CAB/sid 6/29/2001
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Utility Consumers' Action Network, Complainant, vs. San Diego Gas & Electric (U 1001 C), Defendant. |
Case 00-08-040 |
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING
SCHEDULING HEARING
This ruling schedules an evidentiary hearing to commence on July 9, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., at the San Diego State Office Building, 1350 Front Street, San Diego, California. This hearing was originally scheduled to begin May 14, 2001, but was continued at the request of the parties.
Background
The underlying complaint, filed on August 28, 2000, by the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) against San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) alleges that the utility overestimated customers' bills resulting in the customers overpaying their utility bills. On October 10, 2000, SDG&E filed an answer responding to each of the allegations set forth in the complaint and requesting that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the complaint provides no evidence SDG&E violated any law or order of the Commission.
By an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Ruling dated November 28, 2000, a prehearing conference (PHC) was set for January 26, 2001, in San Diego, California. The ALJ ruling ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint case management statement (JCMS) on five specified issues by January 19, 2001.
On January 18, 2001, UCAN and SDG&E filed a JCMS, and in summary, the parties took opposite positions on each of the five topics. An evidentiary hearing was set for the week of May 14, 2001, and a schedule was established for the service of testimony. The parties timely served testimony.
On Friday May 11, 2001, the parties told the assigned ALJ that they had reached a tentative settlement on many, but not all, of the issues in the proceeding. In the interest of allowing the parties time to further negotiate a full settlement, the May 14, 2001, hearing was continued until the week of July 9, 2001. The parties were put on notice that if a signed settlement agreement was not filed with the Commission by July 29, 2001, the scheduled hearings would go forward.
The parties have continued to negotiate in good faith on trying to resolve all of the issues raised by the UCAN complaint, but still have one unresolved topic: What is an appropriate benchmark for a performance indicator to determine whether SDG&E is estimating "too many" meters. This ruling schedules a hearing to allow for testimony and cross-examination on this topic.
