ALJ/JSW/avs Mailed 8/28/2003

Decision 03-08-036 August 21, 2003

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Anchor Lighting, a California General Partnership, Thomas H. Simcox dba Tommy's On Broadway,

Complainants,

vs.

Southern California Edison Company,

Defendant.

Case 02-03-060

(Filed March 27, 2002)

O P I N I O N

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINION 2 2

Summary 2 2

Background 3 3

Position of the Parties 8 8

A. The Complainants 8 8

B. SCE 16 16

Discussion 26 26

A. Introduction 26 26

B. Application for Rehearing and Petition for Modification 27 27

C. Alleged Misrepresentation 33 33

D. Independent Liability Theory 47 47

Conclusion 49 49

Procedural Matters 49 49

Comments on Draft Decision 50 50

Assignment of Proceeding 50 50

Findings of Fact 50 50

Conclusions of Law 54 54

ORDER 56 56

OPINION

Summary

On March 27, 2002, Anchor Lighting (Anchor), and Thomas H. Simcox doing business as Tommy's On Broadway (Tommy's), referred to jointly as "complainants," filed a complaint against Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Complainants alleges that they are small commercial customers within the meaning of Public Utilities Code § 331(h),¹ and that SCE failed and refused to provide them with the 10% rate reduction² as mandated in Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 (Stats. 1996, ch. 854) and contained in §§ 330(w) and 368(a).³

In the May 8, 2003 scoping memo and ruling, it was determined that the Commission should first address the issue of whether the complainants' allegations regarding the conflict between § 331(h) and the Commission decisions and tariffs implementing the 10% rate reduction were timely or not.

Today's decision dismisses the complaint with prejudice. The complaint challenges the interpretation of § 331(h) as developed and set forth in various Commission decisions and tariffs. However, the complainants failed to apply for rehearing of these decisions in a timely manner. In addition, § 841(c) prevents us from revising the costs of providing the 10% rate reduction as set forth in the financing order, D.97-09-056 (75 CPUC2d 555).

¹ Unless otherwise stated, all code section references are to the Public Utilities Code. ² Instead of a rate reduction, SCE was authorized by the Commission to implement the rate reduction via a bill credit of 10%. (75 CPUC2d at 569, 580.) ³ Section 330(w) provides in part that: "It is the intent of the Legislature to require and enable electrical corporations to monetize a portion of the competition transition charge for residential and small commercial consumers so that these customers will receive rate reductions of no less than 10 percent for 1998 continuing through 2002. Section 368(a) provides in part that: "The cost recovery plan shall set rates for each customer class, rate schedule, contract, or tariff option, at levels equal to the level as shown on electric rate schedules as of June 10, 1996, provided that rates for residential and small commercial customers shall be reduced so that these customers shall receive rate reductions of no less than 10 percent for 1998 continuing through 2002."