4. Position of the Parties

The position of each party is discussed below.

4.1. Complainant's Position

The Archibeks primary argument is that Kasner should be the party responsible for paying the subject back-bill as he owned the parcel (Field 3) during the period in question. The Archibeks support this argument with the terms of the written agreement with Kasner regarding the farming operation.

The third paragraph of the two-page agreement states that:

Robert Kasner will open and maintain a bank account to serve the financial needs of this operation. All proceeds from the sale of all crops are to be deposited into this account. Cost of materials, harvesting, electric (emphasis added), water assessments, insurance and property taxes, etc. shall be paid from the proceeds of alfalfa crop sales. Remainder of income shall be divided between Robert Kasner and Erik (sic) Archibek equally.

At the EH, Kasner testified that Eric Archibek was responsible for the electric service as Archibek "ordered" and purchased the service during the time in question. Eric Archibek also testified that the electric service for the irrigation needs was controlled by himself, as well as by Kasner's own employees.

The Archibeks also questioned the validity of the meter readings. The SCE witnesses testified that the meter serving Field 3 was not "in route" in the billing system from the time it was installed, in 1997, until the time Eric Archibek alerted SCE to the service outage in Field 3. According to SCE testimony, the meter was operational and had a "zero" registration when installed, though no bills were issued until 2001.

Lastly, Eric Archibek advised at the EH that he had made some recent payments to SCE for the several accounts he held. According to Archibek, SCE distributed these payments, and/or applied deposit monies, among these various accounts, including the back-billed account. SCE provided a billing history of the subject account as an exhibit at the EH. The closing balance for 2001 was shown as $103,982.03. Due to the transfer of approximately $35,000 of deposits and pre-petition (bankruptcy) debt to the account in 2005, SCE showed the new balance to be $67,821.56.

4.2. Defendant's Position

In its closing brief, SCE seeks dismissal of the Archibeks complaint. Primarily, SCE argues that the Archibeks are responsible for paying the disputed amount as they were the customer of record and the party that used the energy during the subject three-year period. SCE asserts that its records show the Archibeks were the continuous customer of record for the Field 3 service address from 1987 until Kasner took over the account in July 2001, and that the Archibeks made no request to cancel or transfer the account during that time.

SCE further argues that the written agreement between the Archibeks and Kasner does not obligate Kasner to pay the Archibeks' bill. SCE states that the determining factor for responsibility of the bill is not the owner of the property served, but the party who is receiving and using the benefit of the service. SCE also states that the agreement: (1) provides that Eric Archibek is responsible for the day-to-day activities of the farm operation; (2) obligates Eric Archibek to supply liability insurance and hold Kasner harmless in the event of a claim brought or caused by Archibek's operation; and (3) describes that electricity costs would be paid from the proceeds of alfalfa sales, and since Archibek controlled the sales of alfalfa, that he also should be responsible for the electric bills.

With respect to the billings for Field 2, SCE states in its opening brief that the service for Field 2 during the subject three-year period was billed to (Mr.) Archibek, and that SCE records showed that the Archibeks paid portions of these bills during the same period without asserting that Kasner, as the owner of Field 2, was responsible for the bills.

Lastly, SCE maintains that the Archibeks assumed responsibility for the disputed bill by acknowledging the back-billed debt in their bankruptcy filing.

In its brief, SCE also cited two Commission cases involving back-billing for electricity to commercial customers, either for a meter being out of service or for unauthorized use of electricity (Decision (D.) 93-05-004, Brixey v. SCE; and D.06-06-011, Pacific Continental Textiles v. SCE), as well as various tariff schedules and rules showing its authority to back-bill for full compensation for a period of up to three years in the case of commercial (non-residential) accounts.