Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the administrative law judge in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________, and reply comments were filed on _______________.
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 no triable issue of material fact in this action.
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 12kV.
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 12kV service were higher than for 66kV service.
6. Edison provided service and billed District at the requested 12kV 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 12kV meter that is located on the "low," or District, side of the substation facility, off the 12kV 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 District 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. Edison met its obligation under Rule 12 to inform District of the new or revised rates available under Special Condition No. 16.
14. District did not request installation of metering device until 1999.
15. District now has compensated metering.
16. County Sanitation District No. 2 failed to establish a cause of action for Billing Error.
17. District failed to establish a cause of action for Violation of Tariff under Schedule TOU-8.
18. District failed to establish a cause of action for Violation of Tariff under Rule 12.
19. District failed to establish a cause of action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in connection with the Application and Contract for Electric Service.
20. District failed to establish a cause of action for Unjust Enrichment.
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County failed to establish the 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 judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Complainant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is denied.
2. Defendant Southern California Edison Company's motion for summary judgment is granted.
3. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
