Edison's Motion for Summary Judgment
The Commission finds that District failed to meet its burden of establishing the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action pled in the complaint, and that Edison is entitled to summary adjudication on these causes of action as a matter of law.
Edison's separate statement of undisputed material facts and supporting evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment/adjudication, substantiates its position that District can not establish any of these causes of action. Whether Edison can prove that it met its duty under Tariff Rule 12 [3rd cause of action] to notify District of compensated metering is yet to be resolved. The evidence in support of Edison's position are the following documents: Application and Contract for Electric Service; 1989 Schedule TOU-8; bills from Edison to District for standby service; stipulated facts in the JCMS; AL No. 864 regarding compensated metering-with service list; Special Condition No. 16 of Schedule TOU-8; and the service list for ratebook holders.
In summary, Edison alleges that the District's purchases of electric service are governed by the Contract that was signed by District on December 15, 1989; this Contract indicates that District requested service under Schedule TOU-8 at a service voltage of 12 kV; Edison made its applicable rates and rules available to District before Contract was signed; in 1989, under Schedule TOU-8, the rates for 12 kV service were higher than for 66 kV service; Edison provided service and billed District at the requested 12 kV service voltage; Schedule TOU-8 specifies customer is to be billed at the service voltage that exists where the meter is located; District's meter is a 12 kV meter that is located on the "low," or District, side of the substation facility, off the 12 kV line; the only exception to billing TOU-8 customers at the service voltage that exists where the meter is located is if
compensated metering is installed under Special Condition No. 16 of Schedule TOU-8; compensated metering was not available when the Contract was signed in December, 1989; compensated billing under Special Condition No. 16 became available in April, 1990, and Edison notified District by way of AL No. 864; District is on Edison's list of ratebook holders to which Edison periodically sent updated ratebooks to reflect changes in Edison's rate schedules; District did not request installation of compensated metering device until 1999; District now has compensated metering.
As discussed above, the Contract provided unambiguously for service and billing at the 12 kV price and Edison's actions have been consistent with the 1989 Contract. District did not present anything for the record that created a material dispute as to the validity of the Contract. Since Edison's billing at the 12 kV price was within the language of the Contract, and was consistent with Schedule TOU-8, the Commission finds that Edison did not overbill District for electricity. District's causes of action for Billing Error, Violations of Tariff [Schedule TOU-8], and Breach of the Implied Covenant can not be established. In addition, District has not yet convinced the Commission that it would be "unjust" [ 5th cause of action] to deny District reparation.
District's 3rd cause of action for Violation of Tariff [Rule 12] is based on the contention that Edison breached its duty under Rule 12 to inform District of the availability of compensated metering when if became obtainable under Special Condition No. 16. Rule 12 specifies that when new or revised rates are established, Edison "will use such means as may be practicable to bring to the attention of those of its customers who may be affected that such new or revised rates are effective."
The record indicates that when compensated metering became available, Edison sent District a copy of AL No. 864, which described the new rate obtainable with compensated metering under Special Condition No. 16. The DD did note that District alleged it was not on the service list for AL 864. The service list, however, did show an address for Los Angeles County ISD Energy Management. Edison claimed that this was the address for District. Before the DD was issued, District presented no competing evidence that this address was not a good service address. In its comments and reply to the DD District did challenge whether or not service to this address was adequate. In reviewing the record, the Commission determined that this issue is material, it is in dispute, and must be resolved before a final determination can be made on District's cause of action for Violation of Tariff Rule 12.
