3. Procedural History

This complaint was filed on July 28, 2000. SCE was granted an extension of time and timely filed an answer on September 21, 2000.

On October 11, 2000, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling directing SCE to respond to a number of questions. Specifically, SCE was asked (1) whether it had sought or obtained Commission approval for its change in practice in assessing pole removal costs; (2) if not, under what authority did it make the change in practice, and (3) had there been any other changes since 1997 in the assessments to an applicant for underground conversion.

SCE responded on November 9, 2000. It stated that it had not sought Commission approval for its change in practice. It explained that it frequently reviews its tariffs and makes changes in procedures. It further explained:

"SCE's practice is to implement procedures in accordance with its tariffs. So long as SCE's procedures are not inconsistent or in conflict with its tariffs, SCE does not typically seek approval of the specific procedures it is implementing. Likewise, if SCE determines that a procedure should be changed, it does not seek approval if the procedure, as changed, is still consistent with SCE's tariff." (SCE Response, at 2.)

SCE stated that, since 1997, it made one other change in Rule 20 assessments to applicants for conversion. That change (requiring applicants to pay the costs of transformers and meters) was ordered by the Commission in Decision (D.) 97-12-098 and was implemented by SCE through an advice letter filing.

In a telephone conference call conducted on November 29, 2000, the parties agreed that the issues raised in Barratt American's complaint are legal in nature and did not require an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, Barratt American filed an opening brief on December 19, 2000; SCE responded on January 12, 2001; and Barratt American replied on January 19, 2001.

The matter was deemed submitted to the Commission on January 19, 2001.