8. Electric Tariff Rule 14
SDG&E's Electric Tariff Rule 14 requires SDG&E to exercise "reasonable diligence and care to furnish and deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of electric energy to the customer, and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery of same."66 Tariff Rule 14 also states that SDG&E will not be held liable for an interruption in service "caused by inevitable accident, act of God, fire, strikes, riots, war or any other cause not within its control."
SDG&E requests authority to amend Tariff Rule 14 to include the statement that SDG&E may shut off power "without liability to Customers" when in "SDG&E's sole opinion such interruption is necessary for . . . [an] [e]mergency affecting or likely to affect SDG&E's distribution system."67 The text of SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 mirrors PG&E's current Tariff Rule 14.
SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 are not contingent on Commission approval of SDG&E's Power Shut-Off Plan. Rather, SDG&E sees these as separate matters.
8.1. Position of the Parties
SDG&E avers that its proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 will help customers understand that power may be shut off unexpectedly in order to protect public safety. SDG&E also asserts that customers are currently responsible for any losses they might occur when power is shut off for safety reasons, and that the proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 will not change that.
SDG&E maintains that PG&E's current Tariff Rule 14 is an appropriate template for revising SDG&E's Tariff Rule l4 even though PG&E's Tariff was not adopted as a part of a fire-safety program. Rather, it was approved in 1997 as part of the Commission's direct access program. SDG&E submits that PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 is not limited to situations involving direct access; it covers safety and interruption of service in a general sense.
SCE supports SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14.
The Opposition Parties assert that SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 will unfairly shift all costs and liabilities for power shut-off events to the customers and communities in the areas where power is shut off.
The Opposition Parties dismiss SDG&E's assertion that PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 is an appropriate template for revising SDG&E's Tariff Rule 14. They state that PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 was implemented as part of the direct access program, not a fire-safety program.
8.2. Discussion
It appears that the main purpose of SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 is to allow SDG&E to shut off power in a manner consistent with its Power Shut-Off Plan, without liability to its customers or others. Because today's decision denies SDG&E's request for authority to implement its Power Shut-Off Plan, we decline to authorize the proposed changes to SDG&E's Tariff Rule 14. Our denial of SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 means we do not have to decide whether the proposed tariff language would permit SDG&E to shut off power under the circumstances described in its Power Shut-Off Plan.
SDG&E argues that the proposed revisions will help its customers understand that SDG&E may need to shut off power unexpectedly in order to protect public safety. SDG&E does not explain why revising Tariff Rule 14 will achieve this objective, particularly if few customers ever read Tariff Rule 14. We believe that most customers already expect that SDG&E will shut off power when necessary to protect public safety, thereby making SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 superfluous.
SDG&E also argues that it should be allowed to revise its Tariff Rule 14 to mirror PG&E's Tariff Rule 14. We disagree. As noted by several parties, the revisions to PG&E's tariff were made in a different context. PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 stems from D.97-10-087, which concerned the interruption of energy supplied by energy marketers to direct access customers. Thus, the revisions to PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 were wholly unrelated to the main purpose of SDG&E's proposed revisions to its Tariff Rule 14. Nor does SDG&E explain why a tariff filed by PG&E more than a decade ago to implement direct access is appropriate today given all the ensuing changes to direct access.
66 Tariff Rule 14, Section A.
67 Exhibit SDG&E-3, Appendix C.
