5. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the Administrative Law Judge 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 on the draft decision were received on ________________.
1. Following bankruptcy proceedings by the original contractor, Quality Conservation assumed an $810,000 contract to install residential energy-saving measures in the SDG&E service territory.
2. Quality Conservation claims that it has completed its work under the contract and that SDG&E has breached the contract by refusing to pay.
3. SDG&E has refused to pay for the work performed by Quality Conservation, alleging that the latter is in breach.
4. The parties in their contract agreed that any dispute would be taken to the civil courts in San Diego County if the dispute did not involve the interpretation of their agreement or administrator performance of Commission rules, orders or other requirements.
5. As a general rule, the Commission does not adjudicate contract disputes merely because one party is a public utility.
6. The Commission is not authorized to award damages.
7. The administrative dispute resolution provisions of the contract do not require the Commission to perform binding arbitration.
1. The complaint fails to state a violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission, as required by Pub. Util. Code § 1702.
2. SDG&E's motion to dismiss should be granted.
3. The case should be closed, effective immediately, so that complainant can pursue other avenues for obtaining relief.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. to dismiss this complaint for failure to state a violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission, as required by Pub. Util. Code § 1702, is granted.
2. Case 00-07-025 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
