4 The Complaint
Complainant applied for a new residential service extension to his newly constructed home in September 2008.1 On May 14, 2009, PG&E sent Complainant a Customer Construction Payment Coupon which included a letter informing Complainant that new service would be provided under Rule 16, an itemized estimate of the total cost for the service extension and a Statement of Applicant's Contract Anticipated Costs which required the applicant to sign and date the contract.2 Complainant was billed for $2,098.49 of the total cost.3
PG&E completed installation of gas service on July 9, 2009, and this is not at issue here. Electric service installation was scheduled for connection to Complainant's residence on July 13, 2009. Complainant did not allow PG&E to complete the electric service installation.4
Complainant believes that PG&E was obligated to install a dedicated transformer to serve his residence. Complainant also believes that PG&E improperly disconnected his agricultural well. PG&E contends that it properly engineered a new service extension to Complainant's home under Rule 16 and that it did not install a dedicated transformer because Complainant never requested or paid for a Rule 2 special facilities installation. Finally, PG&E explains that Complainant has never been a customer of record for the agricultural well and has never applied for service to the well.
4.1 Complainant's Arguments
Complainant contends PG&E failed to install the electric service extension as agreed, in part because of the type of transformer PG&E used and the placement of that transformer. Complainant contends PG&E should have installed an electrical transformer on the electrical pole near the Southwest corner of his property (hereinafter referred to as Pole 2)5 in order to drop power down to underground conduits installed by Complainant. Complainant contends that PG&E employees came to the site and confirmed to him, both verbally and through physical gesture, that a transformer would be placed on Pole 2.6
Complainant did not allow PG&E to complete installation on July 13, 2009, because he understood that a transformer would be installed on Pole 2 to serve his residence. Complainant argues that PG&E should have provided construction drawings to him for his approval on the design for the new service extension but PG&E failed to give him any drawings.
Complainant also contends that he paid for a dedicated transformer to serve his residence and, as a result, PG&E should have installed a dedicated transformer for his residence on Pole 2.7 Complainant is concerned that the service extension as installed is not sufficient to adequately serve his residence because of the distance the wires must span between the transformer and his home.
Complainant next contends that PG&E improperly disconnected electric service for his agricultural well when it came to make the electric service installation on July 13, 2009.8 Later, Complainant modified his contention slightly by explaining that he called PG&E in 2006 to ask why PG&E cut the drop wires to the well and to request reconnection.9 Ultimately, Complainant explained that PG&E's use of the existing wires to deliver power to the new residence (wires formerly used to deliver power to the well) precludes use of these same wires to reconnect the agricultural well, essentially eliminating the ability to reconnect the well for Complainant's use.
Complainant argues that PG&E gave him conflicting information about its ability to reconnect the well, initially informing him that it could be reconnected but later asserting that the well could not be reconnected because it was not functional.10 Complainant believes that the well must be reconnected because it is a "back up" well which is used for supplementary irrigation on an as-needed basis. Complainant contends that the County of Tehama Building Inspector considers the well in operation and approved for reconnection.11 Complainant asserts that by converting the wires to serve his residence, PG&E not only causes harm to him, but to the adjacent property owner as well.
Complainant is very upset with the way PG&E has handled provision of new electric service to his home. Complainant states that PG&E's failure to complete the installation has resulted in lawsuits against him by subcontractors who were unable to complete their jobs and receive payment until the home had electricity.12 Although Complainant understands that the Commission does not hear complaints for damages, Complainant wants the Commission to be aware of the way he was treated by PG&E. In addition to allegedly mishandling the application for new service, Complainant is upset that e-mails between PG&E employees reveal "an underlying hatred" towards him.13
4.2 PG&E's Defenses
PG&E argues that new residential service extensions are governed by Rule 16, which addresses service extensions. PG&E argues that its design and installation satisfies the requirements of Rule 16 for a residential service extension. PG&E states it initially proposed serving the new residence from an existing transformer on a pole located at the northwest corner of the property but Complainant did not agree to this proposal, in part due to the presence of an irrigation pipe on the north part of the property.14 PG&E also states that it offered to design an overhead service extension to Complainant's residence when he informed PG&E that he was concerned about the cost of the new service extension.
PG&E explains that the final design called for upgrading the existing 15kVA (kilovolt ampere) distribution transformer at a transformer pole one span south of Complainant's new residence (Pole 1) with a 25kVA transformer; connecting the upgraded transformer through service wires running from Pole 1 to the utility pole designated for new riser service at Pole 2; and connecting the overhead wire through the new riser service at Pole 2 into an underground conduit and to the electrical panel at Complainant's residence through a trench Complainant dug to the Pole 2.15 PG&E upgraded the transformer in order to accommodate the new additional load from Complainant's residence.
PG&E argues that it never agreed to install a transformer on Pole 2 and that, if it had done so, Complainant would have been required to pay the entire cost of the transformer under Rule 16 (an estimated $4,000-$5,000 cost).16 PG&E asserts that it is specifically prohibited from installation of facilities under Rule 16 installation (at PG&E expense) where the installation would exceed what is required to meet service adequacy standards.
PG&E explains that the tariff requires voltage drop calculations be no greater than 6.5V (volts) and voltage flicker calculation to be no greater than 8V for residential service to meet service adequacy requirements. PG&E argues that its design meets voltage drop and flicker adequacy standards and therefore satisfies the requirements of Rule 16.17
PG&E asserts it has shown that Complainant was not charged for a dedicated transformer. The "Customer Construction Payment Coupon," which itemized the estimated costs for completion of the line extension, delineated the costs borne by PG&E and those borne by Complainant ($2,098.49).18 PG&E maintains that the cost for upgrading the transformer used in the installation was included in "Betterments" and that Complainant was not charged for any portion of the betterments.19 Thus, PG&E argues that Complainant has not shown that he paid for a dedicated transformer.
PG&E offered to complete the service extension by either finishing the installation as shown in the February 6, 2009 construction drawing or by redesigning the service installation to accommodate Complainant's request for a dedicated transformer to serve his residence provided Complainant pays the additional costs under Rule 2.20
PG&E contends that it did not disconnect service to the agricultural well in question on July 13, 2009 and states that there had been no active service to the well since at least 1999.21 PG&E explains the three-phase transformer bank22 was removed in 2001 after being damaged by a bird.23 PG&E also notes that the well is not located on Complainant's property. PG&E explains that service to the well was established in 1977 in the name of the adjacent property owner where the well is located. PG&E asserts that Complainant was not a customer of record at that time24 and has not shown he ever applied as a customer for service to the agricultural well. As a result, PG&E maintains it does not owe a duty to Complainant with respect to the maintenance of other customers' service accounts.
PG&E has informed Complainant that he could request electric service to the well if he obtained the proper permits, had the electrical panel inspected and completed an application for new service to the well.25
1 Exhibit 100, Attachment D.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Verified Answer to Complaint of Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company at 1.
5 This electrical pole is referred to as Pole A by Complainant and Location 2 by PG&E in their respective pleadings. For simplicity's sake we will refer to this pole as Pole 2 in this decision.
6 Description of the Case, filed by Nash Dweik, (January 8, 2010) at 2.
7 Complainant's contention appears to stem from the amount he paid for new electric service. (Exhibit 3 at 5.)
8 Complaint at 3.
9 Complainant Description of the Case at 3.
10 Exhibit 3 at 8-9.
11 Complainant provided a copy of building permit number 0907-109, dated July 28, 2009, permitting reconnection of power to an existing irrigation well and a partial tag from the County of Tehama Department of Building and Safety entitled "Authorization to Reconnect" that is dated July 29, 2009. (See, Response to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 7.)
12 Exhibit 3 at 7.
13 Exhibit 3 at 9.
14 Verified Answer to Complaint of Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company at 2.
15 Exhibit 100 at 12-13.
16 Id.
17 Ibid., Attachment G.
18 Ibid, Attachment A.
19 Ibid. at 5-6.
20 Reply Brief of Pacific Gas and Electric Company at 3.
21 Verified Answer to Complaint of Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company at 3.
22 Although Complainant refers to a "three-phase transformer," PG&E explains it was actually an open delta bank consisting of two separate, single-phase transformers, hung together and bussed to provide three-phase power. For convenience sake this decision shall continue to refer to this open bank as a three-phase transformer.
23 Declaration of Ronald S. David in Support of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit G.
24 Declaration of Ronald S. David in Support of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit I.
25 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Prehearing Conference Statement at 2.
