PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT …

245498150 - 1 – Ljp 12/28 7:45

ALJ/MOD-POD-PM6/lil/jt2 DRAFT Agenda ID# 17065 Adjudicatory BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BB’s Deli, LLC,

Complainant,

vs. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E),

Defendant.

Case16-04-009

(See Appendix A for Appearances)

PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION DISMISSING

THE COMPLAINT OF BB’S DELI, LLC

Summary

This decision denies the requested relief, grants the motion for summary

judgment by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) and dismisses the

Complaint filed by BB’s Deli, LLC.

Case 16-04-009 is closed.

1. Background

This complaint comes to us against the backdrop of a civil suit which BB’s

Deli, LLC (BBD or Complainant) commenced in San Diego Superior Court.1 BBD

requested, and the court granted a stay of the civil suit, to permit BBD to seek

1 BB’s Deli, LLC v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case no. 37-2014-00037972-CU-BT-CLT.

C.16-04-009 ALJ/MOD-POD-PM6/lil/jt2 DRAFT

- 2 -

determination from the Commission about whether San Diego Gas & Electric

Company’s (SDG&E or Defendant) Tariff Rule 12.C2 requires SDG&E to notify

customers each time a rate is revised or modified. Specifically, Complainant BBD

here claims that SDG&E failed to notify BBD that SDG&E’s rate Schedule A was

more economical than the rate Schedule A-Time of Use (A-TOU) that BBD

utilized, and that had BBD known this, it would have switched from rate A-TOU

to rate Schedule A.

1.1. Parties

BBD is located at 1321 – 5th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. Complainant is

a small business, nonresidential metered service customer of SDG&E.

SDG&E is a provider of electricity and natural gas service and is an

investor-owned public utility (IOU) under the jurisdiction of the California Public

Utilities Commission (Commission).

1.2. Time of Use (TOU) Pricing

TOU pricing utilizes a per-unit-of consumption rate structure that varies

depending on the time of day during which energy is consumed, with higher

per-unit rates applied during blocks of hours in which electricity demand or costs

tend to be higher. Customers’ bills on TOU tariffs are determined both by how

much electricity the customer uses and the times of day during which the energy

is used. The retail price for energy consumed during each time period is

established in advance. By varying retail price signals in relation to utility costs,

2 SDG&E’s Tariff Rule 12.C states:

C. New or Optional Rates – In the event of the adoption by the Utility of new or optional rates, the Utility shall take such measures as may be practicable to advise the customers who may be affected that such new or optional rates are effective.


- 3 -

TOU rates seek to motivate customers to shift their usage to periods that promote

more efficient use of the electrical system. The intent of TOU pricing is to shift

usage in a way that should assist state energy goals by minimizing costs,

encouraging energy conservation at appropriate times, and increasing electric

supply at times that best serve the needs of the electric grid.3

2. Procedural Status

BBD filed its Complaint April 12, 2016. On May 12, 2016, the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling setting a June 17, 2016

prehearing conference (PHC). In it, the parties were instructed to meet and

confer to prepare and file (no later than June 13, 2016) a joint case management

statement setting forth the principal factual and legal issues, the evidentiary

bases for their claims (and defenses), their discovery disputes, if any, and the

motions, if any, which they intended to file. On May 27, 2016, SDG&E filed an

Answer indicating that it would file a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ).

The parties filed a joint case management statement (joint statement) on

June 13, 2016. In their joint statement, the parties agreed that the principal issues

are: 1) whether Public Utilities Code Section (Pub. Util. Code §) 736, describing

the statute of limitations for filing a complaint with the Commission, bars this

action, and 2) whether Tariff Rule 12C requires SDG&E to mail BBD notices each

time rates are revised or modified.4 The parties’ joint statement included their

respective positions concerning the facts on each issue.

3 See Decision (D.) 17-01-006 in Rulemaking 15-12-012, for an overview of the evolution of TOU pricing. In 2012, TOU rates became mandatory for non-residential customers of investor-owned utilities (IOUs), including SDG&E.

4 The parties added two additional questions - i.e., whether BBD would have moved from Rate Schedule A-TOU if it had received notices, and whether BBD is limited to recovery of only

Footnote continued on next page


- 4 -

A PHC was held on June 17, 2016 in San Diego. At the PHC held June 17,

2016, both parties were represented by counsel.5 Mr. Boylan explained that BBD

seeks to recover the difference between what it paid to SDG&E under the

Schedule A-TOU rate and what it would have paid had it been billed under

SDG&E’s flat Schedule A rate from 2009 - 2014.6 Ms. Van Goor stated that

SDG&E calculated the difference (over the five-year period) to be approximately

$1,200.7

SDG&E filed a MSJ on July 8, 2016. BBD filed an Opposition to the MSJ on

August 12, 2016.8 SDG&E filed a reply in support of the MSJ on September 6,

2016.

The Presiding Officer’s Decision Dismissing the Complaint of BBD (POD)

was mailed on September 21, 2018. BBD filed its Appeal of the POD on

October 22, 2018 and SDG&E filed its Response to the Appeal on November 5,

2018.

three years of overcharges that it paid. However, these questions are rendered moot by this decision.

5 Nicholas Boylan, Esq. and his associate, Liam Vavasour appeared on behalf of BBD. Christa Lim, Brad Muldrow and Megan Caulson of SDG&E attended and were represented by legal counsel Stacy Van Goor, Esq. and Raul Olamendi Smith, Esq.

6 See Complaint at 3 and PHC transcript at 6, lines 8-24. Counsel admitted that he had not calculated the difference, did not have a ballpark estimate, but would request that SDG&E be ordered to provide the calculation should the Commission grant BBD’s complaint.

7 See PHC transcript at 9, lines 2-19.

8 BBD’s Opposition to SDG&E’s MSJ includes: (1) a Declaration signed under penalty of perjury on August 11, 2016 by Al Kazzazi, and (2) a Declaration signed under penalty of perjury on August 12, 2016 by Liam F. Vavasour, an attorney in Mr. Boylan’s law office.


- 5 -

3. Parties’ Positions

In their joint statement, the parties acknowledge that SDG&E sent

Complainant numerous mail notices about pending rate-change proceedings, as

well as invitations to find out about other rate options and ways to lower its

bills.9 However, we have determined SDG&E has complied with the

Commission’s GO 96-B which requires IOUs such as SDG&E to post

Commission-approved tariffs and rate schedules on its public website.

3.1 BBD Complaint

Complainant BBD claims that SDG&E failed to notify BBD that SDG&E’s

rate Schedule A was more economical than the Schedule A-TOU rate that BBD

utilized, and that had BBD known this, it would have switched from rate A-TOU

back to rate Schedule A. Complainant seeks determination that SDG&E’s Tariff

Rule 12.C requires SDG&E to provide notice to customers each time a rate is

revised or modified.

In a sworn statement, BBD’s owner and manager, Al Kazzazi states that

BBD began service with SDG&E in March or April 1995.10 Mr. Kazzazi recalls

that BBD had service under Schedule A-TOU when he became its sole owner in

9 See Joint Statement at 4. Complainant notes that: “SDG&E periodically sent Complainant regulatory notices and bill inserts…these notices and inserts in some instances refer to possible rates changes in the future…none of the inserts or notices refer to different or alternative rates being available to customers…even when the inserts or notices discuss ways for customers to save money,” and “some of the bills from SDG&E to Complainant stated that ‘rate options’ might exist...but the language did not specifically identify any new or alternative rates (such as the Schedule A rate).”

10 See Declaration of Al Kazzazi, at 1-2. Between March 1995 and June 2003, Mr. Kazzazi was a managing partner of BBD. In June 2003, he became sole owner of BBD.


- 6 -

June 2003.11 He contacted SDG&E to inquire about an unusually high bill on or

about May 16, 2014, whereupon a SDG&E representative visited the premises to

inform him about other rate plans, including the Schedule A “flat rate” plan.

Mr. Kazzazi recalls that the representative told him that the Schedule A flat rate

plan became available to SDG&E’s small business customers at least five years

prior. Mr. Kazzazi then requested that BBD be billed on the Schedule A flat rate

plan, and this rate took effect following the June 17, 2014 bill.12

BBD contends that SDG&E’s Tariff Rule 12.C requires SDG&E to notify

customers each time a rate is revised or modified. Thus, BBD seeks a refund

based on the difference between what it could have been charged under rate

Schedule A and the rate it was charged under rate Schedule A-TOU, for all or a

portion of the period between June 2009 and July 2014. BBD cites two cases in

support of its interpretation of Rule 12: Roy Shimek DBA Canadian American

Oil Company v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1993), D.93-10-011, 51 CPUC2d 513

(Shimek v PG&E), and County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v.

Southern California Edison Co. (2002), D.02-04-051, 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 275

(County Sanitation v SCE).

In Shimek v PG&E (Shimek), the Commission concluded that, when rate

changes occur that potentially make a particular rate schedule more economical

for a group of customers than the schedule for their existing service, the utility is

11 In his sworn Declaration, Mr. Kazzazi does not mention when BBD began service under TOU rates, but he recalls that they were on TOU rates when he became sole owner in June 2003. SDG&E indicates that their records reflect that BBD elected to move from Schedule A to A-TOU rates in February 2000. The Complaint indicates that BBD is seeking adjustment from 2009.

12 Id. at 3.


- 7 -

responsible for taking reasonable steps to get word out to the affected customers

on a timely basis.13

In County Sanitation v SCE, the Commission cited the Shimek case in

concluding that Southern California Edison Company’s (Edison’s) practice of

notifying customers of more favorable pricing options by advice letter, was not a

reasonable approach to inform the Los Angeles County Sanitation District that a

more favorable pricing option was available for the purchase of stand-by electric

service. The Commission disagreed with Edison’s argument that customers who

received the advice letter were obliged to request information on new or revised

rates. The Commission emphasized that Rule 12 places the responsibility of

providing notification to customers upon the utility.14

The language in SDG&E’s Tariff Rule 12.C is virtually identical to the

language in PG&E’s tariff, which was at issue in the Shimek case.15

3.2 SDG&E Answer

SDG&E asserts that its Tariff Rule 12.C did not require it to provide notices

about rates, beyond those that parties agree that SDG&E routinely included in

bill inserts, to notify Complainant that BBD could return to rate Schedule A

between 2009 and 2014, because the tariff applies to new, revised or optional

rates, while Schedule A is the default rate that customers were automatically

13 51 CPUC2d at 515.

14 D.02-04-051 at 12.

15 See 51 CPUC2d at 515. PG&E’s Tariff Rule 12 read: “In the event of the adoption by PG&E of new or optional schedules or rates, PG&E will take such measures as may be practicable to advise those of its customers who may be affected that such new or optional rates are effective.”


- 8 -

placed on absent an election of another rate.16 SDG&E notes that BBD initially

had service under its default rate Schedule A until BBD opted out of rate

Schedule A in February 200017 and voluntarily elected to move to the TOU rate

schedule os which BBD now complains. SDG&E argues that because

Complainant had previously been subscribed to, and was already aware of the

existence of Schedule A, it was not a “new” rate as to Complainant.

SDG&E additionally argues that General Order 96-B (GO 96-B) expressly

supersedes Commission orders issued before September 6, 2007,18 therefore,

notwithstanding the cases cited by Complainant, electric (and other) utilities

were permitted (after GO 96-B) to provide notice of rate schedules to customers

by compiling and publishing their tariffs on the internet.19 SDG&E notes that the

stated purpose of compiling and publishing utility tariffs on the internet, is to

16 Id.

17 Joint Statement at 6.

18 Energy Industry Rule 3.1 in GO 96-B, governing notices to customers, states:

3.1 Notice to Customers Unless otherwise required by a Commission order issued after September 6, 2007, exceptions to General Rule 4.2 are authorized, and no customer notice is required, for the following categories of Energy Industry advice letters: (1) An electrical, gas, heat, or pipeline Utility advice letter that requests higher rates or charges, or more restrictive terms or conditions of service, where the increased rates or charges, or changes to terms or conditions of service, as requested in the advice letter, have been specifically authorized by statute or by a prior Commission order…

19 Section 8 on Tariffs includes a subsection 8.1.2 which states:

8.1.2 Internet Publication The Commission strongly encourages all utilities, and requires certain utilities as described below, to publish and keep up-to-date their respective tariffs, as currently in effect, at sites on the Internet freely accessible to the public.


- 9 -

enable members of the public to inspect and get copies of those tariffs that may

be of interest to them. Tariffs currently in effect and those no longer in effect, are

covered by the provision.20 Accordingly, SDG&E convincingly asserts that, by

publishing its tariffs as required under GO 96-B, it fulfilled any responsibility that

it may have had to notify Complainant about Rate Schedules A and A-TOU.

Lastly, Defendant SDG&E answers that Pub. Util. Code § 736 bars BBD’s

complaint because Complainant BBD switched from rate Schedule A to A-TOU

in 2000, but did not complain or inquire about its rate schedule until 2014.21

4. Discussion

4.1 Standard for Ruling on a Motion to Dismiss

SDG&E moves to dismiss the complaint as it contends that there are no

triable issues as to material facts requiring need for discovery or hearing.22

SDG&E also argues that the issue presented may be decided as a matter of

law because it simply requires determination about the proper interpretation of

its tariff.

The Commission describes in Fenholt v. Southern California Edison

Company, D.14-03-032 (2014) (Fenholt), two similar standards for ruling on a

motion to dismiss. The first looks to the evidence presented to determine

whether, based on undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.23 The second standard also considers whether the moving party

20 See GO 96-B subsection 8.1.1 Publishing Tariffs.

21 See SDG&E May 27, 2016 Answer at 2. Pub. Util. Code § 736 requires all complaints to be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrues.

22 See MSJ at 3.

23 See Fenholt at 4.


- 10 -

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, but starts from an assumption that

well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are true.24

In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations, i.e., whether the

factual allegations are “well-pleaded,” the Commission is guided by the

standards set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1702, which provides that a complainant

must allege that a regulated utility has engaged in an act or failed to perform an

act in violation of any law or Commission order or rule.25 Thus, in evaluating the

merits of BBD’s Complaint against SDG&E, the question will be –if it is true that

SDG&E failed to mail notices to BBD about revisions or modifications to Rate

Schedule A – did this failure violate SDG&E’s tariff, or any other Commission

order or rule?

4.2 Parties Agree That SDG&E Provided

Notices About Rates

In the parties’ joint statement, BBD states that SDG&E periodically sent it

regulatory notices and bill inserts which, in some instances, referred to possible

rate changes in the future. BBD mentions that some of the inserts discussed ways

for customers to save money and that rate options might exist, but the language

did not specifically identify any new or alternative rates. BBD’s owner stated, in

a sworn statement, that it opted to receive its billing statements and other written

communications from SDG&E by regular U.S. Mail, but did not avail itself of any

of SDG&E’s electronic billing features nor SDG&E’s website.26

24 Id. citing D.99-11-023 Re Western Gas Resources-California, Inc. (1999).

25 Id. at 6. Also see Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1702. Fenholt lists numerous cases in which the Commission dismissed complaints that failed to meet the two standards.

26 See Declaration of Al Kazzazi at 4.


- 11 -

BBD acknowledges that no new or alternative rates were identified by

SDG&E in the notices that it received by U.S. Mail. Tariff Rule 12 places

reporting requirements upon SDG&E respecting “new or optional” rates. BBD’s

owner acknowledges, under penalty of perjury, his failure to avail himself of rate

information readily available on SDG&E’s website. It therefore does not appear

that SDG&E withheld information from Complainant about any rates subject to

tariff Rule 12.

4.3 The Facts Do Not Establish Any Violation of

SDG&E’s Tariff

As SDG&E contends, in decisions involving interpretation of tariffs

pertaining to IOUs, the Commission has explained that “[t]ariff interpretation

requires giving words their ordinary meanings, avoiding interpretations that

make any language surplus, and interpreting words in context in a reasonable,

common sense manner.”27 We agree with SDG&E that there is no language in its

tariff Rule 12 which requires sending periodic notices by mail to inform

customers that their existing rate may or may not be the lowest available rate.

We also agree with SDG&E that Schedule A is not a “new” rate with respect to

BBD.

4.4 The Facts Do Not Establish Any Violation of

GO 96-B

We agree with SDG&E that notwithstanding the cases cited by

Complainant, GO 96-B now requires SDG&E to post on its public website: (1) the

advice letters by which SDG&E seeks Commission authorization to make revised

27 See Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Rehearing of Resolution G-3372 D.05-09-046 (2005) at 14-15 and Zacky and Sons v. Southern California Edison Co., D.03-04-058 at 19 [Conclusions of Law 2-3].


- 12 -

rates effective, and (2) all rates and tariffs that are in effect. Accordingly, we

agree with SDG&E that, by publishing its tariffs on its website, as required under

GO 96-B, SDG&E fulfilled its responsibility to notify customers, including the

Complainant, about changes to rates under Schedules A and A-TOU.28

Complainant BBD’s failure to avail itself of rate information readily available on

SDG&E’s website, does not equate to a violation of GO 96-B by SDG&E.

5. BBD’s Appeal

In its Appeal, BBD contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that there

were no material facts in dispute29 and in finding that BBD did not establish, as a

matter of law, that SDG&E violated Tariff Rule 12 or any other Commission

order or rule.

5.1 Material Facts in Dispute

A bare assertion without any demonstrable basis for the assertion, does not

make the assertion rise to the level of a material disputed fact.

In Complainant’s Opposition to SDG&E’s MSJ, Complainant cites the

Declaration of Mr. Kazzazi to “dispute whether [Complainant] was aware of the

existence of SDG&E’s Schedule A rate plan, including each time such it was

revised or modified by SDG&E, prior to May 2014. (sic)”30 However, the issue

28 See MSJ at 6.

29 BBD’s Appeal sets forth five errors that it contends were made by the ALJ in her POD, but two of the five simply set forth the facts that BBD disputes: (2) whether the Schedule A rate was a new or optional rate for BBD, and (4) whether SDG&E in fact posted its rates and tariffs on its internet website during the pertinent time period; while another is subsumed under the question of whether Tariff rule 12 was violated: (3) whether SDG&E satisfies its notice obligations to customers by posting its rates and tariffs on its internet website.

30 See BBD’s Opposition to SDG&E’s MSJ at 6.


- 13 -

isn’t whether Complainant was aware of the existence of SDG&E’s rate plan.

Rather, the issue is whether Complainant’s lack of knowledge was due to

SDG&E’s failure to provide notice to him as required under Tariff Rule 12.

Mr. Kazzazi admits that he did not avail himself of electronic billing features nor

SDG&E’s website.

The declarant’s statement is insufficient to dispute the fact of the existence

of BBD’s Schedule A rate plan because Kazzazi states:

Given the passage of since then of decades of time, I cannot recall in detail now the circumstances under which Complainant’s predecessor partnership first contracted for services with SDG&E. To the best of my recollection at this time and after diligent and good faith inquiry, I do not believe that a Schedule A rate plan or “flat rate” plan was then made available to Complainant, however. When Complainant succeeded to the partnership’s contract with SDG&E, Complainant began service on a Schedule A-TOU (”time of use”) rate plan.31

Kazzazi admits to having no recollection of details about the prior rate

plan and he does not set forth what “diligent and good faith inquiry” he made to

lead him to his belief that the business was not operating on a Schedule A, flat

rate plan as SDG&E asserts. Mr. Kazzazi’s conjecture about the rate schedule in

effect at the deli is legally insufficient to support Complainant’s position.32

Complainant additionally argues in its Appeal that the ALJ “misstates” the

facts when she states that “Complainant,” not its predecessor, began service with

SDG&E in the early 1990s.

However, this distinction is not material. First, by his own declaration,

Mr. Kazzazi was a managing partner of the deli that began service with SDG&E

in the early 1990s. Mr. Kazzazi has been the sole owner of the deli since 2003,

31 Declaration, paragraph 3 at 2.

32 Citing November 5, 2018 Response of SDG&E to Complainant’s Appeal at 9, footnote 23.


- 14 -

when the business (in his words) succeeded to the partnership’s contract with

SDG&E under the TOU rate plan. Therefore, with respect to Mr. Kazzazi’s

testimony, the businesses are in privity for purposes of any contractual obligation

with SDG&E.

Second, and importantly, Mr. Kazzazi’s admitted lack of recollection about

the rate contract that both businesses had with SDG&E renders his testimony

“conjecture” and undermines Complainant’s case entirely.

6. Conclusion

Assuming that the facts presented in the parties’ pleadings, including in

their joint statement and in the sworn declaration of BBD’s owner are true,

SDG&E is entitled to dismissal of the Complaint as a matter of law.

The Commission has stated that a Motion to Dismiss requires the

Commission to determine whether the party bringing the motion prevails based

solely on undisputed facts and matters of law. The Commission treats such

motions as a court would treat motions for summary judgment in civil practice.33

A MSJ is appropriate where the evidence presented indicates that there are no

triable issues as to any material fact, and that based on the undisputed facts, the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (California Code of Civil

Procedure, § 437(c); Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 10:26-27).

Here, BBD has failed to demonstrate that Defendant SDG&E has engaged

in any act or failed to perform any act in violation of its tariff, or in violation of

any Commission order or rule. For instance, BBD has not demonstrated that

SDG&E failed to post rate schedules and advice letters on its website as required

by GO 96-B. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed. Because the complaint is

33 See Fenholt at 4.


- 15 -

dismissed as a matter of law, we need not reach the issue of whether Pub. Util.

Code § 736 would bar BBD’s Complaint or limit its relief. This proceeding is

closed.

7. Categorization and Need for Hearing

This decision confirms the categorization of Case 16-04-009 as

adjudicatory, as defined in Rule 1.3(a). The evidentiary determination is that,

based on the lack of facts presented by Complainant, Defendant SDG&E is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidentiary hearings are not necessary,

because there is no triable issue of material fact.

8. Assignment of Proceeding

Martha Guzman-Aceves is the assigned Commissioner and Patricia B.

Miles is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. Complainant BB’s Deli, LLC is a small business, nonresidential metered

service customer of SDG&E.

2. Complainant’s Declarant Kazzazi was a managing partner of BB’s Deli

when it was configured as a partnership, and he has been the sole owner of BB’s

Deli since 2003.

3. SDG&E is a provider of electricity and natural gas service and is an

investor-owned public utility under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

4. BB’s Deli utilized the default Schedule A rates under SDG&E’s tariff when

it began service in March 1995.

5. BB’s Deli utilized Schedule A-TOU rates under SDG&E’s tariff between at

least 2000 and July 2014.

6. Declarant Kazzazi requested to return to Schedule A rates upon receipt of

the May 2014 bill.


- 16 -

7. Under GO 96-B, SDG&E was not required to provide written notice about

revisions to rates under Schedule A during the period between June 2009 and

July 2014.

8. GO 96-B permits SDG&E to publish utility tariffs on its website; therefore it

is not required to provide written notice to BBD about changes to rates and

tariffs.

9. Complainant did not utilize SDG&E’s website.

10. Complainant filed this Complaint seeking determination whether SDG&E’s

tariff Rule 12.C required written notice when Schedule A rates changed.

11. Complainant and SDG&E filed a joint statement setting forth agreed facts.

12. SDG&E seeks dismissal of this Complaint as a matter of law.

Conclusions of Law

1. Assuming that facts presented in the parties’ joint statement and in the

sworn statement of BBD’s owner are true, SDG&E has not violated any

Commission order or rule.

2. GO 96-B requires SDG&E to provide notice of rates to customers by

publishing its tariffs on the internet.

3. SDG&E’s Tariff 12.C requires the utility to provide notice to customers in

the event of adoption of new or optional rates.

4. SDG&E’s Rate Schedule A was not a new or optional rate for Complainant

BBD.

5. BBD has failed to demonstrate that SDG&E failed to perform any act in

violation of its tariff, or in violation of any Commission order or rule.

6. Hearings are not necessary because the parties’ joint facts, pleadings and

the Declaration of BBD’s owner Al Kazzazi do not reflect any dispute with regard


- 17 -

to the material facts relevant to determination about requirements of SDG&E’s

Tariff 12.C.

7. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint should be granted as a

matter of law.

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Complaint filed by BB’s Deli LLC against San Diego Gas & Electric

Company is dismissed.

2. The hearing determination is changed to “no hearings are necessary.”

3. All motions not previously ruled on are denied.

4. Case 16-04-009 is closed.

5. This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.

C.16-04-009 ALJ/POD-PM6/lil

Appendix A

Nicholas A. Boylan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS A. BOYLAN, A.P.C. 233 A STREET, STE. 1205 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 (619) 696-6344 [email protected] For: BB's Deli, LLC ____________________________________________ Megan Caulson Regulatory Tariff Mgr. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32C SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1548 (858) 654-1748 [email protected] For: San Diego Gas & Electric Company ___________________________________________

(End of Appendix A)

PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT …

Documents

Transcript of PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT …