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 12kV, whereas Edison pays for electricity it purchases from District at a service voltage of 66kV. The alleged billing error occurred from April 1991, and continued until a compensated metering device was installed in early 2000, at a cost of $3,000. Since this compensated metering device was installed District has been saving approximately $6,000 per month. Based on these figures, District alleges 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 and were consistent with its tariffs.
The material facts are undisputed. What the parties disagree about is whether or not Edison owes District any reparation for the alleged overbilling. In summary, did Edison have a duty to specially inform District that it could reduce its price for purchasing standby service by installing compensated metering, or did District have a duty to inquire and investigate whether a more advantageous price was available for the purchase of standby electric service.