3. Background
Rupprecht is a residential customer of Edison in Cathedral City, a desert community in Riverside County. His residence is on property that was originally Lot 29 of Cathedral Heights Subdivision, the map for which was filed with the county in 1955.
As originally created, Lot 29 was 1.13 acres in area. It was bordered on the north by Valley Vista Drive, on the east by Elna Way, on the south by Lot 28, and on the west by Lot 34. The original subdivision map shows a five-foot-wide public utility easement reserved along the west lot line adjacent to Lot 34, and more recent parcel maps also show that a five-foot-wide easement was created adjacent to the south lot line bordering Lot 28 for a pole line.
By parcel map filed June 5, 1980, Lot 29 was subdivided into Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, with the new north - south property line splitting the lot more or less equally. Parcel 1 was the west half, and Parcel 2, on the north part of which the residence was situated, was the east half. By parcel map filed August 16, 1982, Parcel 2 was subdivided into two lots with the new property line running from a point on the original east lot line on Elna Way to a point on the north-south property line created by the 1980 lot split. Lot 29 has thus been split into three separate parcels since the original subdivision map was filed.
In 1970, a residence, the first to be constructed on Lot 29, was built in the northeast quadrant of that lot before the first subdivision was accomplished. It bears the address 67931 Valley Vista Drive. In anticipation of construction of the house on that parcel, Edison set a secondary pole (1863761E) at a location that is just inside the corner of what is now the parcel where 67931 Valley Vista Drive is located. A span of secondary line was installed from another Pole, 232970S, north to Pole 1863761E, and the service drop for 67931 extended from Pole 1863761E to the load center of the residence. Pole 232970S is situated on the utility easement on the south side of the most recently created lot, adjacent to Lot 28.
Homes were subsequently built on the two other parcels of Lot 29, the first on the westerly parcel, and the most recent on the southeasterly parcel in 1999. The latter residence, which bears the address 39015 Elna Way, was built beneath the secondary electric line spanning Poles 232970S and 1863761E. All three residences are served by drops from the latter pole, which is located near the junction of the three parcels, near the center of Lot 29. The transformer serving all three houses is mounted on Pole 232970S.
In 2004, Rupprecht purchased 67931 Valley Vista Drive, the house built in 1970 on the northeasterly lot, with the intention of remodeling and reselling it. Rupprecht is a professional handyman with considerable experience in this business.
The original 125 amp load center on the house showed signs of arcing, indicating that it was overloaded and needed to be replaced. Rupprecht decided to upgrade to 200 amp service as part of his work on the house. He also planned to install underground service from Pole 1863761E to the new load center to replace the existing service drop, and he obtained the necessary permit to do this work from Cathedral City.
In August 2005, he installed a new five-ton capacity heating and cooling (HVAC) system to replace the existing one of substantially lower capacity. Initially he connected the new HVAC system to the existing 125 amp load center. He noticed at this time that the lights in the house dimmed whenever the air conditioning started up.
Rupprecht made some preliminary inquiries to Edison about upgrading the electrical system at the house, and in April 2006, Rupprecht contacted Edison about accomplishing the upgrade. He met with Connie Terheggen, Edison's City Planner, and made some adjustments in the plans as a result of the meeting. On April 17, 2006, he delivered right-of-way maps and an application to Terheggen, along with a check for the $2,000 nonrefundable engineering fee to develop the project design.
On June 2, 2006, Rupprecht received a fax from Terheggen setting forth two alternative options, or scenarios, for accomplishing the planned work. The first would require relocation of the transformer serving his house and the one to the west to a completely different pole on the northwest corner of Lot 29, and undergrounding to both lots at Rupprecht's expense; it also required obtaining an easement from the affected neighbor. The second scenario would require the installation of a new pole, transformer, two handholds, underground secondary, two services and two meters, removal of the wire from Pole 239270S to Pole 1863791E, removal of two overhead services and meters, and removal of Pole 1863791E, but would not involve obtaining an easement from Rupprecht's neighbor, so it was the preferable alternative. Edison's estimate for this work was $18,498.19, minus the $2,000 non-refundable engineering fee.
Because Terheggen had verbally indicated a substantially lower estimated cost for the work during their initial meeting, at this point Rupprecht felt "ripped off," according to his testimony. He filed an informal complaint with the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch on June 13, 2006, about his experience, and about his concern regarding the low clearance of the secondary line above the roof of the Elna Street property.
On July 11, he received a message from Eva Weaver, Edison's Consumer Affairs/Review Manager, to whom his informal complaint had been referred. Her message explained that the existing configuration of overhead lines to the three houses on the subdivided Lot 29 resulted from progressive lot splits, and used prescriptive rights retained by Edison, but that relocation of any of the existing facilities, or conversion to underground lines, would require new easements. She also explained that the financial responsibility for these changes would be Rupprecht's, under Edison tariff Rule 16.F.2.b, Service Extensions; Existing Service Facilities, Service Relocation or Rearrangement. Quoting from that tariff, her message explained that, " `Any relocation or arrangement of [Edison's] existing service facilities at the request of the Applicant (aesthetics, building additions, remodeling, etc.) and agreed upon by [Edison] shall be performed in accordance with Section D except that the Applicant shall pay [Edison] its total costs.' "
Weaver's message also stated that Edison was investigating the clearance complaint at the Elna house, and would take corrective action if a problem was found. Early on the morning of August 2, 2006, an Edison crew "resagged" (i.e., raised) the line over the Elna house, an event that Rupprecht personally witnessed. Rupprecht, based upon his six-foot stature and his visual estimate of the new clearance, still believes that the roof clearance does not comply with the requirements of the Commission's General Order (GO) 95. Edison claims that it is now fully compliant.
Rupprecht also received a letter from Thomas Ward of the Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch, rejecting his informal complaint and noting that Edison had addressed the clearance problem over the Elna house.1
In early October 2006, Rupprecht met with Terheggen at his property and obtained Edison's approval for the location of the new load center.2 On October 17, Cathedral City inspected and approved the location of the new load center. On the same date, an Edison contractor moved the service line from the old load center to the new 200 amp load center, replacing it with heavier gauge wire. The contractor who accomplished this work commented to Rupprecht that the wires to both poles were "too small," and that Pole 1863791E should be replaced. This comment was apparently the genesis of Rupprecht's present complaint.
Following completion of the rewiring to the new load center, Rupprecht continued to observe that his lights flickered when the air conditioner started. He attributed this problem to the fact that the wiring from Pole 239270S to 1863791E was number 1/0, which he believes is "too small," rather than larger 4/0, which he believes is necessary to accommodate the amperage of the combined load from his house and the two others connected to the secondary line. He reported his observations and recommendations to Terheggen on November 9, 2006.
Terheggen promptly responded that Edison would re-analyze his voltage and flicker based on the load he was using, and stated that if those calculations proved that work needed to be done, it would be accomplished as standard maintenance.
On January 8, 2007, Rupprecht appealed the Consumer Affairs Branch's rejection of his informal complaint. On April 2, he received a reply from the Branch, which did not alter its determination. Rupprecht thereafter filed his formal complaint requesting the relief described in the Summary, above.
Edison's efforts to address Rupprecht's concerns continued until shortly before the hearing, so the issues raised by the complaint are somewhat dynamic. These efforts culminated on January 3, 2008, with Edison's replacement of the transformer that serves his home and the others served by the controversial lines. The complaint was not formally amended to conform to the state of the facts at the time of the hearing, but we will deem that such amendment was made and resolve this matter in accordance with our understanding of the issues remaining in contention when the case was submitted on January 15.3
1 Rupprecht offered this letter in evidence at the EH, and it was received as Exhibit 14.
2 On this occasion, Rupprecht once again broached the subject of undergrounding the line from the existing pole to the new load center. Terheggen explained that if the line were undergrounded, he would have to grant Edison an easement, and there would be a $500 fee associated with that. At this point, Rupprecht apparently abandoned his effort to have the undergrounding done as part of his own work.
3 Following submission of the case, the administrative law judge encouraged the parties to continue their efforts to resolve any remaining problems, particularly in light of Rupprecht's testimony that he did not know whether there was a continuing problem with flickering. He testified this was because he had not turned on the air conditioner after the transformer changeout due to the low winter season temperatures. It appears, however, that Rupprecht is holding onto his position that the size of the wires and the condition of the secondary pole violate GO 95, and require remediation at Edison's expense.
