7. Assignment of Proceeding
John A. Bohn is the assigned Commissioner and Kenneth L. Koss is the assigned Administrative Law Judge and Presiding Officer in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. The Archibeks own and/or operate several parcels of farm acreage in San Bernardino County, near the community of Newberry Springs
2. The Archibeks receive their electric service from SCE.
3. SCE installed a new meter at one of the Archibeks parcels in May 1997.
4. SCE erroneously did not put the new meter "in route" into its billing system and therefore no bills were issued for the service to the parcel.
5. SCE continued to provide service to the parcel for the next four years (1997-2001), but did not issue any bills for the service.
6. The Archibeks sold the parcel, along with other property, to Robert Kasner in June 1998.
7. Pursuant to a written agreement with Kasner, dated January 1998, the Archibeks continued to farm the parcel after the sale.
8. The agreement outlined responsibilities for the ongoing operation and maintenance associated with farming the parcel.
9. Pursuant to the agreement, Kasner opened a bank account to serve the operation and the associated costs, including the cost of electric service.
10. Funds into the bank account were to come from the proceeds of crop sales.
11. The non-billing meter at the parcel was discovered after a service outage occurred in/about late 2000.
12. Eric Archibek contacted SCE regarding the outage and requested a repair.
13. SCE initially advised they had no record of such a meter being in service.
14. SCE later dispatched a repair crew and the repair was made and power restored.
15. In April 2001, SCE sent the Archibeks back-bills for the previous three-year period (1998-2001) of unbilled service to the parcel.
16. The balance of the back-bill in 2001 was $103,982.03.
17. SCE showed the modified balance of the back-bill to be $67,821.56, due to the transfer of approximately $35,000 of deposits and pre-bankruptcy petition debt in 2005.
18. SCE's filed tariffs and Commission rules, in cases of billing errors, permit back-billing to commercial customers for a three-year period.
19. Service to the subject parcel is considered a commercial account.
20. The Archibeks disputed the back-bill, arguing that, pursuant to the written agreement with Kasner, they were not responsible for payment of the electric service once Kasner purchased the property.
21. Kasner declined to pay the back-billed amount.
22. In July 2001, Kasner contacted SCE and assumed responsibility for any future billing for service to the parcel.
23. From 2001-2005, SCE sent various demand letters and attempted to make payment arrangements with the Archibeks for the disputed back-bill.
24. On March 1, 2005, SCE sent the Archibeks a five-day discontinuance of service notice.
25. On March 3, 2005, the Archibeks filed for bankruptcy protection (Chapter 12) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court showing approximately $128,000 as being owed to SCE, which included the subject back-bill as well as other accounts.
26. The Archibeks could not ignore the subject back-bill in their bankruptcy filing.
27. SCE did not discontinue service in March 2005.
28. In July 2005, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Archibeks' bankruptcy filing.
29. In October and November 2005, SCE discontinued service to the Archibek properties.
30. As the result of a mediation conference held in this matter in March 2007, SCE restored service to the Archibek properties, including Field 3, after the payment of a deposit.
31. Kasner owned the subject parcel during the three-year period in question (except for the time prior to June 1998).
32. The Archibeks were the customer of record for the parcel with SCE during the entire period in question.
33. The Archibeks used electricity provided by SCE to the parcel during the same period.
34. The Archibeks are the party responsible for payment of the subject back-bill.
Conclusions of Law
1. SCE's Tariff Rules 17-D, E and F, and Commission rules and orders, authorize the utility to bill for and collect undercharges resulting from billing errors for a period of three years in the case of commercial accounts.
2. The subject parcel in this matter, in use as an agricultural business, is considered a commercial account.
3. The Archibeks were the customer of record for the subject account during the three-year period in question, and therefore are the party responsible for the subject back-bill.
4. This complaint should be denied.
5. This proceeding should be closed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The subject complaint by Eric and Sandi Archibek against Southern California Edison Company is denied.
2. Case 06-12-011 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated January 28, 2010, at San Francisco, California.
