II. The Controversy

A. Summary

This case raises the issue of whether the mobile home park owner should pay for a master-metered park owner's requested replacement and enhancement of electric facilities on the utility side of the meter, when the park owner determines that such replacement and enhancement is necessary for its own planning purposes to accommodate future load growth and for better voltage support on its side of the meter.

The park owner here argues that the utility and ultimately all ratepayers of that utility should pay, in anticipation that future revenues from the enhanced facilities will justify the investment. Under the facts presented in this case, the utility disagrees that such replacement and enhancement is necessary now, reasoning that the existing facilities would not likely reach their capacity for at least five more years and that voltage support is an operational and maintenance issue on the park owner's side of the meter.

We find that the utility has properly applied the relevant tariffs, that the utility has reasonably found no need for replacement and enhancement at this time, and that accordingly the park owner should pay for the replacement and enhancement.

B. Complainants

Colony owns and operates Colony Mobile Home Park (Colony Park), which is a mobile home community in Oxnard, California with 150 spaces. Colony Park is located in Edison's service territory.

Western is a non-profit organization representing owners of 1,534 manufactured housing communities in California. Western member communities collectively represent 160,000 individual homes statewide. Western alleges it is a complainant in this case because the issue facing Colony impacts all master-metered mobile home communities in California, some of which are Western's constituents.

C. Description of Colony Park and Complainants' Allegations of the Need for New Service from Edison

Colony Park was built 37 years ago. The park is submetered for both gas and electric service, which means that Edison brings its service to a master-meter located in the park. Edison's responsibility ends at the master-meter. Colony owns and operates its own gas and electric service and is responsible for bringing those services to the mobile home park residents. Colony Park is served under Edison's rate schedule DMS-2, which applies to multifamily accommodations in submetered mobile home parks.

Until 1989, Colony Park was a senior community, usually consisting of one or two residents per space. Due to an amendment in the Federal Fair Housing Act in 1988, Colony Park converted to all-age use in 1989, and household demographics changed. Today, 75% of the residences have families living in them, and there are over 300 children, or about 2 children for every space.

Also, over the last several years at Colony Park, some older homes have been replaced with larger, newer homes. Eight new 100-amp homes have been installed at Colony Park. These homes have the capacity to consume more electric energy and do so because of increased appliances. Thus, according to complainants, the demand for electric service at the park has increased because of the increase in residents and upgrade in installed appliances.

At the hearing, complainants' own witnesses established that the eight new 100-amp homes have been installed over the last two and one-half years. Tenants are required to inform Colony in advance if they intend to upgrade their homes, but no one has notified Colony of their intention to upgrade within the next year. Nonetheless, complainants' witness projected that about 15 homes per year would be upgraded. Under these projections, the load for which complainants seek the upgrades will not materialize for another five to seven years.

Colony has assessed these increased needs through a company called Subsurface Electric, which monitors the electric usage at Colony Park and the ability of the current system on both sides of the meter to meet those needs. Subsurface Electric plans for future load growth, as do utilities. Subsurface Electric has undertaken the following tasks to determine whether the requested service enhancements are necessary: performed load studies, considered transferring load and installing additional transformers, examined weather data and residential growth, and looked at increased air conditioning load.

D. The Allegations of the Complaint

1. Edison

Complainants allege that Edison improperly based the allowance for line extensions under Tariff Rule (Rule) 15 and Rule 16 on the master-meter, and not on the number of residential dwelling units. Specifically, complainants state that in July 2002, Colony contacted Edison concerning enhancements to the electrical service to increase the voltage service to tenants. These enhancements include installing a larger main switch at the master-meter, increasing the capabilities of transformers, and associated work to bring the enhanced electrical service to the master-meter serving Colony Park.

On August 23, 2002, Edison contacted Colony and requested payment of $279.40 in order to perform the necessary work. Colony paid this amount on August 30, 2002. On September 20, 2002, Edison wrote to Colony that the previous bill was in error and requested payment of an additional $25,154.89 to complete the project. Edison stated that Colony Park was served under rate schedule DMS-2 and therefore was only eligible for one residential allowance under Edison's line extension rules. Specifically, Colony states that Edison told it that the allowance for the line extension would be based on the master-meter, and not on the number of residential dwelling units. Edison also informed Western that Pub. Util. Code § 2791 et seq. limited Edison's ability to perform the requested work without substantial payment from a park owner. At the hearing in this case, Edison stated that Colony should not be entitled to any allowances (that would require an additional payment of $1,247).

Complainants allege that prior to September 2002, Edison had always based the line extension allowance on the number of residential dwelling units consistent with Rules 15 and 16. Therefore, according to complainants, Edison is not operating in compliance with the clear language of Rules 15 and 16, as well as Pub. Util. Code § 451, which requires utilities to impose and collect just and reasonable rates.¹

In their testimony and briefs, complainants added to their arguments. Complainants now claim that their requested upgrade is necessary not only to accommodate future expected load growth, but also to address voltage drops at Colony Park and to assist Colony in complying with the state housing code. Complaints argue that Colony does not need to prove new load will be added to obtain allowances from Edison. Complainants also make the policy argument that in order to receive treatment similar to directly metered mobile home parks and stick built homes, the Commission should treat Colony's request as if it were a distribution line extension (under Rule 15), rather than a service extension request under Rule 16. Finally, complainants believe that Colony has made a sufficient showing to obtain the allowances under either Rule 15 or 16.

2. PG&E

Complainants filed an amended complaint against PG&E. Complainants allege that the owner of Capital West and Capital City mobile home parks located near Sacramento in PG&E's service territory approached PG&E about making upgrades at those parks. According to complainants, PG&E informed the owner that only one allowance would be allowed in determining the cost of the service upgrade, which complainants believe is a change in policy from PG&E's previous treatments of similar requests.

Complainants request that the Commission issue an order requiring Edison and PG&E to provide allowances for line extensions on the basis of the residential dwelling units located in a mobile home park. They also request that the Commission order Edison to perform the electrical work at Colony Park for $279.40.

E. The Utilities' Defenses

1. Edison

Edison believes that Colony should pay for the entire requested service upgrade. According to Edison, Colony has requested Edison to upgrade Edison's existing service facilities at Colony Park to suit the park's own purposes, even though Edison's current facilities are adequate to handle existing and much additional load before such an upgrade to Edison's facilities would be required to maintain service. Edison believes that Colony does not want to pay for this upgrade directly and instead wants to receive ratepayer-funded allowances to offset the costs, even though Colony cannot demonstrate that additional load will come on the system within six months to justify the costs of the upgrade.

Edison believes that Rule 16 applies here and that complainants have failed to meet their burden of proof to show Colony is entitled to any allowances under Edison's tariffs. For that reason, Edison argues that the Commission should deny complainants' requested relief.

2. PG&E

PG&E argues that complainants have alleged no facts indicating that PG&E has failed to grant allowances to mobile home parks in violation of its tariffs, and therefore believes the Commission should dismiss the complaint as to PG&E. PG&E believes that the Commission should not issue an advisory opinion as to PG&E because of its stated policy against issuing advisory opinions absent extraordinary circumstances. Alternatively, if the Commission chooses to address this issue as to PG&E, PG&E agrees with Edison's argument above that Rule 16 applies and that Colony would not be entitled to any allowances.

3. SoCalGas and SDG&E

SoCalGas and SDG&E as intervenors agree with Edison and PG&E that Rule 16 applies and that Colony would not be entitled to any allowances.

F. Burden of Proof

Under Pub. Util. Code § 1702, a complainant must prove an alleged violation of a specific standard contained in a statute, rule or order of the Commission, or a tariff which has been approved by the Commission. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. (See e.g., Decision (D.) 97-05-089, 72 CPUC2d 621, 633-634 ["It is well settled that the standard of proof in Commission investigation proceedings is by a preponderance of the evidence."])