BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Zov s Bistro, Inc., v. Complainant, Southern California Edison Company (U338-E, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed January 16, 2009 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT JENNIFER TSAO SHIGEKAWA KAREN I. LEE Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Karen.Lee@SCE.com Dated: March 2, 2009 LAW-#

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Zov s Bistro, Inc., v. Complainant, Southern California Edison Company (U338-E, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed January 16, 2009 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 4.4 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company ( SCE respectfully answers the Complaint ( Complaint of Zov s Bistro, Inc. As a preliminary matter, SCE respectfully notes that the customer of record for the billing address identified in the Complaint is Mr. Garbis Karamardian, and neither Zov s Bistro, Inc. nor Armen Karamardian, as named in the Complaint is identified in SCE s records as a customer of record on the subject account. For purposes of this Answer to Complaint, we will assume that Mr. Armen Karamardian is a representative of Mr. Garbis Karamardian, who we believe to be an owner of Zov s Bistro, Inc., and will refer to these parties, collectively, as the Complainant

3 II. SUMMARY In its Complaint, Complainant disputes the rebilling of its account for the period from April 30, 2004 to April 30, 2007 for an additional Kilowatt-hours in the amount of $36, and contends that the amount due should be reduced to $18, As discussed below, this contention is without merit. SCE has operated appropriately under SCE s Rule 17 Adjustment of Bills and Meter Tests ( Rule 17, and has treated Complainant fairly in all respects. Complainant operates Zov s Bistro, Inc. at East 17 th Street, Tustin, California and receives electrical service from SCE at this business. On September 30, 1986, SCE began providing electrical service to Complainant at this address, which was serviced by a single meter. On June 26, 1992, at the request of Complainant, SCE installed a second meter at this service address. Subsequently, at the request of Complainant, third, fourth and fifth additional meters were installed on April 14, 1994; May 26, 1998 and April 18, 2000, respectively. On April 20, 2007, the meter that was installed on June 26, 1992 (the second meter was tested. It was found that the meter was non-registering and, in fact, had not functioned accurately or recorded any usage since the time of its initial installation on June 26, The nonfunctioning meter was therefore replaced with a new meter. On July 24, 2007, SCE sent Complainant a summary bill in the amount of $59, Because Complainant has elected to receive a summary bill, which is a single bill summarizing the account information for each of the five of the meters at this service address, the summary bill included both (i the amount of the rebilling back to April 30, 2004, pursuant to SCE tariff, Rule 17, in the amount of $51, and (ii the additional amounts due for each of the five meters located at this service address for the billing period from June 5, 2007 to July 5, On July 27, 2007, Mr. Arman Karamardian called SCE regarding the amount Complainant had been billed. An SCE representative explained that the amount of the rebill for the three-year period from April 5, 2004 to May 4, 2007 had been calculated using the daily - 2 -

4 average of Killowatt-hour usage in the period following the meter replacement and the actual registered demand during this period. Mr. Arman Karamardian was referred to an SCE Meter Test Bookkeeper and SCE granted Complainant an extension to pay pending SCE s further review of the matter. On November 29, 2007, after further internal review, SCE representatives met Mr. Arman Karamardian at the billing address and again explained the basis used to rebill Complainant s account and to detail potential payment arrangements. Complainant objected to the rebilled amount and SCE representatives endeavored to assist Complainant to the extent possible. On May 19, 2008, SCE informed Complainant that, in an effort to resolve the matter fairly and expeditiously, the amount of the rebill had been reduced from $51, to $36, SCE explained to Mr. Arman Karamardian that the SCE had reviewed Complainant s subsequent usage for the 13-month period from June 5, 2007, the date the defective meter was replaced, through May 6, 2008 and computed a reduced rebill amount. The bill adjustment resulted in a reduction of $15, As a further accommodation, SCE offered Complainant payment arrangements for the rebilled amount. III. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SCE incorporates, by reference, the affirmative statements made in SCE s Summary above. SCE responds to the Complaint as follows: 1. Answering F.2 of the Complaint (CPUC Complaint Form, p.5, SCE admits that the meter installed at Complainant s billing address on June 26, 1992 was tested in June 2007 and found to be non-registering and was therefore replaced with a new meter. SCE admits that the rebilled amount sought is $36, SCE avers, however, that in order to avoid any potential mishaps Complainant should have contacted SCE after the installation of the nonfunctioning meter in 1992 when Complainant did not see any corresponding increase in the monthly amount being billed for electrical service. Complainant required a second meter for - 3 -

5 new load associated with the expansion of his business; Complainant should therefore have expected an increase in his electrical usage. SCE admits that Complainant is a customer in good standing. SCE admits that it reduced the rebilled amount to $36,647.38, but respectfully denies that this was due to a miscalculation. SCE avers that the reduction in the rebilled amount was due to attempts to accommodate Complainant in a fair and equitable matter by reducing the rebilled amount. SCE respectfully disagrees that the non-functioning meter had not been read for nearly fifteen years and that SCE failed to do regular meter readings. SCE avers that the non-functioning meter, along with each of the other installed meters at this service address, was read each month but the non-functioning meter failed to advance. SCE further avers that a summary bill showing these meter readings, including the failure to advance, was sent to Complainant each month for review by Complainant and/or by its Accounts Payable Representative. 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 a further adjustment of billed usage from SCE for a non-functioning meter. 3. Answering H of the Complaint (CPUC Complaint Form, p.7, SCE denies that Complainant is entitled to any relief whatsoever

6 IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Affirmative Allegations SCE realleges 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 The Complaint 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. FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Proximate/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 its injury, if any

7 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 KAREN I. LEE /s/ KAREN I. LEE By: Karen I. Lee Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( March 2,

8 VERIFICATION I am an officer of Southern California Edison Company, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I am informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the matters stated in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 2, 2009, at Rosemead, California. /s/ HARRY HUTCHISON Harry Hutchison 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 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON S (U 388-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 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 March 2, 2009, at Rosemead, California. /s/ VERONICA FLORES VERONICA FLORES Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

10 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 1 of 2 3/2/2009 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: C ZOV'S BISTRO, INC. V FILER: ZOV'S BISTRO, INC. LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: FEBRUARY 23, 2009 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties ATTN: CONSUMER AFFAIRS ARMEN KARAMARDIAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ZOV'S BISTRO, INC WALNUT GROVE AVE E. 17TH STREET ROSEMEAD, CA TUSTIN, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR: ZOV'S BISTRO, INC Information Only CASE ADMINISTRATION KAREN LEE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ATTORNEY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROOM 370 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ROSEMEAD, CA WALNUT GROVE AVE. PO BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA State Service TIMOTHY KENNEY CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA

11 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 2 of 2 3/2/2009 TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS