Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
#1831504
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.11-08-017
(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 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-3623 Facsimile: (626) 302-7740 E-mail: [email protected]
Dated: October 14, 2011
- 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.11-08-017
(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 93108. 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. 163285, both of which
arise out of essentially the same transactions and occurrences and raise the same claims and
issues.
- 2 -
II.
SUMMARY
This action originated as informal complaint Ref. No. 163285, which was filed in May
2011. SCE Consumer Affairs Review Manager, Deon Hall, provided a response to the informal
complaint on or about June 9, 2011. Mrs. Lieff subsequently filed a formal complaint in August
2011. 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 2005.
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, 2004. 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 lot3 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 http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2925-Sycamore-Canyon-Rd-Santa-Barbara-CA-93108/15879359_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
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2925-Sycamore-Canyon-Rd-Santa-Barbara-CA-93108/15879359_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address} [as of October 6, 2011].
- 3 -
of the initial meter readings. In addition, two meter tests were conducted on Complainant’s
meter after her informal complaint no. 163285 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 2005.” 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 2005.5
4 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.”
- 4 -
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 “pick-
up” 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 3.
4. 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 5.
6. 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, 2011. 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.
- 5 -
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 7.
8. 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 $1,464.93)
under Commission-approved Tariff Rule 11. SCE denies all other allegations contained in
Paragraph 10.
11. 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
$2,106.41 owed on her account to avoid disconnection. SCE denies all other allegations
contained in Paragraph 11.
12. 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 12.
- 6 -
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 $10,000.00.
14. 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 $2,106.41 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 $10,000.00.
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
- 7 -
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.
- 8 -
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 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-3623 Facsimile: (626) 302-7740 E-mail: [email protected]
October 14, 2011
Attachment A
Attachment B
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 e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail 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
PROCEEDING: C1108017 - 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
JANET S. COMBS CAROLE LIEFF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2925 SYCAMORE CANYON ROAD 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., PO BOX 800 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-3714 FOR: CAROLE LIEFF FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
CASE ADMINISTRATION MONICA GHATTAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 JENNIFER T. SHIGEKAWA, ESQ. SR. ATTORNEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-3714 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
CPUC Home
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists
Parties
Information Only
State Service
Page 1 of 2CPUC - Service Lists - C1108017
10/14/2011http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists/C1108017_80041.htm
RICHARD CLARK CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM 5006 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214
TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS
Page 2 of 2CPUC - Service Lists - C1108017
10/14/2011http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists/C1108017_80041.htm
