BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Clayton Colwell vs. Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E), Complainant, Defendant. Case No (Filed October 17, 2008) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) JENNIFER TSAO SHIGEKAWA MONICA GHATTAS Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Dated: November 24, 2008 LAW-#

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Clayton Colwell vs. Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E), Complainant, Defendant. Case No (Filed October 17, 2008) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 4.4 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (the Commission or CPUC ) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) respectfully answers the Complaint of Clayton Colwell, as follows: II. SUMMARY In his Complaint, Complainant disputes high bills he received at his residence. Specifically, he alleges that his old meter was defective causing him to receive high bills for electricity he did not consume. As discussed below, Complainant s claims are without merit as the meter at Complainant s residence tested well within CPUC guidelines and his current usage is in line with his past usage

3 Complainant is the owner of the residence located at Joshua Ave., Chino, CA and receives electrical service from SCE at this residence. On February 27, 2007, Complainant called SCE and opened a billing inquiry claiming his bills were too high. On March 26, 2007, a field service representative ( FSR ) met with Complainant to discuss his bill concerns. The FSR tested the meter in Complainant s presence and the test results were within 2% established CPUC guidelines. 1 The FSR explained to Complainant that the meter was accurate and tested well within CPUC guidelines. While the FSR was at Complainant s residence on March 26, 2007, Complainant repeatedly stated to the FSR that he only wanted his meter replaced and would not allow the FSR full access to the house, appliances, or garage machine shop to perform a load check. Additionally, the FSR noticed that there was a meter access issue. Specifically, the Complainant s approximately six foot high fence made it difficult for the meter reader to safely read the meter. Although it was previously not impossible to read the meter, for safety reasons, the FSR thought it prudent to change the meter to an Encoder Receiver Transmitter ( ERT ) meter that allows SCE to scan for a meter read without having to enter onto a customer s property. Thus, the FSR changed the meter on March 26, 2007, for access reasons and to satisfy the customer. Complainant s usage history shows that throughout the month of March 2007, prior to his meter being changed, the Complainant s average daily usage had begun to decrease from 29 kwh per day to 16.5 kwh per day. Although Complainant s usage declined, SCE s test results indicated that the meter was measuring the Complainant s usage accurately and well within CPUC guidelines. Therefore, despite some variations in Complainant s bills 2 which would 1 CPUC Rule 17 (C)(1) provides that If a meter is found to be registering more than 2% fast, SCE will refund to the customer the amount of the overcharge based on corrected meter readings or SCE s estimate of the energy usage either for the known period of meter error or, if the period of error is not known, for the period during which the meter was in use not to exceed six months. 2 Complainant s most recent bill with the new ERT meter dated November 3, 2008 registered an average daily usage of kwh per day

4 correspond to variations in his electric consumption at his home, Complainant was properly billed. III. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SCE incorporates, by reference, the affirmative statements made in SCE s Summary above. SCE responds to the specific allegations of the Complaint as follows: 1. Answering Paragraph F.2 of the Complaint (CPUC Complaint Form, pg. 5, attachment), SCE respectfully denies that there was any problem with Complainant s original meter. SCE further denies that it admitted in writing or verbally that Complainant s meter was defective or performed in any way similar to a defective meter. SCE avers that Complainant s attempt to compare his current usage with his usage from ten years prior is irrelevant. SCE denies that Complainant s meter readings are out of line with his prior usage. Moreover, SCE denies that the fluctuations in Complainant s usage are in any way related to a faulty meter. SCE avers that it tested Complainant s original meter in his presence and that the meter tested well within CPUC guidelines. Further, SCE s FSR explained to Complainant that the meter tested within CPUC guidelines and was therefore accurate. SCE also denies that Complainant s usage dropped immediately after his meter changed. Rather, Complainant s usage began to decrease from 29 kwh per day to 16.5 kwh per day in the month of March prior to his meter being changed on March 26, Notably, Complainants most recent bill dated November 3, 2008 shows an average daily usage of kwh. SCE admits that the FSR who inspected Complainant s meter found it tested within the CPUC guidelines, but denies that the FSR stated he would not replace the meter. Additionally, SCE denies that the FSR found that actual usage at the time of inspection did not match what the meter was reading at the time of - 3 -

5 inspection. Rather, SCE avers that the FSR found that the previous usage did not match the current draw, and concluded that it was likely that some previously connected load may have been removed from the home or not in use at the time of the FSR s visit. 3 SCE admits that the meter sped up and slowed down while the FSR was present, however, this is not out of the ordinary for any meter and the FSR explained to the Complainant that there could be several reasons for this occurrence such as the cycling of a refrigerator, air conditioner, or other appliance. SCE denies that this was the reason the FSR decided to replace the meter. Rather, the meter was replaced because of access concerns. Specifically, the Complainant s approximately six foot high fence made it difficult for the FSR to safely read the meter. Although it was previously not impossible to read the meter, for safety reasons the FSR thought it prudent to change the meter to one that could be read from the street because of Complainant s fence. In addition, the FSR decided to change the meter in order to satisfy the Complainant who repeatedly asked the FSR to change the meter. 2. Answering Complainant s Scoping Information in G.3 of the Complaint (CPUC Complaint Form, p.6), SCE states: a) SCE agrees that the proposed category for the Complaint is adjudicatory. b) SCE agrees that a hearing may be necessary to resolve this complaint. c) The issue to be decided is whether Complainant should receive an adjustment of billed usage from SCE for an allegedly faulty meter. 3. Answering Paragraph H of the Complaint, SCE denies that the Complainant is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 3 Because Complainant denied the FSR complete access to his home, the FSR was unable to conduct a load check on that date

6 IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Affirmative Allegations SCE re-alleges and incorporates herein each and every one of its affirmative allegations set forth above. SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State a Cause of Action Complainant fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief against SCE. THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Compliance with Tariffs Complainant is barred from recovery because SCE has complied with all applicable rules, laws and tariffs, including, but not limited to, Rule 17(C)(1). FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Intervening Cause If Complainant suffered any injury as alleged in the Complaint, which SCE specifically disputes and denies, the intervening and superseding actions, and/or inactions of Complainant itself or persons other than SCE proximately caused such injury in whole or in part. FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Mitigate Complainant failed to mitigate his injury, if any. SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Sixth Month Limit on Damages - 5 -

7 If Complainant suffered any injury as alleged in the Complaint, which SCE specifically disputes and denies, Complainants damages are limited to six months pursuant to Rule 17 (C)(1). 4 WHEREFORE, SCE prays: 1. That the Complaint and relief requested are denied; and 2. For such other relief as the Commission may deem just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, JENNIFER TSAO SHIGEKAWA MONICA GHATTAS /s/ Monica Ghattas By: Monica Ghattas Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) monica.ghattas@sce.com November 24, Rule 17(C)(1) states: If a meter is found to be registering more than 2% fast, SCE will refund to the customer the amount of the overcharge based on corrected meter readings or SCE s estimate of the energy usage either for the known period of meter error or, if the period of error is not known, for the period during which the meter was in use, not to exceed six months (emphasis added)

8 VERIFICATION I am an officer of the applicant corporation herein, and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I am informed and believe that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21 st day of November, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Harry Hutchinson Harry Hutchinson Vice President SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) on all parties identified on the attached service list(s). Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Transmitting the copies via to all parties who have provided an address. First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated. Executed this 24th day of November, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Cecilia R. Jones CECILIA R. JONES Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

10 Via Via Regular Mail Clayton Colwell Joshua Avenue Chino, CA 91710