City of Orange's Position

City alleges that Edison made an error by its failure (or suspected failure) to give City its choice of rate schedules as it was required to do when service on the account was established years ago. As a result, City pumping account #2 was on schedule GS-2 for many years, rather than on a more cost-effective pumping schedule. In City's view, that Edison error gave rise to the need for a credit. Edison's willingness to refund anything at all constitutes tacit acknowledgment that it erred. Since it was Edison's error, City, not Edison, had a right to choose the appropriate rate schedule for calculating the credit. The only question before the Commission should be whether Edison should have based the credit calculation on schedule TOU-PA-5 instead of PA-2 as it did. The fact that City chose to stay on GS-2 in 1998 when Edison recommended moving to TOU-PA-5 is irrelevant because that was not one of the factors Edison considered in calculating the refund it did issue. Edison claims to have used PA-2 to calculate the credit because the data needed was available and time-of-use data for TOU-PA-5 was not, but City believes Edison's real motivation was the smaller credit that using PA-2 generated. City maintains that its lack of a time-of-use meter on pumping account #2 over the preceding three years does not prevent Edison from estimating a credit based on TOU-PA-5 because usage estimation is permitted under Edison's tariffs, Rule 17A.

Thus, City reasons, Edison should respect City's choice and use the more beneficial (to City) TOU-PA-5 to calculate a new credit.