2. Background
This matter arises out of a billing dispute between Andrade and SCE. In October 2004, SCE issued Andrade a supplemental electric utility bill for approximately $35,745.99 for previously unbilled charges. SCE submitted the bill to Andrade pursuant to its Rule 17 tariff, after determining that electric meters to Andrade's office (Subject Property) and another customer were mis-marked (i.e. crossed), resulting in a billing error. The bill represented undercharges to Andrade over a three-year period from September 2002 through September 2005. In its Complaint against SCE, Andrade objects to the back-billing, and seeks to be relieved from all or a portion of its debt on the ground that SCE's negligence caused the error. SCE contends it was authorized to render an adjusted bill to Andrade for the amount of undercharges resulting from the crossed meters, not exceeding three years, pursuant to its Rule 17 tariff.
On November 14, 2005, Andrade submitted a letter to the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch objecting to the bill on the ground that SCE's negligence caused the billing error. The Consumer Affairs Branch decided in favor of SCE, determining that SCE validly billed the disputed charges under its Rule 17 tariff.
On October 24, 2006, Andrade filed a complaint against SCE in state court, again alleging that SCE was negligent in causing the billing error, and that Andrade should not be responsible for the undercharges. SCE filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Andrade's complaint, which essentially concerned a billing dispute within the Commission's jurisdiction. The court granted SCE's motion and entered judgment in favor of SCE.
SCE claims it is not liable because Andrade fails to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted and because SCE complied with the applicable tariff, Rule 17. Andrade claims the tariff is irrelevant because it only allows SCE to adjust a bill for a billing error. Andrade claims the adjustment here is not for a billing error, but instead is due to switched or mis-marked meters caused by a party other than SCE. Andrade contends a Tariff 17 error for which SCE may back-bill is only one caused by SCE itself and not one caused by a negligent third party.
A prehearing conference was held on July 11, 2007. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gave the parties the option of stipulating to all material facts and submitting legal briefs, or proceeding to hearing. The parties opted to stipulate to facts and submit briefs.1 No evidentiary hearings were held.
1 The parties' Joint List of Stipulated Facts is attached hereto and is admitted into the record of this proceedings as Exhibit A.
