Edison's Motion for Summary Judgment

The Commission finds that District failed to meet its burden of establishing the causes of action pled in the complaint, and that Edison is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Edison's separate statement of undisputed material facts and supporting evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, substantiates its position that District can not establish any of the five causes of action. 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 12kV; Edison made its applicable rates and rules available to District before Contract was signed; in 1989, under Schedule TOU-8, the rates for 12kV service were higher than for 66kV service; Edison provided service and billed District at the requested 12kV service voltage; Schedule TOU-8 specifies customer is to billed at the service voltage that exists where the meter is located; District's meter is a 12kV meter that is located on the "low," or District, side of the substation facility, off the 12kV 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 metering device until 1999; District now has compensated metering.

As discussed above, the Contract provided unambiguously for service and billing at the 12kV 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 12kV 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.

District's other 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. 864,⁵ which described the new rate obtainable with compensated metering under Special Condition No. 16, and, in addition, sent District periodic ratebook updates, that also included Special Condition No. 16. The record is sufficient to support Edison's position that it met its duty under Rule 12, and District's cause of action can not be established.

Consequently, since District can not establish any of its causes of action, Edison's motion for summary judgment is granted.