Briefing Schedule for 3rd Cause of Action: Violation of Tariff Rule 12
The Commission will accept further testimony, declarations, and briefing on the one disputed material fact: did Edison serve AL No. 864 on District, or otherwise notice District of the availability of compensated metering. Opening briefs are due Friday, January 26, 2001. Reply briefs are due Friday, February 9, 2001.
1. After full consideration of the evidence, the separate statements of each party, the authorities submitted by counsel, and counsel's oral argument, the Commission finds there is one triable issue of material fact in this action: did Edison properly serve AL No. 864 on District, or otherwise notice District of the availability of compensated metering.
2. The District's purchases of electric service are governed by the Contract that was signed by District on December 15, 1989.
3. The Contract indicates that District requested service under Schedule TOU-8 at a service voltage of 12 kV.
4. Edison made its applicable rates and rules available to District before Contract was signed.
5. The rates in 1989 under Schedule TOU-8 for 12 kV service were higher than for 66 kV service.
6. Edison provided service and billed District at the requested 12 kV service voltage.
7. Schedule TOU-8 specifies customer is to billed at the service voltage that exists where the meter is located.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Compensated metering was not available when Contract signed in December, 1989.
11. Compensated billing under Special Condition No. 16 became available in April, 1990, and Edison notified affected customers by way of AL No. 864.
12. District is on Edison's list of ratebook holders to which Edison periodically sent updated ratebooks to reflect changes in Edison's rate schedules.
13. District did not request installation of metering device until 1999.
14. District now has compensated metering.
15. There is a dispute as to the material fact of whether Edison met its duty under Tariff Rule 12 to notify District of the availability of compensated metering.
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County failed to establish the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action pled in the complaint, and its motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is denied.
2. Defendant Southern California Edison Company is entitled to summary adjudication on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action.
3. The Commission will take further briefing and testimony on the issue of whether or not Edison met its Tariff Rule 12 duty to notify District of the availability of compensated metering.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication as to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action is denied.
2. Defendant Southern California Edison Company's motion for summary adjudication is granted as to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action.
3. Further briefing and testimony will be taken on the issue of whether or not Edison met its Tariff Rule 12 duty to notify District of the availability of compensated metering.
4. This proceeding will remain open until all causes of action are resolved.
This order is effective today.
Dated February 22, 2001, at San Francisco, California.
LORETTA M. LYNCH
President
HENRY M. DUQUE
RICHARD A. BILAS
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
Commissioners
