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 Carole Lieff, Complainant, vs. Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed August 22, 2011 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT JANET S. COMBS MONICA A. GHATTAS Attorney for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( monica.ghattas@sce.com Dated: October 14, 2011 #

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Carole Lieff, Complainant, vs. Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed August 22, 2011 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 ( Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company ( SCE respectfully submits this Answer to the Complaint of Carole Lieff ( Complainant or Mrs. Lieff, who resides at 2925 Sycamore Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, California In addition, to avoid duplicative decision making, prevent potentially inconsistent decisions, and to promote efficiency, SCE requests that this Commission exercise its discretion to consolidate the above captioned matter with Complainant s informal complaint, CPUC File No , both of which arise out of essentially the same transactions and occurrences and raise the same claims and issues

3 II. SUMMARY This action originated as informal complaint Ref. No , which was filed in May SCE Consumer Affairs Review Manager, Deon Hall, provided a response to the informal complaint on or about June 9, Mrs. Lieff subsequently filed a formal complaint in August Both complaints essentially arise out of the same operative facts and assert the same claims. Specifically, Complainant alleges that SCE has been overbilling her account since She requests a refund in the amount of $10,000.00, and appears to request that her three-tier meter be replaced with a one-tier meter. Customer Robert Lieff (presumably Complainant s husband established service at the address of 2925 Sycamore Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, California, on March 11, The entirety of the residence at 2925 Sycamore Canyon Road is between 6,000 and 10,500 square feet, 1 although Complainant claims to occupy only a small portion of that space. 2 Additionally, Mrs. Lieff s residence is located on a large lot 3 which includes a small guest house, swimming pool, tennis court, fountain, and security and landscape lighting. Between June 2005 and May 2011, Complainant has made at least 12 separate requests for a field service representative to come to her property to verify the meter readings reflected on her bills. Out of these 12 field service calls, four have resulted in the issuance of a re-bill due to an initial over-read of her meter. These over-reads occurred because Complainant has a gate blocking the entrance of her property and therefore SCE s meter readers could not have direct access to the meter. The other eight field service calls resulted in a confirmation of the accuracy 1 Mrs. Lieff has made statements to SCE call center representatives that her residence is comprised of 6,000 square feet of living space; however, the real estate website, Zillow.com, lists the residence as having 10,573 square feet of living space (see CA-93108/ _zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address} [as of October 6, 2011]. 2 See Attachment to formal complaint, p. 1, 4th paragraph. 3 Zillow.com lists the lot of this residence as 146,361 square feet, or 3.36 acres. See / _zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address} [as of October 6, 2011]

4 of the initial meter readings. In addition, two meter tests were conducted on Complainant s meter after her informal complaint no was filed and her meter was found to be registering within Commission-approved guidelines. Finally, the usage recorded is consistent with her connected load. 4 III. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT As section (F of the Formal Complaint Form was left blank, SCE presumes the substance of Mrs. Lieff s Complaint is contained in the attachment to her Formal Complaint Form. It should be noted from the outset that the paragraphs of this attachment are not numbered. For the Commission s ease of reference and to facilitate its understanding of SCE s Answer, SCE has taken the liberty of numbering the paragraphs of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint in sequence, as shown in Attachment B attached hereto. 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 1 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies the allegations contained in this Paragraph. Specifically, SCE denies that it has been irresponsible and frivolous or acting in bad faith, and also denies any blatant pattern of overbilling since SCE avers that it has at all relevant times billed Complainant in accordance with its Commission-approved Tariffs (specifically, SCE Tariff Rules 9 and 17, and that a review of Complainant s billing account reveals only four instances of inadvertent overbilling since See Customer Billing Inquiry Resolution document dated May 17, 2011 and CPUC Customer Billing Inquiry Resolution document dated June 2, 2011, as provided to the Commission s Consumer Affairs Branch on June 24, 2011 and attached hereto as Attachment A. See also, SCE s Rule 17.C for Commission-approved guidelines and provisions relating to adjustment of bills for meter errors. 5 SCE notes that each discovered instance of overbilling resulted in an adjusted bill to Mrs. Lieff at the time of discovery reflecting the reduced amount owed. Four instances of overbilling out of over 75 bills Complainant has received since January 2005 cannot be considered a blatant pattern of overbilling

5 2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE admits that an SCE employee was dispatched to Mrs. Lieff s residence on April 16, 2011 to get a pickup read of the meter to verify the original read. However, SCE denies that it has an employee named Stanley Henderson, and therefore denies any allegations regarding what Mr. Henderson said or did. SCE denies the remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph. 3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE is unsure what Complainant is referring to by a three-tier and one-tier meter and therefore denies any allegation that Complainant has been requesting a one-tier meter for three years. SCE does not have enough information to confirm or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Answering Paragraph 4 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies that it has an employee named Stanley Henderson. Therefore, SCE denies the allegations contained in this paragraph. 5. Answering Paragraph 5 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies that it has an employee named Stanley Henderson. SCE therefore denies any allegations regarding what Mr. Henderson said or did. SCE admits that Complainant requested a second visit, and that on April 20, 2011 SCE Supervising Field Service Representative Drew Ponce visited Complainant s home. SCE admits that Mr. Ponce showed Complainant how he read her meter. SCE denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph Answering Paragraph 6 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE does not have information to confirm or deny Complainants statement regarding her dissatisfaction. SCE denies that Complainant called 20 times before SCE sent out August Garcia, a Senior Field Services Representative, to perform a load check on her home. SCE admits that Mr. Garcia, conducted a field service call at Complainant s residence on or about June 6, SCE admits that Mr. Stephen Schnepf was present at the residence during this field service call, but that he was introduced to Mr. Garcia as Mrs. Lieff s husband. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied

6 7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies that during the June 6, 2011 field service call, Mr. Garcia indicated that SCE would install a one-tier meter at Complainant s residence. SCE admits that Mr. Garcia left a copy of Complainant s Billing History usage which revealed the errors and adjustments that had been made previously. SCE avers that Mr. Garcia explained that there were no more errors being made because Complainant had provided SCE with the code to her gate so the meter reader could enter the property to read the meter. SCE denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph Answering Paragraph 8 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies the allegations contained in this Paragraph. 9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies the allegations contained in this Paragraph. 10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE avers that on or about August 16, 2011, it sent a notice to Complainant asserting its right to disconnect Complainant s electric service for nonpayment of past due bills (in the amount of $1, under Commission-approved Tariff Rule 11. SCE denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph Answering Paragraph 11 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. SCE denies that Ms. Hall told Complainant that no further collection action will be taken against Complainant until her Complaint is resolved. SCE avers that as Complainant has not impounded any disputed amounts with the Commission, Complainant is obligated by SCE s Tariffs to continue paying her bills. As a courtesy, SCE has extended the payment deadline on Mrs. Lieff s account until November 15, 2011, to provide her time to impound the past due amount of $2, owed on her account to avoid disconnection. SCE denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph Answering Paragraph 12 of the Attachment to the Formal Complaint. To the extent this paragraph requires an answer, SCE denies any allegation contained in Paragraph

7 13. Answering Section (G(4 of the Formal Complaint Form. SCE denies that it has overbilled Complainant, and specifically denies that it has overbilled Complainant in the amount of $10, Answering Section (G(5 of the Formal Complaint Form. SCE avers that Complainant has no legal basis on which to discontinue paying bills for monthly electric service presented to her for payment by SCE during the pendency of her formal complaint proceeding. If Complainant disputes any SCE bill presented to her for payment during the pendency of her formal complaint proceeding, she must follow the procedure outlined in SCE Tariff Rule 10.C.1 and 10.C.6. As stated above, however, SCE has as a courtesy extended the payment deadline on Mrs. Lieff s account until November 15, 2011, to provide her time to impound the past due amount of $2, owed on her account to avoid disconnection. 15. Answering Section (H of the Formal Complaint Form. SCE denies that it has overbilled Complainant, and specifically denies that it has overbilled Complainant in the amount of $10, 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 all Applicable Tariffs, Rules, Regulations and Laws - 6 -

8 Complainant is barred from recovery because SCE complied with all applicable rules, laws, regulations, and tariffs, including, but not limited to, SCE s Tariff Rules 9 and 17, and all applicable general services rate schedules. 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 herself or some other person or entity other than SCE proximately caused such injury in whole or in part. FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSE Failure to Mitigate Complainant failed to mitigate her injury, if any. 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

9 Respectfully submitted, JANET S. COMBS MONICA A. GHATTAS /s/ Monica A. Ghattas By: Monica A. Ghattas Attorney for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( October 14,

10

11 Attachment A

12

13

14 Attachment B

15

16

17

18 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 COMPANY S (U 338-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 14th day of October, 2011, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Raquel Ippoliti Raquel Ippoliti Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

19 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 1 of 2 10/14/2011 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: C LIEFF VS EDISON - DI FILER: CAROLE LIEFF LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties JANET S. COMBS CAROLE LIEFF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2925 SYCAMORE CANYON ROAD 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., PO BOX 800 SANTA BARBARA, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: CAROLE LIEFF FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Information Only CASE ADMINISTRATION MONICA GHATTAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA ROSEMEAD, CA JENNIFER T. SHIGEKAWA, ESQ. SR. ATTORNEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY State Service

20 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 2 of 2 10/14/2011 RICHARD CLARK CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS