6 Other Issues

Although Complainant has asserted throughout this proceeding that PG&E made misrepresentations about how the service extension would be installed, complainant has failed to provide evidence of such misrepresentations above non-substantiated hearsay. It is very clear, however, that there was a serious communication problem between PG&E and Complainant. As discussed above, tariff provisions must be inflexibly enforced regardless of whether parties misunderstood the tariff or terms of the service extension installation. However, complaints such as this one might be avoided through more effective customer service. PG&E should endeavor to improve its customer service and to provide sufficient information for applicants to understand what they can expect when requesting a service extension not only in terms of the design and cost of the extension, but also regarding the rights and responsibilities of each party set forth by Rule 16.

During discovery, certain e-mails were provided to Complainant that upset him and he felt revealed a bias from PG&E against him. We admonish PG&E to refrain from discussing customers in e-mail or correspondence that could be read as pejorative or lacking the respect due to its customers. Effective customer service, education, and respect in this case might have saved both PG&E and Complainant from having to expend resources in litigation.