STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

October 18, 2004 Agenda ID #3968

Ratesetting

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 03-03-017 AND
INVESTIGATION 03-03-018

This is the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) O'Donnell, previously designated as the principal hearing officer in this proceeding. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. This matter was categorized as ratesetting and is subject to Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(c). Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-180, a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting to consider this matter may be held upon the request of any Commissioner. If that occurs, the Commission will prepare and mail an agenda for the Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting 10 days before hand, and will advise the parties of this fact, and of the related ex parte communications prohibition period.

The Commission may act at the regular meeting, or it may postpone action until later. If action is postponed, the Commission will announce whether and when there will be a further prohibition on communications.

When the Commission acts on the proposed 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 proposed 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/JPO/avs DRAFT Agenda ID #3968

Ratesetting

Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ O'DONNELL (Mailed 10/18/2004)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Re-Examine the Underlying Issues Involved in the Submetering Discount for Mobile Home Parks and to Stay D.01-08-040.	Rulemaking 03-03-017 (Filed March 13, 2003)
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion to Re-Examine the Underlying Issues Involved in the Submetering Discount for Mobile Home Parks and to Stay D.01-08-040.	Investigation 03-03-018 (Filed March 13, 2003)

Bruce A. Reed, Attorney at law, for Southern California Edison Company, respondent.

Gail L. Slocum, and Andrew L. Niven, Attorneys at Law, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, respondent.

David Norris, Attorney at Law, for Sierra Pacific Power Company, respondent.

Andrew Bettwy, Attorney at Law, for Southwest Gas Corporation, respondent.

Charles Eshleman, and Vicki Thompson, Attorneys at Law, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, respondents.

Edward G. Pool, Irene K. Moosen, and Sheila Dey,
Attorneys at Law, for Western Manufactured Housing Community Association,
interested party.

Richard MCCann, Attorney at Law, for N.Cubed, interested party.

James Squeri, Attorney at Law, for Manufactured Home Communities, Inc., interested party.

Daniel Edington, and Haley Goodson, Attorneys at Law, for The Utility Reform Network, interested party.

Susan Brown, Attorney at Law, and Enrique Gallardo, for Latino Issues Forum, interested party.

O P I N I O N

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

OPINION 33

I. Summary 33

II. Background 55

III. Threshold Issues 88

1. The Adequacy of MHP Owner Records 88

2. Setting the Discount at the Cap 99

3. Uniform Statewide Discount 99

4. Where the Discount Should be Set 1010

5. Settlements 1212

IV. Should the Commission Adopt a Uniform Statewide Rate Structure
for the Discount? 1212

V. Should the Commission Adopt a Uniform Statewide Method
to Calculate the Discount? 1313

VI. Are there Fair and Reasonable Ways to Mitigate the Cost to MHP Owners of Converting Existing Submetered Systems to Directly-Metered Service? 1818

1. Motion to Establish a Separate Proceeding 2222

VII. Should the Commission Revise the Methods and Formulas by Which
Refunds are Currently Paid to Submetered Tenants by MHP Owners? 2323

1. LIF Recommendations 2626

2. TURN Recommendations 2727

3. WMA Recommendations 2828

VIII. Comments on Proposed Decision 3131

IX. Assignment of Proceeding 3131

Findings of Fact 3131

Conclusions of Law 3939

ORDER 4343

OPINION