2. Factual Background and Procedural History

Zacky owns five "grow-out ranches," at which chickens are grown and cared for, in Edison's territory. Edison bills Zacky for electricity used at the five "grow-out ranches" at an agricultural rate. Zacky also owns the Sheila Street facility. Zacky sends mature chickens to the Sheila Street facility for the final hours of food digestion and preparation for market. The mature chickens are ultimately slaughtered, plucked, chilled, and boxed at the Sheila Street facility. Edison bills Zacky for electricity used at the Sheila Street facility at a commercial rate.

Zacky filed this complaint against Edison stating four grounds on which Zacky is seeking relief from the Commission:

1. Edison's refusal to place the Sheila Street facility on an agricultural rate results from an erroneous interpretation of TOU-PA-5 and Edison's Rule 1 definition of agricultural power service;

2. Zacky is entitled to an agricultural rate for electricity used at the Sheila Street facility under Rule 1, because chickens are produced, by being kept alive for a period of time to clear their digestive systems before being slaughtered, as well as prepared for market at the Sheila Street facility;

3. Edison does not have a clear and consistent policy with regard to customer eligibility for service under its agricultural tariffs, as shown by the inconsistent interpretations of TOU-PA-5 by Edison employees, and therefore has applied its tariff rules and agricultural schedules in an inconsistent and discriminatory manner in violation of Section 453;¹ and

4. If the Sheila Street facility is ineligible for an agricultural rate under TOU-PA-5 and Rule 1 because it is not located on or contiguous to other Zacky properties at which chickens are grown and raised, Rule 1 is facially invalid under Section 453 because identical poultry processing facilities could be billed for electricity at different rates based on their geographic location.

Zacky's complaint therefore requests a Commission order that Edison serve the Sheila Street facility at an agricultural rate and refund Zacky for the difference in cost between service previously billed at a commercial rate and the applicable agricultural rate for the three years preceding Zacky's first written request to Edison to be billed for service for the Sheila Street facility under TOU-PA-5.

Edison, in its answer, denied that Zacky is eligible to receive electrical service for the Sheila Street facility at an agricultural rate. The answer also denied that Edison had applied its tariffs in an inconsistent and discriminatory way between customers or that its Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service" is discriminatory or facially invalid. Finally, the answer asserted various affirmative defenses.

Prehearing conferences were held on March 23 and May 10, 2000. The parties filed a joint case management statement and draft stipulation of facts on May 1, 2000, and a joint stipulation of facts (Stip.) on June 23, 2000. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 4, 2000.