5 Discussion
It is a long-standing requirement of public utility regulation that the lawful tariff provisions must be administered regardless of any statements by the utility at variance with the tariffs, whether oral or written. Pinney & Boyle Mfg. Co. v Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. (1914) 4 Cal RRC 404. A utility is under the duty to strictly adhere to its lawfully published tariffs. Temescal Water Co. v West Riverside Canal Co. (1935) 39 Cal RRC 398. Tariffed provisions and rates must be inflexibly enforced to maintain equity and equality for all customers with no preferential treatment afforded to some. Empire W. v Southern Cal. Gas. Co. (1974) 38 Cal App 3d 38, 112 Cal Rptr 925. Furthermore, the published tariff becomes established by law and can only be varied by law, not by an act of the parties. Johnson v Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1969) 69 Cal PUC 290. A misquotation or misunderstanding does not relieve the parties from the terms, conditions and rates in the tariff. Sunny Sally, Inc. v Lom Thompson (1958) 56 Cal PUC 552.
For Complainant to prevail in this case, he must establish by a preponderance of evidence that the residential service extension installation to Complainant's home either does not meet the service adequacy requirements of Rule 16 or, in the alternative, that Complainant paid for a special facilities installation of a dedicated transformer to serve only his residence and that PG&E failed to provide such installation. In addition, Complainant must show that he was either a customer of record or applied for electric service to the agricultural well located on or adjacent to his property and that PG&E failed to provide service to the well. As discussed below, we find Complainant fails to meet this burden of proof.
5.1 Residential Line Extension
As discussed above, residential electric service extensions are governed by Rule 16. Rule 16 requires PG&E to design and engineer new residential service extensions to meet specified service adequacy requirements. In the present case, PG&E's design called for upgrading a transformer so that when Complainant's residence was added to the existing load, it would meet service adequacy requirements. PG&E has shown that the service extension meets both flicker and voltage drop requirements. Complainant has not shown that the design, engineering or installation violates Rule 16.
No evidence was presented to show that Complainant paid for a dedicated transformer to be installed on Pole 2 to serve only his residence. Although the cost of the service extension may have been higher than Complainant expected, he was not charged for a dedicated transformer. PG&E is not obligated to install a dedicated transformer on Pole 2.
We note, however, that if Complainant wants a dedicated transformer installed to provide electric service only to his residence, he may apply for such an installation. PG&E will design a special facilities installation and provide Complainant with a cost estimate for that installation. Complainant would, however, be required to pay for such an installation in accordance with Rule 2 because it would be considered a special facility (above service adequacy standards).
5.2 Agricultural Well
PG&E's disconnection of the agricultural well was not improper. PG&E has conclusively shown that the well was disconnected in 2001 due to damage caused by a bird to the transformer bank which served the well.26 At the time electric service to the well was disconnected, Complainant was not a customer of record for the well or the transformer bank which served the well.27 Complainant has not shown he ever applied for service to the well or was a customer of record for electric service to the well.
If Complainant applies for service to the well and meets the relevant permitting requirements for reconnection of the well, then PG&E will reconnect the well based on the requirements of Rule 16.28
26 Exhibit G.
27 Exhibit I.
28 We note that Complainant's assertion that PG&E has irrevocably converted certain wires improperly is not relevant to the disconnection or reconnection of the well. PG&E is responsible for designing service extensions that meet the requirements of the tariff. If Complainant requests electric service to the well, PG&E is responsible for how it will provide that service.
