STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
April 28, 2004
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 01-01-043
DECISION 04-04-074, MAILED APRIL 28, 2004
On March 24, 2004, a Presiding Officer's Decision in this proceeding was mailed to all parties. Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2 and Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that the Presiding Officer's Decision becomes the decision of the Commission 30 days after its mailing unless an appeal to the Commission or a request for review has been filed.
No timely appeals to the Commission or requests for review have been filed. Therefore, the Presiding Officer's Decision is now the decision of the Commission.
The decision number is shown above.
/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN |
Angela K. Minkin, Chief Administrative Law Judge |
ANG:hl2
Attachment
ALJ/MCK-POD/hl2 Mailed 4/28/2004
Decision 04-04-074 April 28, 2004
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Universal Studios, Inc., Complainant, vs. Southern California Edison Company, Defendant. |
Case 01-01-043 (Filed January 26, 2001) |
Patrick J. Power, for Universal Studios, Inc.,
complainant.
Robert B. Keeler, for Southern California Edison
Company, defendant.
DECISION DENYING COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF
EXCESS ENERGY CHARGES
Table of Contents
Title Page
DECISION DENYING COMPLAINT FOR
REFUND OF EXCESS ENERGY CHARGES 11
Background on the Relationships Among the Power
Markets Run by the PX and the ISO in 2000 66
Summary
In this decision, we address a complaint filed by Universal Studios, Inc. (Universal) against Southern California Edison Company (Edison or SCE) in which Universal contends that Edison wrongly imposed penalties on it for refusing to interrupt its electric load on June 27, 2000. On this date, Universal was a sub-transmission customer served under SCE's I-6 schedule. Customers served under the I-6 schedule were subject to having their service interrupted down to the Firm Service Level (FSL) designated by the customer in the event that a Stage 2 alert was called by the California Independent System Operator (ISO). Since Universal had set its FSL at zero, it was required to shut down its entire load when asked to do so by Edison, or else incur excess energy charges for all of the energy it consumed while the curtailment request was in effect.
It is undisputed that on June 27, 2000, Universal did not shut down its load when the ISO declared a Stage 2 alert, and Edison thereafter asked customers on the I-6 schedule to curtail down to their respective FSLs. Owing to this refusal, Edison billed Universal for excess energy charges of $395,409.60. Instead of paying the charges, Universal filed this complaint and eventually deposited the disputed amount with the Commission.
Universal contends that it should be excused from having to pay the excess energy charges because Edison engaged in a "systematic practice" of not purchasing enough power to serve its forecasted load from the so-called "day-ahead" power market run by the California Power Exchange (PX). The motive for this underscheduling, Universal contends, was to avoid purchased power costs that Edison could not recover in rates. As a result of the underscheduling, Universal continues, the ISO was required to make very large purchases in the spot, or "real time," market run by the ISO, purchases that were much larger than that market was designed to handle. Thus, Universal concludes, Edison's own actions were the proximate cause of the curtailment on June 27, 2000, because "Edison deliberately under-scheduled its generation capacity requirements in the day ahead market for June 27," which made it "almost certain" that the ISO would be forced to declare a Stage 2 alert, and that Edison would have to request load curtailments. (Complaint, ΒΆΒΆ12-13.) Since Edison's own Electric Rule 14 requires SCE to "exercise reasonable diligence to furnish/deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity to its customers and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery thereof," Universal contends that Edison's own scheduling practices brought about a breach of this rule, and that Universal should therefore be excused from having to pay the excess energy charges of $395,409.60.
It is well-established that in complaint cases like this one, the complainant has the burden of proving each essential element of its claim. We agree with Edison that in this case, Universal has failed to prove that SCE's scheduling practices in the day-ahead market for June 27, 2000 were unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 14, or that - in view of the supply withholding clearly engaged in by generators -- the purchases by the ISO in the real-time market can be considered the cause of the Stage 2 alert on June 27. Moreover, we agree that Edison has demonstrated that it could not have purchased enough power in the
day-ahead market to serve its forecasted load for June 27 even if SCE had been willing to bid the maximum price allowable under the PX's rules. In view of these conclusions, it is clear that Universal has not met its burden of proof, that the complaint herein should be denied, and that the $395,409.60 on deposit with the Commission should be paid to Edison.
