IV. The Parties' Arguments

On March 22, 2001, District filed its opening brief on the alleged violation of Rule 12. District contends that it: (1) was not on the service list for AL-864; (2) did not receive AL-864; and (3) was not otherwise notified of the new pricing option until it made inquiries in early 1999.

In support of its position, District submitted the Declaration of Edwin Wheless (Wheless), Division Engineer, Solid Waste Management Department. Among Wheless' duties in developing and reviewing District's Spadra Project is meeting regularly with Edison's Accounts Managers to discuss issues that arise in the course of the relationship between the utility and the District. Wheless stated that to his knowledge no Edison Accounts Manager ever informed him of the compensated metering option. Additionally, his review of Edison's Service list for AL-864 did not include the address of the District.

The Service list did include the address for Los Angeles County ISD Energy Management. Wheless stated that the address for Los Angeles County ISD Energy Management was not, and never has been, the address of the District.

District requests that the Commission conclude that Edison did not meet the requirements of Rule 12 and grant District's motion for summary judgment on this issue and order Edison to make appropriate reparations to District.

To retort, Edison makes several arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment.

First, Edison claims that even if District was not on the service list for AL-864, Wheless admitted to Edison Accounts Manager Rick Raskin, that District did receive a copy of AL-864.

Next, Edison offers its interpretation of Rule 12. Edison claims that the Rule does not require the utility to notify customers of new or revised rates; instead, it is up to a customer to inquire about new or revised rates. Additionally, Edison asserts that District bears the burden of proving a violation of Rule 12. Under this theory, since District cannot meet its burden that Edison did not notify District of the new compensated metering option, District loses on this cause of action.

Finally, Edison states that the District is on Edison's list of Rate Book holders, and therefore, received actual notice of the approval of AL-864 as well as the actual revised tariff sheets.

Thus, Edison claims to be in compliance with its tariffs.