Position of the Parties

A. The Complainants

The complainants contend that instead of dismissing the complaint, hearings should be held to allow the complainants to prove their case. At a minimum, the Commission should issue findings that address the question of whether SCE's Rule 1 conflicts with the Public Utilities Code, and whether SCE has violated any law. Such findings should be made even if the Commission decides that this action is time-barred.

The complaint alleges, among other things, the following:

· SCE's Rule 1 definition of a "small commercial customer" conflicts with the definition in § 331(h).

· SCE's Rule 1 definition was approved and implemented by the Commission because SCE made repeated false representations to the Commission, which the Commission relied on.

· As a result of SCE's defective Rule 1 definition, 27,877 customers of SCE were denied the 10% rate reduction.

· Other Commission decisions also conflict with § 331(h).

The complainants contend that SCE' Rule 1 is in conflict with § 331(h) because Rule 1 states:

"Small commercial customer: For purposes of Rate Reduction Bonds, customers served under Schedules GS-1, TOU-GS-1, and TOU-EV-3."

Section 331(h), however, states: " `Small commercial customer' means a customer that has a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kilowatts." The complainants assert that they have never exceeded 20 kW of maximum peak demand, and that a small commercial customer could have a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kW, as required by § 331(h), but not be served under one of the rate schedules listed in Rule 1. A conflict exists because under § 331(h), the complainants are considered "small commercial," even though they are served on Schedule GS-2. However, under SCE's Rule 1, the complainants are not considered "small commercial" customers because they do not receive service under the schedules listed in Rule 1. Thus, the complainants, and 27,877 other GS-2 customers, have been denied the 10% rate reduction because they received service on the GS-2 schedule.⁸

SCE's Rule 1 was developed as part of the utilities' direct access implementation plan and the pro forma tariffs which addressed the direct access terms and conditions.⁹ The complainants assert that SCE falsely represented to the Commission that its GS-1 rate schedule was synonymous with the definition of small commercial customer in § 331(h). The complainants contend that this misrepresentation occurred in the direct access implementation plan wherein it was stated:

"Edison's residential and small commercial customers are those served on rate schedules in the Domestic and GS-1 rate groups. PU Code Section 331(h) defines `small commercial customer' as a customer that has a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kW, which is consistent with Edison's GS-1 rate schedule." (R.94-04-031, Direct Access Implementation Plan, July 1, 1997, p. 14.)

The complainants assert that the above statement is misleading because SCE failed to mention that small commercial customers with maximum peak demands of below 20 kW, such as the complainants, could also take service on Schedule GS-2. As a result of this misrepresentation, certain small commercial customers were improperly precluded from receiving the 10% rate reduction provided for in § 368.

The direct access implementation plan and the pro forma tariffs were approved in D.97-10-087, and SCE was ordered to file conforming tariffs. (76 CPUC2d 287, 333-334.) In compliance with D.97-10-087, SCE filed Advice Letter 1268-E on November 25, 1997, which included SCE's Rule 1 definition. The advice letter slightly changed the wording of Rule 1 by deleting the phrase "For purposes of Rate Reduction Bonds." The advice letter subsequently went into effect without protest.

The complainants contend that SCE made the same misrepresentation in its application for a financing order, which was decided in D.97-09-056. SCE's testimony in its financing order application described which rate schedules should be considered eligible for the 10% rate reduction. SCE's testimony stated:

"For purposes of rate reduction as well as the fire wall provisions of AB 1890, Edison's residential and small commercial customers are those served on rate schedules in the Domestic and General Service (`GS-1') rate groups. [Footnote: `These include all customers on Schedules D, D-APS, D-CARE, DE, DM, DMS-1, DMS-2, DMS-3, DS, TOU-D-1, TOU-D-2, TOU-EV-1, TOU-EV-2, GS-1, TOU-GS-1, TOU-EV-3, and GS-1 customers taking service on GS-APS.'] PU Code Chapter [sic] 331(h) defines `small commercial customer' as a customer that has a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kW. This definition corresponds to all customers served on rate schedules in Edison's GS-1 rate group. As defined in Edison's tariffs, these rate schedules are open to general service customers with maximum demands of less than or equal to 20 kW." (A.97-05-018, SCE "Proposed Ratemaking and Tariff Changes," May 6, 1997, p. II-2.)

The complainants contend that the above statement was false because it failed to include the GS-2 rate schedule as one of the schedules open to general service customers with a maximum demand of less than or equal to 20 kW. While Schedule GS-2 sets an upper limit on the customer's demand, it does not prevent customers with a demand of less than 20 kW from taking service under this schedule.

Although the Commission adopted SCE's small commercial customer definition in the financing order decision, the complainants contend that the Commission thought it was approving a definition that was consistent with § 331(h), as evidenced by the following passage in D.97-09-056:

"The Commission finds that the issuance of RRBs, coupled with a 10% rate reduction for residential and small commercial (a small commercial customer is defined by PU Code Section 331(h) as one whose maximum peak demand is less than 20 kilowatts) beginning on January 1, 1998, and continuing through the rate-freeze period, will lower rates residential and small commercial customers would have paid if this financing order were not adopted." (75 CPUC2d at 563.)

The complainants also point out that D.97-09-056 referenced that the rate reduction must be consistent with D.96-12-077 (70 CPUC2d 207), the decision regarding the utilities' cost recovery plans. Ordering paragraph 1 of D.96-12-077 stated that the approval of the cost recovery plans was "subject to the limitations discussed in this opinion." One of these limitations was expressed as follows:

"For these reasons our approval of the plans is subject to the following principles:

· To the extent that any element of the plans or of this decision is inconsistent with § 368 or any other provision of AB 1890, the language of the statute prevails." (70 CPUC2d at 218.)

In SCE's cost recovery plan application, SCE referred to small commercial customers as those customers in "Rate Schedule GS-1." By defining small commercial customers to mean only those customers on Schedule GS-1, the complainants assert that SCE's cost recovery plan was in conflict with § 331(h) because customers on a GS-2 rate schedule can also be small commercial customers. Although the Commission approved SCE's cost recovery plan application in D.96-12-077, the complainants contend that the Commission thought it was approving a plan that was wholly consistent with AB 1890, as evidenced from the following footnote reference in D.96-12-077 regarding the 10% rate reduction: " `Small commercial customer' is defined as a customer with a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kilowatts (§331(h))." (70 CPUC2d at 220, 234, fn. 2.)¹⁰

Thus, the complainants assert that D.97-09-056 can only be consistent with D.96-12-077 if the definition of small commercial customer in § 331(h) prevails over any contrary definition approved in D.97-09-056.

The complainants also assert in their opening brief at page 27 that all subsequent tariffs proposed by SCE had to comply with the cost recovery plan framework approved in D.96-12-077. Since SCE's Rule 1 is in conflict with § 331(h), the complainants assert that Rule 1 is in violation of D.96-12-077.

The complainants also argue that even if SCE filed a tariff that complied with the financing order decision, that tariff did not comply with the cost recovery plan decision and § 331(h), and that under the case of Pink Dot v. Teleport Communications Group (2002) 89 Cal.App.4th 407, SCE can be held liable, and the Commission has the authority to reject SCE's tariff because it does not comply with a prior order.

The complainants also contend that D.97-08-056 (74 CPUC2d 1) is another example of the Commission's pronouncements regarding small commercial customers. One of the parties that participated in that proceeding proposed that time-of-use customers should not be eligible for the 10% rate reduction. In rejecting that proposal, the complainants contend that the Commission made it clear that the statutory definition of a small commercial customer was paramount, as evidenced by the statement in D.97-08-056 that:

"Notwithstanding any administrative difficulties which may result, AB 1890 requires that residential and small commercial customers receive the rate reduction. In so doing, it does not distinguish between time-of-use customers and others. We therefore require that the utilities offer the reduction to all residential and small commercial customers, including those who subscribe to time-of-use schedules." (74 CPUC2d at 29.)

The complainants contend that ordering paragraph 12.a. of D.97-08-056 reinforced this concern when the Commission stated:

"PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E shall file tariffs within 15 days of the effective date of this order which incorporate the provisions of this order and which shall not include any changes to the tariffs not anticipated or required by this order. The tariffs shall reflect the revenue requirements for each utility set forth in Ordering Paragraphs herein and shall:

a. Provide the 10% discount mandated by AB 1890 to residential and small commercial customers on all types of rate schedules and recover the cost of paying off the rate reduction bonds from the same classes of customers." (74 CPUC2d at 43.)

The complainants contend that D.97-08-056 reflects the Commission's view that a customer's maximum peak demand, and not the rate schedule, should dictate whether the customer is a small commercial customer. The complainants acknowledge, however, that this view is impossible to reconcile with the Commission's subsequent approval of SCE's Rule 1 definition of a small commercial customer in D.97-09-056. SCE's Rule 1, which is based on a customer's rate schedule, does not include customers who receive service on Schedule GS-2. The complainants assert that this inconsistency is due to the fact that SCE misrepresented its rate schedules to the Commission.

The complainants contend that the consequences of SCE's false representations are that SCE's Rule 1 definition of a small commercial customer, as adopted in D.97-10-087, and the adoption of SCE's small customer definition in D.97-09-056, must be voided to the extent it conflicts with the Code. The complainants assert that such a result should occur because the Commission is required to act in accordance with the statutory directives of the legislature. The rate schedules that the Commission adopted only gave the 10% rate reduction to GS-1 customers, which did not satisfy the criteria set forth in §§ 331(h) and 368(a). The complainants therefore seek a refund from SCE equivalent to the 10% rate reduction as called for in § 331(h), but which was denied to them because of SCE's Rule 1.

Even if SCE complied with the Rule 1 definition approved by the Commission, this is not a defense to the complainants' contention that SCE failed to provide the 10% rate reduction to small commercial customers as defined in § 331(h). The complainants contend that § 532 gives the Commission the discretion to allow exceptions to the prohibition against utilities deviating from their tariffs. (See D.98-11-063.) The complainants also point out other instances of when the Commission revisited an illegal tariff long after the effective date of the tariff. Since SCE's Rule 1 definition of a small commercial customer is contrary to § 331(h), the complainants argue that the Commission has the authority to grant relief in this situation. Furthermore, since SCE misled the Commission in approving the tariff, the Commission should take affirmative steps to remedy the fraudulent conduct by SCE. That is, the Commission should require SCE to correct its defective tariff, and put the parties in the same position they would have been in if the tariff had not been defective, i.e., pay a refund to the complainants.

B. SCE

SCE contends that the Commission did not authorize the 10% rate reduction for customers on rate schedules in the GS-2 rate group. Instead, D.97-09-056 only designated those customers on rate schedules in SCE's "Domestic and General Service (GS-1) rate group[s]" as eligible to receive the 10% rate reduction beginning January 1, 1998. (75 CPUC2d at 570, 580.)

In order to understand the issues in this complaint, SCE states that one must have an understanding of the terms and conditions of the GS-1 and GS-2 schedules. Schedule GS-2 is the default rate schedule within the GS-2 rate group, and Schedule GS-1 is the default rate schedule within the GS-1 rate group. These rate groups were established in D.96-04-050 (65 CPUC2d 362).

Schedule GS-2 is a demand-metered schedule with a customer charge and a two-tiered block energy charge. This schedule is mandatory for customers whose demand has exceeded 20 kW (but less than 500 kW) during three of the prior twelve months. Customers on Schedule GS-2, whose monthly demand registers 20 kW or less for twelve consecutive months or who permanently change their operations such that SCE believes the load will be less than 20 kW, may transfer to another applicable rate schedule such as Schedule GS-1. Such transfers are at the discretion of the customer. This provides a customer, with a consistent demand of less than 20 kW, the opportunity to switch to a GS-1 schedule to take advantage of the 10% rate reduction and the commensurate obligation to repay the revenue reduction bond (RRB) transaction. SCE contends that this flexibility meets the criteria of § 331(h). SCE states that some customers, whose maximum peak demands are less than 20 kW, choose to remain on Schedule GS-2 instead of Schedule GS-1 because their bills are lower due to the rate structure.

Schedule GS-1 is not a demand-metered schedule. Instead, it has a customer charge and an energy charge. Customers on rate schedules in the GS-1 rate group are general service customers whose monthly peak demand must not exceed 20 kW. A customer served on Schedule GS-1 must transfer to Schedule GS-2 or other applicable tariff in the GS-2 rate group if, in SCE's opinion, the customer's maximum demand is expected to exceed 20 kW, or if the customer's maximum demand exceeds 20 kW in any three of the prior twelve months.

SCE states that it conducted an analysis of its Schedule GS-2 customers to identify which customers could benefit by switching to the GS-1 rate group. SCE notified those GS-2 customers about their ability to transfer and the possible impact of such a transfer.

Contrary to the complainants' assertion that "they have always had maximum peak demands of less than 20 kw," SCE states that its records show that Anchor has three accounts on Schedule GS-2, and other accounts on the GS-1 schedule which received the 10% rate reduction. The three GS-2 accounts have demands which exceed 20 kW, and have never been less than 20 kW for twelve consecutive months. Thus, if the complainants' interpretation of § 331(h) was applied to these three accounts, they would not have been eligible for the 10% rate reduction.

As for Tommy's account, SCE does not dispute that Tommy's demand has not exceeded 20 kW. SCE points out that Tommy's could have transferred from the GS-2 schedule to the GS-1 schedule, but failed to do so. By failing to exercise its transfer right, and remaining on the GS-2 rate schedule, Tommy's waived its right to the 10% rate reduction.

SCE states that it complied with the financing order decision and the applicable tariffs when it denied the 10% rate reduction to the complainants because Schedule GS-2 customers are excluded from the 10% rate reduction.

SCE asserts that the Commission reasonably and properly construed §§ 331(h) and 368(a) when it adopted the eligibility criteria for the 10% rate reduction and Schedule RRB in D.97-09-056. Following the issuance of D.97-09-056, the Energy Division determined that Schedule RRB was in compliance with this financing order and approved SCE's tariff, which became effective on December 10, 1997.

SCE asserts that the Commission's interpretation of § 331(h), § 368(a), and the other provisions of AB 1890, took into consideration the legislative intent, practical limitations, and administrative concerns. These considerations included the following. Section 331(h) does not specify whether the maximum peak demand of a small commercial customer is to be measured on an hourly, daily, monthly, or annual basis, or whether it is to be measured only during the peak demand periods for each utility. Section 331(h) does not specify which rate schedules are eligible for the rate reduction, even though rate schedules are used for billing purposes. In addition, § 331(h) does not specify what constitutes a commercial customer, i.e., whether it includes agricultural customers, churches, or other customers whose demands are less than 20 kW. Also, customers are not billed on whether or not in a particular month their maximum peak demand exceeded 20 kW. Due to customers' demands varying from day-to-day and month-to-month on different rate schedules, the Commission had to interpret §§ 331(h) and 368(a) in order to implement the 10% rate reduction.

SCE contends that the Commission used its expertise and understanding to determine which rate schedules are generally considered commercial, and which schedules are for customers whose demand may exceed or be less than 20 kW. The Commission correctly determined that for purposes of implementing the 10% rate reduction, only those commercial customers served in the GS-1 rate group were eligible, and commercial customers served on rate schedules in other rate groups were not eligible. D.97-09-056 complied with § 331(h) because SCE customers served on rate schedules in the GS-1 rate group must have demands of less than 20 kW for at least 9 months out of the prior 12-month period. Customers in the GS-2 rate group, however, can have any number of months of peak demand in excess of 20 kW. Had SCE provided the 10% rate reduction to customers on Schedule GS-2, SCE would have violated D.97-09-056.

Schedule RRB specifies that customers with demands of less than 20 kW who are served on rate schedules GS-1, TOU-GS-1, and TOU-EV-3, are eligible for the 10% bill credit. Schedule RRB was approved as in compliance with the financing order decision, and went into effect on December 10, 1997. SCE contends that Schedule RRB does not conflict with § 331(h) because the schedule ensures that any customer eligible for the 10% rate reduction must have a monthly peak demand of less than 20 kW, as required by that code section.

SCE asserts that the complainants' contention about the applicability of the Pink Dot case to SCE's Schedule RRB is distinguishable because SCE complied with D.97-09-056. The Commission adopted the proposed Schedule RRB that decision, and the Energy Division subsequently approved the same tariff. Schedule RRB fully complies with § 331(h) because it allows all general service commercial customers, whose demands are less than 20 kW, to receive the rate reduction. The Pink Dot case is distinguishable because in that case the court determined that the utility had not complied with a Commission decision.

SCE contends that the complaint is an improper and untimely challenge to D.97-09-056 and the Commission's implementation of the 10% rate reduction. The complaint is based on the allegation that the Commission-adopted criteria for the implementation of the 10% rate reduction, as reflected in Schedule RRB, is inconsistent with § 331(h). SCE asserts that since the complainants did not file a timely application for rehearing of the decision, and no one else challenged the adopted eligibility criteria for the rate reduction, D.97-09-056 is final and binding.

Although the Commission can reconsider and modify a prior decision, SCE contends that the complainants failed to provide notice to the other parties that they are seeking to modify a prior Commission decision. In addition, since more than one year has elapsed from the effective date of D.97-09-054, the complainants' petition to modify must explain why the petition for modification was not filed within this time. SCE asserts that the complainants could have brought their complaint or a petition for modification long ago because the 10% rate reduction in 1998 was well publicized, and the complainants' bills did not reflect the 10% reduction.

The complainants' argument that the cost recovery plan decision and the approval of Schedule RRB in the financing order decision was based on SCE's false information is a complete fabrication and unsupported by the record in those proceedings. SCE contends that it never represented to the Commission in either of those proceedings that only GS-1 customers, and not GS-2 customers, could have maximum peak demands of less than 20 kW. The fact that SCE's testimony did not state that customers served on Schedule GS-2 could have demands of less than 20 kW, does not mean that SCE misled the Commission.

SCE points out that its prepared testimony in the financing order proceeding clearly stated that for the "purposes of the rate reduction as well as the fire wall provisions of AB 1890, Edison's residential and small commercial customers are those served on rate schedules in the Domestic and General Service (`GS-1') rate groups. [Footnote]" ("Proposed Ratemaking and Tariff Changes," supra, p. II-2.) The footnote reference to this statement specifically enumerated the rate schedules that would receive the 10% rate reduction, and clearly excluded Schedule GS-2. SCE's proposal did not base the 10% rate reduction on whether a customer had a peak demand of less than 20 kW in any month. Instead, all of the customers served on rate schedules in SCE's GS-1 rate group must have monthly maximum peak demands of less than 20 kW.

SCE also points out that the Commission was aware that Schedule GS-2 customers could have demands of less than 20 kW, as discussed in D.97-09-054 (75 CPUC2d at 505-506), and D.97-09-056 (75 CPUC2d at 569-570). SCE asserts that the Commission never intended to implement § 331(h) in a manner that provides a 10% rate reduction to any customer's monthly bill, on any rate schedule, whenever that customer's peak demand does not exceed 20 kW.

SCE also contends that the complainants' argument that D.97-09-054 is "ambiguous and self-contradictory" is wrong. SCE asserts that the Commission unambiguously determined that the customers served in SCE's GS-2 rate group were not eligible for the 10% rate reduction.

The complainants also claim that SCE unilaterally decided to exclude all GS-2 customers from its definition of small commercial customer in Rule 1 and Schedule RRB, in violation of ordering paragraph 12(a) of D.97-08-056, the unbundling decision. SCE contends that the approval of Rule 1 and Schedule RRB were not inconsistent with D.97-08-056. The complainants' interpretation of that ordering paragraph would mean that the 10% rate reduction must be provided to any customer whose demand is less than 20 kW without regard to which rate schedule they are on. Such an interpretation of D.97-08-056 and § 331(h) would require SCE to make all of its rate schedules eligible for the 10% rate reduction since customers on any schedule may, at times, have peak demands of less than 20 kW. SCE also asserts that it did not violate D.97-08-056 because the eligibility criteria for the 10% rate reduction was adopted in D.97-09-054, and not in D.97-08-056.

SCE also points out that the Rule 1 definition of a "small commercial customer" was developed in the direct access implementation proceeding, and not during the establishment of the eligibility criteria for the 10% rate reduction. The complainants' argument that the direct access implementation proceeding "described how each utility would implement the 20 kw threshold for purposes of determining eligibility for the 10% rate reduction"¹¹ is simply incorrect. The complainants' argument that SCE "falsely represented to the Commission that its GS-1 rate schedule was synonymous with `small commercial customer' as defined in §331(h)"¹² is the same argument that the complainants raised with respect to Schedule RRB, which was mentioned earlier.

The complainants' assert that the advice letter for the approval of Rule 1 went into effect 40 days after it was filed. SCE points out that the approval of Rule 1 did not occur until February 26, 1999, with a tariff effective date of January 4, 1999. Thus, the approval of SCE's Rule 1 did not occur until almost 14 months after SCE had commenced providing the 10% rate reduction.

SCE also contends that the Commission was aware, based on SCE's testimony in its financing order application, that customers taking service on Schedule GS-2 could have peak demands of less than 20 kW but would not be eligible for the 10% rate reduction, nor would they be responsible for paying the fixed transition amount (FTA) charges. (See "Proposed Ratemaking and Tariff Changes," supra, pp. III-6 to III-7.)

SCE points out that the use of the GS-1 and GS-2 rate groups for determining eligibility for the 10% rate reduction is also consistent with the divisions used for the "firewall" to segregate the recovery of competition transition charge exemptions granted to residential and small commercial customers from other customers. (See D.97-06-060 [72 CPUC2d 736, 779, 790]; A.96-08-001, Ex. 10, p. 11.)

The complainants contend that the cost recovery plan decision, D.96-12-077, requires SCE to provide the 10% rate reduction to any customer on any rate schedule whose demand is less than 20 kW. SCE asserts that this argument has no factual or legal merit and misconstrues the effect of the cost recovery plan decision. SCE points out that this decision only approved a general framework for the recovery of transition costs. The details of financing the 10% rate reduction and the eligibility of customers for the rate reduction was considered in the financing order application. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the financing order and the cost recovery plan decision, SCE asserts that the more recent and specific decision on eligibility would prevail. In addition, the complainants' contention that they were improperly denied the 10% rate reduction is an improper collateral attack on the financing order, which is prohibited by § 1709.

SCE also contends that §§ 841(c) and 842(d)¹³ limit the Commission's ability to alter or amend the financing order, despite the authority under § 1708 to alter or amend a prior decision following notice and the opportunity to be heard. SCE asserts that it relied upon the eligibility criteria adopted in the financing order decision when it sized the amount of RRBs it needed to provide the 10% rate reduction. In addition, the time period for the 10% rate reduction has ended, and there are no more savings to be provided by the RRBs. SCE contends that any change to the eligibility criteria would alter the financing order decision, which would violate §§ 841(c) and 842(d).

At the prehearing conference, the complainants requested that if the Commission decides to deny the complaint because of a procedural deficiency, the Commission should still find that SCE violated the law.¹⁴ As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, SCE contends that it did not violate the law. Instead, SCE complied with the financing order, other Commission decisions, and the applicable tariffs. Accordingly, SCE requests that the Commission deny the complaint and make the following findings:

"1. By virtue of its knowledge and approval of SCE's rate schedules, of the provisions it adopted to prevent FTA charge bypass by GS-1 rate group customers who elect to transfer to other rate groups, and its own expertise, the Commission is aware that customers served on rate schedules outside SCE's GS-1 rate group can at times have peak demands of less than 20 kW.

2. In establishing the eligibility criteria for the 10% rate reduction in the Financing Order, the Commission interpreted Sections 331(h), 368(a), and other provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 1890.

3. The Financing Order reasonably interpreted Sections 331(h), 368(a) and provided the 10% rate reduction to customers served in SCE's GS-1 rate group, but not to customers served on schedules in the GS-2 rate group, including customers served on Schedule GS-2.

4. Schedule RRB, which lists the rate schedules eligible for the 10 percent rate reduction in the GS-1 rate group, but none in the GS-2 rate group, was proposed by SCE and was adopted by the Commission in the Financing Order.

5. SCE filed Schedule RRB in Advice Letter 1253-E, and the Energy Division approved it in compliance with the Financing Order.

6. The Financing Order and Order Denying Rehearing held that the same customer groups who receive the 10 percent rate reduction must repay the rate reduction bonds.

7. Any Schedule GS-2 customer whose demand is below 20 kW for 12 months qualifies for service in SCE's GS-1 rate group, and could either choose to transfer to a rate schedule in the GS-1 rate group and receive the 10 percent rate reduction on a rate schedule in the GS-1 rate group, or choose to remain on Schedule GS-2.

8. No party to the Financing Order proceeding asserted any legal error with regard to the eligibility criteria the Commission adopted during the 30-day statutory period in which legal errors in Commission decisions may be asserted pursuant to Sections 1731(b) and 1732.

9. The Financing Order is a final decision of the Commission, not subject to alteration pursuant to Section 1708 due to specific restrictions on such alterations imposed by Sections 841(c) and 842(d).

10. In accordance with Sections 702 and 532, SCE must comply with the Financing Order and Schedule RRB. Therefore, SCE was obligated to deny the 10 percent rate reduction to any SCE customer, such as Anchor, who is served on Schedule GS-2.

11. SCE did not violate Section 330(w), 331(h), or 368(a) in denying Anchor, or any other Schedule GS-2 customer, the 10 percent rate reduction." (SCE, Oct. 29, 2002 Opening Brief, pp. 20-21.)

¹⁰ The complainants contend that the Commission was unaware in D.96-12-077 that SCE's definition of small commercial customer was in conflict with § 331(h). This lack of awareness was due to "SCE's false representation that only GS-1 customers - and not GS-2 customers - could have maximum peak demands of less than 20 kw." (Complainants' Opening Brief, p. 8.)