V. Assignment of Proceeding
Carl W. Wood is the Assigned Commissioner and Janet A. Econome is the assigned ALJ and the Presiding Officer in this proceeding.
1. Colony owns and operates Colony Park, which is a 37-year-old mobile home community in Oxnard, California with 150 spaces. Colony Park is located in Edison's service territory.
2. 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.
3. Colony operates Colony Park as a master-metered mobile home park. Edison brings its service to a master-meter located in the park, and 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 from the master-meter to the mobile home park residents.
4. Over the last two and one-half years, eight new 100 amp homes have been installed at Colony Park. These homes have the capacity to consumer more electric energy and do so because of increased appliances.
5. 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.
6. Complainants project that about 15 homes per year will be upgraded. Under these projections, the load for which complainants seek the upgrade will not materialize for another five to seven years.
7. The general concept underlying allowances is that they be tied to new sources of revenues to ensure that the ratepayer-funded expenses (to the amount of the allowance) are justified.
8. Colony is solely served by Edison transformers, service and meter on Colony's premises. Colony's requested upgrade is a Rule 16 service extension because the entire requested work will take place on Colony's premises and will serve one customer, Colony.
9. Under Rule 16, Edison makes the determination whether the requested work is a service reinforcement or service rearrangement. Edison determined that Colony's request is a service rearrangement for Colony's convenience governed by Rule 16.F.2.b, and that Colony is responsible for the total cost of this rearrangement.
10. The voltage drops referenced in this case concern operational and maintenance issues for Colony on its side of the meter, and do not necessarily require Edison to upgrade the system on its side of the meter.
11. Edison is not required to comply with the state housing code or to assist Colony in so doing, and therefore, unless actual demand at Colony is near the capacity of Edison's existing service facilities, Edison's conclusion that its system does not have to be upgraded at this time is reasonable.
12. The customer in this case is Colony, not the master-metered residents whom Colony serves.
13. Under Rule 15.C.1, new load must be added within a reasonable time, as determined by Edison, to qualify for the allowances. For residential subdivisions, that period of time is defined by Rule 15.D.7 as six months, because if new load does not materialize within six months, Rule 15.D.7 requires that the customer be billed for the difference between the allowances received and those based on the revenue actually generated. These time limitations are reasonable because allowances represent the portion of the costs of line extension that the Commission has decided is appropriate to charge to the ratepayers under the assumption that this amount will be supported by future revenues.
14. The testimony against PG&E is not specific enough to establish a tariff violation.
1. Edison did not err in determining that Rule 16.F.2.b applies to this case.
2. The plain language of Rule 16.F.2.b states that applicant shall pay Edison its total estimated costs, and therefore requires complainants to pay Edison's total estimated costs.
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that either Rule 16.F.1. or Rule 15 were applicable here (we find that they are not), Colony still would not be entitled to any allowances.
4. Because Edison's Rule 16 applies to this case and Edison did not violate this tariff in determining that no allowances are available to Colony, the complaint against Edison should be denied.
5. Complainants have failed to state a cause of action against PG&E, and therefore the complaint against PG&E should be dismissed.
6. Because of the need for a prompt final determination on this issue, this decision should be effective immediately.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The complainant of Colony Mobile Home Park, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, and Western Manufactured Housing Community Association against Southern California Edison Company is denied, and their complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
2. Case 02-12-037 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated October 28, 2003, at San Francisco, California.
************ APPEARANCES ************ |
