STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
July 21, 2003 Agenda ID #2495
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 02-03-060
This is the draft decision of Administrative Law Judge Wong. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.
When the Commission acts on the draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.
Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.
/s/ Angela K. Minkin
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG: avs
ALJ/JSW/avs DRAFT Agenda ID#2495
Adjudicatory
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ WONG (Mailed 7/21/2003)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Anchor Lighting, a California General Partnership, Thomas H. Simcox dba Tommy's On Broadway, Complainants, vs. Southern California Edison Company, Defendant. |
Case 02-03-060 (Filed March 27, 2002) |
O P I N I O N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B. Application for Rehearing and Petition for Modification 2727
C. Alleged Misrepresentation 3333
Summary
On March 27, 2002, Anchor Lighting (Anchor), and Thomas H. Simcox doing business as Tommy's On Broadway (Tommy's), referred to jointly as "complainants," filed a complaint against Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Complainants alleges that they are small commercial customers within the meaning of Public Utilities Code § 331(h),1 and that SCE failed and refused to provide them with the 10% rate reduction2 as mandated in Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 (Stats. 1996, ch. 854) and contained in §§ 330(w) and 368(a).3
In the May 8, 2003 scoping memo and ruling, it was determined that the Commission should first address the issue of whether the complainants' allegations regarding the conflict between § 331(h) and the Commission decisions and tariffs implementing the 10% rate reduction were timely or not.
Today's decision dismisses the complaint with prejudice. The complaint challenges the interpretation of § 331(h) as developed and set forth in various Commission decisions and tariffs. However, the complainants failed to apply for rehearing of these decisions in a timely manner. In addition, § 841(c) prevents us from revising the costs of providing the 10% rate reduction as set forth in the financing order, D.97-09-056 (75 CPUC2d 555).
1 Unless otherwise stated, all code section references are to the Public Utilities Code. 2 Instead of a rate reduction, SCE was authorized by the Commission to implement the rate reduction via a bill credit of 10%. (75 CPUC2d at 569, 580.) 3 Section 330(w) provides in part that: "It is the intent of the Legislature to require and enable electrical corporations to monetize a portion of the competition transition charge for residential and small commercial consumers so that these customers will receive rate reductions of no less than 10 percent for 1998 continuing through 2002. Section 368(a) provides in part that: "The cost recovery plan shall set rates for each customer class, rate schedule, contract, or tariff option, at levels equal to the level as shown on electric rate schedules as of June 10, 1996, provided that rates for residential and small commercial customers shall be reduced so that these customers shall receive rate reductions of no less than 10 percent for 1998 continuing through 2002."
