7. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of ALJ Walker in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on __________, and reply comments were filed on ___________.

Findings of Fact

1. Barratt American was required to convert existing overhead electric facilities to underground facilities in Rancho Cucamonga, California.

2. In performing the work, SCE charged Barratt American $33,700 for its costs of pole removal.

3. Between 1967 and 1997, SCE did not charge pole removal costs in similar conversion projects.

4. In 1997, SCE reviewed its tariff and concluded that pole removal costs are part of the conversion project and should be charged to the applicant.

5. SCE did not seek Commission approval of its change in practice regarding pole removal costs.

6. The undergrounding work at issue is governed by SCE's Tariff Rule 20.

Conclusions of Law

1. G.O. 96-A requires prior Commission approval of any change in a condition or classification resulting in an increase in a tariff schedule.

2. Complainant has established a prima facie violation by SCE of G.O. 96-A.

3. SCE should be directed to refund to Barratt American the $33,700 charge assessed for pole removal costs.

4. The scope of this proceeding is set forth in the complaint and answer; ALJ Walker is designated as the presiding officer.

5. This order should be made effective immediately so that complainant recovers the improperly assessed charges as soon as possible.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Commission finds for Barratt American, Inc. in its complaint against Southern California Edison Company (SCE) in Case (C.) 00-07-054.

2. SCE is directed to refund $33,700 to Barratt American, Inc., within 30 days of the date of this order.

3. C.00-07-054 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.