additionally, we believe that the Purchase Contract, Facilities Agreement, and Electric Service Contract between Edison and the District speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their own terms and contents.

District submitted a copy of the Purchase Contract as Exhibit A as an attachment to its original claim against Edison. The Agreement covers the terms and conditions in which Edison agrees to buy electricity generated by the Spadra Project in excess of the amount required by the District. Section 1.1 of the Agreement states: "All notices shall be sent to the seller (District) at the following address: P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607. Attn: Chief Engineer and General Manager."

The parties entered a second contract, the Facilities Agreement, regarding the construction of the substation. This contract was submitted with District's claim as Exhibit B. Page 8 of the document includes the signatures of District's Chief Engineer and General Manager Charles Carry and Edison's Vice President Robert Dietch. This document was signed and dated December 22, 1988. Also included in the Facilities Agreement is the mail address for the District: 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90607.

Edison's answer to the original complaint includes an attachment identified as "Exhibit A." Exhibit A consists of an Edison form utilized for billing for standby service. This form identifies District as the party requesting service and includes the 1955 Workman Mill Road address as the billing address.

We therefore determine the 1955 Workman Mill Road address to be the correct address for correspondence regarding issues related to the Power Purchase Contract, the Facilities Agreement, and billing as between the District and Edison. Because the Workman Mill Road address does not appear on Edison's service list for AL-864 we must conclude that there is no evidence that Edison served District with AL 864.

However, we must now determine whether Edison met its duty under Rule 12 to use reasonable means, other than the Advice Letter, to notify District of the revised rates.

The parties have offered conflicting testimony regarding whether District's Division Engineer, Wheless, had actual knowledge of the new tariff. Edison's Accounts Manager Rick Raskin's testimony states that Wheless admitted receiving, but not reading the Advice Letter, while Wheless has testified that he neither received nor admitted receipt. It is unlikely that further testimony on this contentious point will clarify the issue. While conflicting testimony normally presents a triable actual issue and results in the denial of Summary Judgment, we again note that the parties have foregone trial and submitted this matter on the pleadings. Thus, we will not rely on it to make our determination.

Our next line of inquiry is whether Edison used any other reasonable means to notify District of the availability of the compensated metering option prior to Districts own inquiry early in 1999.

District claims that it did not receive notice, despite the fact that District had regular contact with Edison's Accounts Managers. Edison claims that its customers must request information regarding new or revised rates, and that providing such information is not the responsibility of the Accounts Managers.

We disagree with Edison that the customer must request information on new or revised rates. The terms of Rule 12(c) (see above) clearly state that the responsibility of providing notification to customers of new or revised rates is Edison's. However, Rule 12 does not place the duty to notify customers upon Edison's Accounts Managers, even though we believe that if an Account Manager had informed customers of new or revised rates in the course of regular meetings, such notification would satisfy Rule 12.

Edison has not submitted evidence or testimony that its Accounts Managers took the opportunity to notify District of the compensated metering option. In addition, District denies receiving notification by way of Edison's Accounts Manager, despite regularly scheduled meetings with their assigned Accounts Manager to address metering, billing, and service related issues.

Therefore, we find that Edison did not utilize its Accounts Manager assigned to the District account to notify District of the revised rates.

Edison asserts, and District does not deny, that District is on the list of Edison's Rate Book holders, and therefore, received the Rate Book containing both the notice of approval of AL-864 and the revised tariff sheets. We must determine whether receipt of a Rate Book is sufficient to satisfy Edison's duty under Rule 12. To make that determination, we look to case law.

While there is no prior case law interpreting Edison's Tariff Rule 12 we can look to an analogous case, Shimek v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), (1993) 51 CPUC2d 513, for guidance. At issue in Shimek, was an alleged violation of PG&E's Rule 12, which is almost identical to Edison's Rule 12. The relevant portion of PG&E's Rule 12 states:

"In the event of the adoption by PG&E of new or optional schedules or rates, PG&E will take such measures as may be practicable to advise those of its customers who may be affected that such new or optional rates are effective."

In Shimek, the Commission found that when rate changes occur that potentially make a particular rate schedule more economical for a group of customers than the schedule for their existing service, the utility is responsible for taking reasonable steps to get the word out to the affected customer on a timely basis. The Commission went on to explain that the customer cannot reasonably be expected to follow the effect of each rate change . . . [and] the customer should not be penalized by PG&E's lack of timely notification.

Applying the reasoning from Shimek, we conclude that Edison cannot rely upon its Rate Books to satisfy Rule 12's duty to notify its affected customers in a timely manner. We find that Edison's failure to use reasonable means to notify District of the compensated metering option when that revised rate schedule became available in 1990, prevented District from taking advantage of cost savings that compensated metering provides. As a result, we agree with District's argument that it was overbilled for standby service for the period of time that the new pricing option became available until the District sought information from Edison in early 1999.