District's Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication

After full consideration of the evidence and the separate statements of each party, and the authorities submitted by counsel as well as counsel's oral argument, the Commission finds that (1) there is no triable issue of material fact in this action, and (2) District has failed to meet its burden of sustaining the causes of action pled in the complaint. Consequently, Edison's motion for summary judgment should be granted.

In support of its motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, District submitted a statement of 34 undisputed material facts. In response to District's statement, Edison conceded that 32 of the facts were undisputed, and only disputed Nos. 4 and 28.

In summary, even if there are some disputed facts, none of them is material. The substance of District's complaint is that Edison should have billed District at the more favorable 66kV price instead of the 12kV price, and/or Edison should have informed District that it could have the benefit of the 66kV price if it installed the compensated metering available under Special Condition No. 16 of the Schedule TOU-8 tariff. District's motion for summary judgment/adjudication is denied because the record does not establish that Edison had a duty to either bill District at the more favorable 66kV price, or to specially inform District of Special Condition No. 16. While Edison did have an obligation under Rule 12 to inform District of any new or revised rate, such as compensated metering available under Special Condition No. 16, the record indicates Edison met this duty by mailing District AL No. 864, and sending District periodic rate book updates.

The documents submitted by both parties as exhibits to the cross-motions for summary judgment clearly establish that Edison performed its duty under its tariff, and had no obligations under either its tariff or the contracts, to bill District differently than it did. Specifically, the Contract indicates on its face that District chose a service voltage of 12kV; the bills sent by Edison to District for electricity sold indicate that the billing was at the 12kV price; Schedule TOU-8 sets forth the different prices for different service voltages and states that the price is based on service metered and delivered at specified voltages; Special Condition No. 16 of Schedule TOU-8 does provide for compensated metering; District is on the service list for AL No. 864, the letter that informed customers of the availability of the compensated metering; and District is on the list of ratebook holders who are sent periodic rate updates.⁴

The causes of action pled by District in its complaint are: Billing Error; Violation of Tariff [Schedule TOU-8]; Violation of Tariff [Rule 12]; Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Unjust Enrichment. The 33 undisputed facts, plus the documentary evidence, fail to establish any of the causes of action. Even the fifth cause of action for Unjust Enrichment misses the mark because there is no evidence that it would be more "just" to have the Edison shareholders and/or ratepayers absorb the alleged overpayment by District so that District could be reimbursed the difference between paying at the 12kV price instead of the more favorable 66kV price. Consequently, District's Motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is denied.