5. Positions of the Parties

Barratt American's position can be stated simply. Under protest, it paid SCE the pole removal charges at Rancho Cucamonga. The charge was inconsistent with previous SCE Rule 20 projects. Since SCE for 30 years had not assessed such a charge under Rule 20, it should not have changed its practice without first seeking Commission approval through an advice letter filing or other procedure.

SCE responds that under the express terms of Rule 20.B.2.c, the applicant must pay all the costs of completing the underground system, except that the applicant is entitled to a credit, to be funded by ratepayers, for the amount that it would cost to build a new equivalent overhead system. SCE contends that under Rule 20.B.3, completion of the underground system specifically includes removal of existing overhead facilities.

SCE argues that it is appropriate for costs of removing existing overhead facilities to be borne by the applicant and property owners who will receive the benefit of service from the underground facilities. It also is consistent with SCE's former Schedule U, a tariff that was in place between 1957 and 1967, when it was replaced by Rule 20.

SCE argues that Barratt American has failed to allege any violation of law, order or rule of the Commission, as required by Pub. Util. Code § 1702. It argues that no rule or law requires prior Commission approval of a change in practice if the change is consistent with the applicable tariff. SCE states that the Commission is reviewing Rule 20 in an ongoing rulemaking proceeding, R.00-01-005, and that this matter more appropriately should be considered in that forum.