Background
City of Orange is a Southern California Edison Company electric service customer. Edison account number 3-000-8706-95 ("pumping account #2") serves a City water pump (Well #9) at the corner of Katella and Struck in City of Orange. Although the early history is uncertain, Edison believes City established the account at this location in 1963, and service under electric tariff schedule GS-2 there in 1988.
In February 1998, Edison performed a rate analysis of City's water pumping accounts and presented that analysis with recommendations to City in a meeting the following month. Edison recommended that City consider switching some 21 specific pumping accounts, including pumping account #2, to potentially lower cost Edison rate schedules. Edison recommended that pumping account #2 be switched from schedule GS-2 to schedule TOU-PA-5 "if 70% or more of the energy used at Well #9 is for water or sewage pumping and if pumps will run 10-12 hours a day." At that time, Edison estimated that if pumping account #2 usage conformed exactly to Edison's assumptions and City used off-peak and mid-peak pumping priority, City could save as much as $12,000 annually by moving to TOU-PA-5; if City used higher on-peak pumping priority, the estimated savings would be lower. City did not switch pumping account #2 and the other accounts because it either never got around to doing so, or was not satisfied that Edison's recommended rate switches would be beneficial.
In August 2000, City hired Utility Cost Management LLC (UCM), a consulting firm that works with utility customers to ensure that they are being charged in accordance with applicable tariffs, rules and regulations. UCM reviewed at least one month's billing data for each of City's approximately 565 electric accounts, and additional billing data dating back one to three years for approximately 53 selected accounts.1 In September 2000, as a result of its City electric accounts review, UCM prepared a rate change request on City's behalf asking that 20 electric accounts serving various City facilities be switched to different Edison schedules, and asking Edison to refund the difference between actual charges during the preceding three years and amounts that would have been paid under the requested new schedules. Pumping account #2 was among those to be switched. In October or November 2000, Edison switched pumping account #2 from GS-2 to TOU-PA-5 as requested and issued City a credit of $7,411.26 for the three-year period. Finding the credit lower than it expected, UCM contacted Edison and learned that Edison had based the refund on the savings that would have been realized had pumping account #2 been billed on schedule PA-2 for the preceding three years, not what might have been saved had it been on schedule TOU-PA-5 during that time.2 Through this complaint, City would have the Commission order Edison to refund the higher, TOU-PA-5 based amount.
Assigned Administrative Law Judge McVicar held a prehearing conference on October 31, 2001 and one day of evidentiary hearing on January 23, 2002. The proceeding was submitted on concurrent briefs due February 27, 2002.
1 This complaint initially involved two of those accounts, referred to as pumping account #1 and pumping account #2. During the course of preparing for evidentiary hearing, UCM informed Edison and the assigned Administrative Law Judge that City had decided not to pursue its claim associated with pumping account #1. No material reference was made to pumping account #1 during the remainder of the proceeding and it will not be discussed further here. 2 City's complaint alleged that the refund was approximately $33,000 too low. UCM later refined its estimate to $35,700 too low. UCM's later estimate was shown in the evidentiary hearing to have been based on a mistake and there is now no definitive, supportable figure in the record.
