The Parties' Arguments

District's complaint alleges five causes of action against Edison. All five causes of action are tied to District's central contention that Edison has been overcharging it by billing for standby service sold to District at a service voltage of 12 kV, whereas Edison pays for electricity it purchases from District at a service voltage of 66 kV. District claims that the overbilling caused it to pay twice for the costs of distribution-level facilities and services and that such double charging is not a "just and reasonable" rate under Public Utilities Code § 451.

The alleged billing error occurred from April 1991, and continued until a compensated metering device was installed in 1999, at a cost of $3,000. Since this compensated metering device was installed District has saved $6,000 per month. Based on these figures, District claims it was overbilled approximately $300,000.

Edison agrees that District was billed at a higher price for service purchased by District as compared with a lower price for service sold, but denies that the price difference was an error or an overbilling. Edison contends, instead, that the prices were specified in the contracts between the parties, were consistent with its tariffs, and resulted from the fact that District failed to pay attention to rate notices. Edison maintains that in May of 1990, it notified District of the availability of the compensated metering device by way of AL No. 864. Edison also regularly sent District ratebook schedules that would have reflected the potential savings obtainable by use of the metering device.

The parties stipulated to most of the operative facts, including the fact that District was paying more for standby service than it had to. The DD parsed the dispute down to whether Edison had the duty to inform District of ways to reduce the price for standby service, or whether District had the duty to inquire and investigate whether a more advantageous price was available.