4. Discussion
Rupprecht contends that Edison must replace Pole 1863791E with one that is sound, and must replace the existing 1/0 wire to that pole from Pole 239270S with 4/0 wire, because the existing facilities violate pertinent provisions of GO 95. The specific provisions of GO 95 he cited at the EH are Rule 12.1-D (Replacement of Poles); Rule 37, Table 1 (Clearance of Wires above Buildings); and Rule 49.1-A (Detailed Strength Requirements, Poles, Towers and Other Structures). He also urges the Commission to exercise its power to order reconstruction of facilities or alteration of existing lines if, in its opinion, safety or public interest requires, as permitted under Rule 12.4.
4.1. Pole Replacement
Ruppecht's contention that Pole 1863791E must be replaced is based upon its apparent condition.4 He offered compelling photographic evidence to support his personal observations. There is obvious weathering at the base, and a longitudinal fissure extends from the ground level a considerable distance up the pole. This fissure is about one inch wide at the base, and one photograph shows a ruler inserted completely through the diameter of the pole near the ground.
Jeremy Edwards, an experienced Edison planner, who visited Rupprecht's property in the company of a pole inspector in November 2007 and witnessed the pole being inspected, testified credibly that the pole was sufficiently sound to accommodate the existing wiring, and that it did not need to be replaced. He acknowledged the existence of the longitudinal crack in the pole, which is referred to as a "freeway." He explained that freeways occur during the manufacturing process, and that they do not significantly affect the structural integrity of a pole because of the manner in which it is manufactured.
Edwards testified that the pole was fumigated for termites in 2001, showed no signs of hollowing or shell damage, and satisfied Edison's criteria for wind stress on the basis of calculations he made from Edison's manuals. Edison's employees also climbed the pole without concern that it was structurally unsound, and they are trained not to do so if there is any doubt. These facts effectively rebut Rupprecht's claim that the pole requires replacement because of its condition.
4.2. Clearance of the line over the Elna Property
We conclude that Rupprecht has not satisfied his burden of proof that the present clearance violates clearances specified by GO 95, because, neither party offered any testimony about taking an actual measurement of the clearance. By reason of this omission the record is also insufficient to carry out our responsibility of ensuring that Edison is complying with public safety requirements, and we believe that greater verification is required.
Rule 12.4 of GO 95 states, "If, in its opinion, safety ... requires, the Commission may order reconstruction or alteration of existing lines." We will invoke this rule on our own motion as a result of the absence of reliable evidence, and order Edison to inspect and measure the clearance of the secondary line above the residence of complainant's neighbor at 39015 Elna Way. If that clearance fails to comply with the clearance specified by GO 95, we order Edison to alter or reconstruct the line at its expense in the interest of safety, as provided in Rule 12.4.
4.3. "Flicker" and the replacement of the secondary line.
Edison does not dispute Rupprecht's claim that his lights flickered when his new air conditioner started up after he first installed it. However, flicker is not an indication that his system is "underpowered," as he claims, and does not demonstrate that the current configuration violates tolerances prescribed by GO 95. Moreover, the evidence is uncertain that the problem of flicker persisted after Edison replaced the transformer on January 3, 2008, less than two weeks before the EH, because Rupprecht did not turn on the air conditioner to test it.
Flicker occurs when a motor load comes on and there is an inrush of current. The capacity of the cable cannot accommodate this inrush of current, and the lights dim momentarily as the inrush occurs. This is the phenomenon that Rupprecht described. By contrast, if a system is "underpowered," the lights would remain dimmed because the system could not handle the total load, and Rupprecht admitted that this does not occur. If it did, the load would cause observable damage, such as wiring going bad and arcing of the panel, which did not occur after the 200 amp load center was installed.
Edison installed a new transformer and service drop to Rupprecht's house and upgraded it to 4/0 wire after he complained to the Commission. Edwards testified that these measures compensated for the flicker issue within the allowable range. He also took measurements of the system and calculated the demand. His testimony is that the existing 1/0 wire between the two poles can hold the capacity of the current demand.
Edison does not size its system to potential, but rather to demand-to the amount of amperage that the customer will be using. Based upon amps measured at Rupprecht's meter and reflected in his monthly bills, Edwards calculated that his current demand is well within system tolerance. He also testified that if these measurements indicate that the system needs to be upgraded, it will be upgraded at the time the need is demonstrated. Accordingly, our findings are in Edison's favor on this issue, and we conclude that there is no violation of GO 95.
4 The pole has no crossarms, and is anchored to the ground with two guy wires.
