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 Wei Ping Chen, v. Complainant, Southern California Edison Company, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed January 30, 2008 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E ANSWER TO COMPLAINT MICHAEL D. MONTOYA JONI A. TEMPLETON Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Joni.Templeton@SCE.com Dated: March 6, 2008 LAW#

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Wei Ping Chen, v. Complainant, Southern California Edison Company, Defendant. Case No. C (Filed January 30, 2008 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 Wei Ping Chen ( Complainant. In addition, given that the parties have not yet had the opportunity to discuss scheduling or discovery in this matter, SCE respectfully requests that the evidentiary hearing set for March 28, 2008 at the Commission s Los Angeles office be deferred until a pre-hearing conference is held and a schedule is established

3 II. SUMMARY In her Complaint, Complainant asserts that she should not be obligated to pay the amount due on the account for her rental property because she alleges she did not open the account. As discussed below, this contention is without merit. SCE s records indicate that Complainant opened the account at issue in her name and with her social security number, and that Complainant paid a utility bill for the account in her name. Complainant is the owner of residences located at 109 N. Vega Street, Suite A, Alhambra, California ( Alhambra Property and at 9164 Cottonwood Avenue, Hesperia, California ( Hesperia Property. Complainant receives electrical service for both residences from SCE. On June 4, 2007, after discovering the illegal growth of marijuana plants on the Hesperia Property, the Riverside County Sheriff s Department notified SCE s Revenue Protection Department of a possible bypass of the meter. SCE s Revenue Protection Investigator met with Sheriff s Department investigators at the Hesperia Property that day to conduct an investigation. The investigation confirmed that the electric meter at the Hesperia Property had been bypassed by adding wiring to the unmetered portion of the service wires. To determine the amount of energy being bypassed, SCE took amperage readings on the two wires used to siphon off unmetered electricity for the operation of the equipment used to illegally grow marijuana. Based on the amperage readings, timers found to operate the equipment (lights, ballasts, fans used to grow the marijuana, and historical usage, the total amount of electricity estimated to have been bypassed was 248,616 kilowatt-hours for the period December 8, 2006 to June 4, The dollar amount of the bypassed electricity is $74, ($73, energy and $ associated costs. On June 22, 2007, pursuant to SCE s Tariff Rule 17, SCE issued Complainant a Bill for Unauthorized Use of Service ( Unauthorized Use Bill. Complainant objected to the Unauthorized Use Bill and filed an informal complaint with the Commission

4 On November 27, 2007, SCE notified Complainant that SCE had performed a thorough investigation and concluded that the Unauthorized Use Bill was appropriate and warranted. Among other things, SCE s investigation revealed that Complainant was the customer of record for the Hesperia Property, that the account for the Hesperia Property was opened in Complainant s name and with her social security number, and that Complainant paid a utility bill for the Hesperia Property using a postal money order in her name. (See Ex. A SCE is not aware of any police reports made by Complainant alleging identity theft against her former tenants, and Complainant has not alleged that she made any such police reports. On February 8, 2008, the Commission notified Complainant that it had completed its review of Complainant s billing dispute. The Commission also concluded that the Unauthorized Use Bill was warranted and instructed Complainant to contact SCE to make payment arrangements. SCE has offered Complainant several payment alternatives, including a monthly payment plan. Complainant has refused to agree to any of SCE s payment plans. 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 Complainant owns a rental property located at 9164 Cottonwood Avenue, Hesperia, California that was used for large-scale marijuana cultivation. SCE further admits that the meter at Complainant s rental property was bypassed, and that the dollar amount of the bypassed electricity is $74, SCE denies that Complainant did not open the account with SCE for the rental property. SCE s records indicate that at all relevant times, Complainant was the - 3 -

5 customer of record on the account in question and that Complainant paid a utility bill for the account in her name. 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 hearings are needed. SCE requests that the current evidentiary hearing scheduled for March 28, 2008 at the Commission s Los Angeles office be deferred until a pre-hearing conference is held to allow the parties to discuss scheduling and discovery issues. SCE proposes an evidentiary hearing on this Complaint be held approximately thirty (30 days following the date of the pre-hearing conference. c. The issue to be decided is whether Complainant is liable for the Unauthorized Use Bill. 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, MICHAEL D. MONTOYA JONI A. TEMPLETON By: /s/joni A. Templeton Joni A. Templeton Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( March 6,

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 6, 2008, at Rosemead, California. Lynda L. Ziegler Senior Vice President, Customer Service -7-

9 Exhibit A

10

11

12 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 6, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /s/sara Carrillo Sara Carrillo Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

13 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 1 of 2 3/6/2008 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: C WEI PING CHEN, COMPL FILER: WEI PING CHEN LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: FEBRUARY 22, 2008 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties MARK R. MCKINNISS ATTN: CONSUMER AFFAIRS LAW OFFICES OF MARK R. MCKINNISS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1100 PO BOX 800, 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE, LOS ANGELES, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: WEI PING CHEN/WEI YA CHEN FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Information Only CASE ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN CALFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROOM 370 ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALFORNIA EDISON COMPANY State Service ROBERT A. BARNETT CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA

14 CPUC - Service Lists - C Page 2 of 2 3/6/2008 TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS