3. Positions of the Parties

Zacky argues that the Sheila Street facility qualifies for an agricultural rate because the slaughtering of chickens at the Sheila Street facility constitutes the production and preparation of poultry for market on land owned by Zacky for this purpose. Zacky contends that to view the slaughtering of poultry as part of production is the more logical and consistent interpretation of the Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service" and is consistent with the legislative and regulatory intent behind the creation of agricultural rates for electricity.

Zacky also contends that the Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service" is not clearly drafted and contains inconsistent terms, and that under previous Commission decisions, ambiguities in the tariff language should be construed against Edison. In addition, Zacky argues that Edison has applied TOU-PA-5 and Rule 1 inconsistently and has violated Section 453 by refusing to provide electricity to the Sheila Street facility at an agricultural rate solely because it is not located on or adjacent to a hatchery or grow-out ranch at which chickens are grown and raised.

Edison argues that the slaughtering and packaging of poultry at the Sheila Street facility constitutes the preparation for market, rather than the production of, poultry, and that under TOU-PA-5 and the Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service," customers are entitled to an agricultural rate for electricity used in preparing an agricultural product for market only if this activity occurs on the same land as the production of the product. Further, the Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service" distinguishes between (1) production, (2) harvesting, and (3) preparation for market as three separate activities, and the Commission has previously stated that Edison's agricultural tariffs apply only to the "growing of food and field crops and animals, and to the processing of such products on the premises where grown." Therefore, Zacky is not entitled to an agricultural rate despite its claims of being a "vertically integrated operation." Edison further contends that Edison has consistently applied its tariffs and the Rule 1 definition of "agricultural power service" and that the adoption of Zacky's interpretation would expand the class of businesses eligible for agricultural rates, thereby impacting other non-agricultural ratepayers.