3. Discussion

The Commission twice before has dealt with requests by residents in this area for an order requiring SCE to relinquish its service in favor of Valley Electric. (Thomas v. SCE, D.96-12-046, (1996) 69 CPUC2d 639 (1996); Parry v. SCE , D.98-02-027 (1998).) In those cases, complainants noted that Valley Electric's rates per kilowatt-hour were less than half the tariffed rates of SCE.

Both of the previous complaints were dismissed on the basis that they failed to state a cause of action. Moreover, the Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to order the requested boundary adjustment in the absence of an appropriate application by one or both of the utilities involved. In dismissing the Parry complaint, the Commission stated:

This Commission cannot require that Valley Electric service this territory. Therefore we cannot order Edison to relinquish service in this area without knowing whether Valley Electric is willing to extend their service to that territory.

***

There is no legal basis for this Commission to order Edison to relinquish part of its service territory to Valley Electric. (Parry v. SCE, D.98-02-027.)

Where the Commission has been faced with a proposed boundary change between two like utilities, both able and willing to serve the area in question, it has expressed the policy that the broad public interest, not customer preference, is controlling:

[I]t is this Commission's policy that if the property to be expanded into is part of the established service territory of another utility, the utility wishing to expand must file an application with the Commission under [Pub. Util.] Code § 1001 for a [Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity] authorizing the utility to undertake the expansion.

***

The granting of authority to a utility to invade an adjoining or contiguous service area without a showing of public convenience and necessity would be inconsistent with the principles of regulation in the public interest... (Re Coto de Caza, Limited (1988) 29 CPUC2d 213.)

The Commission noted that exceptions to the requirement of a full-scale certification proceeding would be granted "in instances where there is mutual agreement by the competing utilities on the boundary relocation." (Id.)

In the present case, the complaint seeks a boundary change solely on the basis of customer preference, a position which the Commission has rejected. Not only has Valley Electric not filed an application to serve the area, there has been no reliable indication that Valley Electric is prepared to do so. Presumably, for Valley Electric to undertake such an expansion, it would have to purchase or condemn and purchase SCE's distribution facilities serving the area. Moreover, the complaint has not demonstrated or even alleged that it is within this Commission's jurisdiction to order the termination of the FERC-filed agreement between SCE and Valley Electric.

Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1702, a complaint must allege an "act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission."

The complaint before us fails to allege any such act or omission that violates any provision of law, order or rule. Instead, it simply requests that a portion of SCE's service territory be relinquished involuntarily and turned over to Valley Electric, based on customers' perception that service would be improved. Because the complaint does not include the elements required by Section 1702, and because the relief requested is beyond our power to grant absent a request by one or both of the utilities involved, this action must be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Commission has no alternative but to grant SCE's motion to dismiss.