Discussion
Edison's Tariff Rule 17,3 Adjustment of Bills and Meter Tests, provides:
D. Adjustment of Bills for Billing Error.
A Billing Error is an error by SCE which results in incorrect billing charges to the customer. Billing Errors may include incorrect meter reads or clerical errors by an SCE representative such as applying the wrong rate .... Billing Error does not include ... failure of the customer to take advantage of a rate or condition of service for which the customer is eligible.
Where SCE overcharges ... a customer as a result of a Billing Error, SCE ... shall issue a refund or credit to the customer for the amount of the overcharge for the period of the billing error, but not exceeding three years in the case of an overcharge ....
* * *
F. Limitation on Adjustment of Bills for Energy Use.
For any error in billing not defined as billing error, meter error, or unauthorized use, SCE is not required to adjust the bill. However, any billing adjustment not specifically covered in the tariffs for an undercharge or overcharge shall not exceed three years.
And under Rule 12, Rates and Optional Rates:
B. Optional Rates.
Where there are two or more rate schedules, rates, or optional provisions applicable to the class of service requested by the applicant, SCE or its authorized employees will call applicant's attention, at the time application is made, to the several schedules, and the applicant must designate which rate schedule, rate, or optional provision he desires.
* * *
D. Change of Rate Schedule.
1. A change to another applicable rate schedule or optional tariff provision, for which the customer can properly qualify, will be made only where the customer elects to make such change.
2. Should a customer so elect, the change will be made provided:
* * *
g. The customer has made the request by written notice to SCE.
3. In the event that a customer elects to take service under a different rate schedule or optional tariff provision, than that under which he is being served and qualifies for service thereunder, the change will become effective for service rendered after the next regular meter reading following the date of notice to SCE.
In the case of pumping account #2, City had available to it the two or more applicable rate schedules referred to in Rule 12.B. While neither party claims to know whether Edison did or did not call City's attention to that fact when service under GS-2 commenced for the account in 1988, or when the account was first established in 1963, Edison clearly did far more than that in March 1998, shortly after the three year period at issue here began. In March 1998, City's actions, or lack of action, confirmed that it was on the rate schedule (GS-2) of its choice.4 Once service under GS-2 began, it was City's responsibility under Rule 12.D to elect to make any change and to give Edison written notice to that effect, and that election would take effect only prospectively. It did not do so.
City also contends that Edison's willingness to refund anything at all constitutes a tacit admission that it erred. Edison, this reasoning goes, has acknowledged that it issued a bill credit, albeit a credit City believes to be inadequate. That could only mean one of two things: Either Edison was acknowledging that it made an earlier error, or it was placing itself in violation of Public Utilities Code Section 453, which prohibits public utilities from granting any preference or advantage in rates, charges, service or facilities, or in any other respect.
We disagree. This Commission receives literally thousands of informal consumer billing complaints against utilities every year, and the utilities very likely handle many such complaints for every one that reaches us. We decline to speculate that every time a utility compromises a complaint case in favor of a customer it is either admitting it made an error or violating Section 453.5 When, as here, it is difficult to establish with certainty the facts surrounding a billing dispute, absent extraordinary circumstances we consider it an acceptable practice for the utility to make an adjustment in the customer's favor. Thus, we do not accept City's contention that Edison's granting it a credit must have been either an admission of Edison error, or unlawful discrimination in City's favor in violation of Section 453.
City's situation is specifically excluded from the definition of "billing error" in Rule 17.D during the three year period in question, because it does involve "failure of the customer to take advantage of a rate or condition of service for which the customer is eligible." Moreover, if the billing error City charges is an Edison failure to give the City its choice of rate schedules more than a decade ago, as it was required to do when application for the account was made, neither party professes to have any knowledge, let alone proof, as to whether Edison did or did not do so.
Thus, under Rule 17.F, Edison was not required to adjust City's bill for the period in question.
Once Edison did decide to issue a credit, did City, as City contends, have a right to choose the rate schedule for calculating that credit, a right which Edison denied to it? Edison states, and City acknowledges, that Edison's tariffs do not grant customers such a right. City's witness says, rather, that this is "a commonsense approach to the problem." On brief, City argues at great length that any applicant for service has a right to choose from among the applicable rate schedules the one under which it prefers to take service, but that is not the same question. City has not shown that it has a right to choose the rate schedule for calculating a credit, and allowing it to do so here would lead to an inequitable result.
Was Edison wrong to use schedule PA-2 to calculate the credit? City concedes that only the PA-2 rate would allow Edison to use the available billing data, whereas TOU-PA-5 would require much more detailed energy usage data than was available. Billing under TOU-PA-5 depends on having a time-of-use meter to provide usage data for off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak periods, the rates for which vary by time of day, day of the week, and season. GS-2 and PA-2 billing does not. Under Edison's tariffs, TOU-PA-5 billing could not have been applied for those 3 years because there was no time-of-use meter. There was no time-of-use meter, not by Edison's choice, but by City's choice and contrary to Edison's explicit recommendation.
City is hoping to take advantage of a situation of its own creation: It chose to stay on the GS-2 schedule despite Edison's recommendation to switch to TOU-PA-5; it only changed nearly 3 years later when its consultant made the same recommendation as Edison.6 Now that Edison has given it a refund, City is attempting to leverage that refund to put itself into a more advantageous position than it would otherwise have been. That is, choosing between PA-2 and TOU-PA-5 entailed risks: charges could actually have increased under the time-of-use schedule if City were unable or unwilling to manage its pumping to take advantage of the lower mid-peak and off-peak rates. City chose not to take on that risk by switching to TOU-PA-5 rates during the time period covered by the bill adjustment. City now wants Edison to recompute its bill as though City had not only been on the TOU-PA-5 schedule, but had also managed its energy time of use to best take advantage of it. Given that City may not have been due a refund at all, that is an unreasonable request. This is not a case, as City's witness said, of giving City the benefit of the doubt in selecting the schedule for a credit. Here there is no doubt what the City would have done, because City did choose not to be on the TOU-PA-5 schedule for the period in question.
We conclude that Edison did not miscalculate an electric service refund to City for City's pumping account #2. No further refund is due.
1. City has withdrawn its claim associated with pumping account #1.
2. City was on tariff schedule GS-2, its schedule of choice, during the period in question in this complaint.
3. Edison has not been shown to have violated its tariff Rule 12.B, which requires it to call an applicant's attention to the various schedules that may be applicable when the applicant applies for service.
4. Edison did not commit billing error as that term is defined in Edison's tariff Rule 17.D.
5. Edison was not required to adjust City's bill for the period in question.
6. Actual usage data needed to calculate a bill adjustment using schedule TOU-PA-5 for pumping account #2 during the period in question was not available; actual usage data for calculating an adjustment using schedule PA-2 was.
7. City has not shown that it has a right to choose the rate schedule for calculating a credit, and allowing it to choose schedule TOU-PA-5 here for that purpose would lead to an inequitable result.
8. Edison did not miscalculate an electric service refund to City for City's pumping account #2 for the period in question in this complaint.
1. Edison has not been shown to have violated any provision of the Public Utilities Code, or any Commission rule, order or tariff with respect to electric service provided to City for pumping account #2 during the period in question.
2. City is not due further reparations for pumping account #2.
3. The relief City seeks should be denied and the complaint dismissed.
4. For administrative efficiency, this order should be made effective immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The relief City of Orange seeks is denied.
2. The complaint in Case 01-08-042 is dismissed.
3. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated May 14, 2002, at San Francisco, California.
3 All three tariff schedules and both tariff rules referred to in this decision are in evidence in the proceeding. 4 City acknowledges that it was aware in 1998 that pumping account #2 qualified for service under TOU-PA-5. City's witness did not know why City chose not to switch earlier, and acknowledged that it was indeed possible that a pumping customer might have voluntarily chosen GS-2 many years ago because it was the cheapest alternative available at the time. 5 Examining this Section 453 question is outside scope of the proceeding, and neither party would have us do so. 6 City's witness, a principal in UCM, was unaware of the 1998 Edison analysis and recommendation when UCM filed the complaint on City's behalf. He did not learn of it until the discovery phase of this proceeding.
