5. Conclusion

Rupprecht has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Edison is violating any of the provisions of GO 95 that he cites. He may be competent and knowledgeable about internal electrical circuitry on the homeowner's side, but he has not demonstrated that Edison's facilities at his property are inadequate or unsafe. Edison employees evaluated and addressed his complaints on several occasions. Edison's testimony supports our determination that its facilities comply with GO 95 at this location, subject to reinspection of its line over the Elna property. If the inspection we order reveals that the clearance is non-compliant, Edison must alter or reconstruct the line to correct the problem.

It is not certain at this point that the flicker problem persists at Rupprecht's property. If it does, it is probably true that substituting 4/0 for 1/0 wire on the supply line would provide sufficient capacity-a large enough pipeline, so to speak-to accommodate the current inflow from the new air conditioner and eliminate the phenomenon. Even if some flicker persists, this by itself does not indicate that the system violates GO 95 in any respect. We will not require Edison to reconstruct Rupprecht's system at the expense of other ratepayers, because the need to do so has not been shown.

We will dismiss the complaint, but order extraordinary relief on our own motion, as set forth above.