VII. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______________, and reply comments were filed on ______________________.
1. District's electric service at 1955 Workman Avenue in Whittier is governed by the Electric Service Contract dated December 15, 1989, and was initially properly placed on rate schedule TOU-8.
2. Compensated metering was not available when Contract signed in December 1989.
3. Compensated billing under Special Condition No. 16 of schedule TOU-8 became available in April of 1990.
4. Edison has a duty under Tariff Rule 12 to notify its customers, who may be affected, of a new or revised rate if such rate is established after the time application is made to Edison for service.
5. Edison notified affected customers in May 1990 of the availability of compensated metering under Special Condition No. 16 of schedule TOU-8 by way of AL- 864.
6. Edison's service list for AL-864 does not include an entry for District, nor was AL-864 sent to the address for District as set forth in the Power Purchase Contract and the Facilities Agreement or the address used by Edison for billing District.
7. Edison assigned an accounts manager to District's account and despite regularly scheduled meetings to address service, metering, and billing issues, the accounts manager never advised District of the availability of compensated metering under its schedule TOU-8.
8. District inquired about its schedule TOU-8 12 kV billing rate in January 1999.
9. Once District was advised in 1999 of the availability of compensated metering under Special condition No. 16 for schedule TOU-8, District requested installation of the device.
10. Defendant Southern California Edison failed to meet its tariff Rule 12 duty to notify District of the availability of compensated metering.
11. District incurred losses due to over billing as a result of Edison's failure to notify District of the availability of compensated metering.
12. Pub. Util. Code § 736 and Edison's tariff Rule 17(c) impose a three-year statute of limitations on billing error claims, and District's claim is subject to these statutes of limitations.
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the 3rd cause of action.
2. Defendant Southern California Edison Company's motion for summary judgment as to the 3rd cause of action is denied.
3. Complainant County Sanitation District's recovery of damages on the 3rd cause of action, pursuant to the three-year statute of limitations in Pub. Util. Code Section 736 and Edison's Tariff Rule 17, is limited to the time-frame from January 7, 1996, to January 7, 1999.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County's motion for summary judgment as to the 3rd cause of action is granted.
2. Defendant Southern California Edison Company's (Edison) motion for summary judgment as to the 3rd cause of action is denied.
3. Southern California Edison Company is ordered to review its billing records from January 7, 1996, to January 7, 1999, and refund the difference to County Sanitation District between the rate District actually paid and the amount it would have paid if the compensated metering device were in place.
4. This proceeding is now closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
