6. Assignment of Proceeding
Timothy Alan Simon is the assigned Commissioner and Victor D. Ryerson is the Presiding Officer in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a resident of Cathedral City, a desert community in Riverside County. His residence, 67931 Valley Vista Drive, is situated on a parcel that is part of Lot 29 of Cathedral Heights Subdivision, the subdivision map for which was filed with Riverside County in 1955.
2. Defendant is the service provider for complainant's residence. Defendant serves complainant's residence via a secondary line from Pole 232970S to Pole 1863761E, which is situated on complainant's parcel. At the present time complainant receives his electric service via a service drop from Pole 1863761E to the load center on his residence.
3. Lot 29 has been progressively subdivided into three lots since its creation, and a residence has been built on each lot. The residence immediately to the south of complainant's, 39015 Elna Way, was built beneath the secondary electric line spanning Poles 232970S and 1863761E. All three residences are served by drops from Pole 1863761E, which is located near the junction of the three lots, more or less at the center of Lot 29. The transformer serving all three houses is mounted on Pole 232970S.
4. Complainant purchased 67931 Valley Vista Drive, the house on the northeasterly lot, in 2004, with the intention of remodeling and reselling it. He is a professional handyman with considerable experience buying, improving and selling residential properties.
5. At the time he purchased the house, the 125 amp load center showed signs of arcing, indicating that it was overloaded and needed to be replaced. Complainant decided to upgrade to 200 amp service as part of the work of improvement at 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.
6. In August 2005 complainant installed a new five-ton capacity heating and cooling (HVAC) system to replace the existing one, which was of substantially lower capacity. Initially, he connected the new HVAC system to the existing 125 amp load center. He noticed at that time that the lights in the house dimmed whenever the air conditioning started up.
7. In early October 2006, complainant met with Edison`s City Planner, Connie Terheggen, at his property and obtained Edison's approval for the location of the new load center. 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 complainant that the wires to both poles were "too small," and that Pole 1863791E should be replaced.
8. Following completion of the new load center's rewiring, complainant 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 Pole 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.
9. 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.
10. After complainant failed to obtain a result from Edison that was satisfactory to him, he filed this formal complaint. An evidentiary hearing was set for January 14, 2008.
11. In early November, 2007, complainant met with Jeremy Edwards, Edison's new City Planner for Cathedral City, and a pole inspector to inspect and discuss his concerns about the condition of Pole 1863761E. The inspector tested the pole for hollowness and shell damage by striking the pole with a hammer, and concluded that the pole showed no signs of such damage. Edwards ran calculations to determine whether Pole 1863791E satisfied all temperature and loading factor criteria and met stress factors to which the pole was subjected. Edwards' calculations indicated that the pole satisfied all such criteria.
12. Edison continued to make efforts to address complainant's concerns until January 3, 2008, on which date Edison replaced the transformer that serves his home and the others served by the secondary line between Pole 239270S and Pole 1863791E.
13. Although the issues have evolved since complainant first discussed his plans with Edison, his contentions at the time of the hearing were that the secondary wire violates provisions of GO 95 because it is of insufficient gauge, causing his lights to flicker when the air conditioner turns on; that Pole 1863791E violates provisions of GO 95 because its condition is unsound; and that the wire over the Elna house violates the clearance requirements of GO 95 because it is too close to the roof. The relief he seeks is replacement of the secondary wire from Pole 239270S to Pole 1863791E with 4/0 wire, which is heavier than the existing wire; replacement of Pole 1863791E, particularly if it must accommodate the heavier 4/0 wire; and correction of the clearance of the wire above the Elna house because it poses a safety hazard.
14. Flicker occurs when a motor load comes on and there is an inrush of current. If the capacity of the cable cannot accommodate this inrush of current, the lights dim momentarily as the inrush occurs. This is the phenomenon of which Rupprecht complains. By contrast, if a system is "underpowered," the lights remain dimmed because the system cannot handle the total load. Rupprecht admits that this does not occur at his residence.
15. If a system is underpowered, the load causes observable damage, such as wiring going bad and arcing of the panel, which has not occurred since Rupprecht installed the 200 amp load center at his residence. Moreover, it is uncertain whether flicker has continued since Edison replaced the transformer on complainant's service line on January 3, 2008. Even if it does persist, flicker is not necessarily an indication that complainant's system is underpowered, and does not demonstrate that a local supply configuration violates tolerances prescribed by GO 95.
16. Complainant's contention that Pole 1863791E must be replaced is based solely upon his visual observation of its condition. Specifically, there is obvious weathering at the base of the pole, and a longitudinal fissure extends from the ground level up a considerable distance. This fissure is about one inch wide at the base, and extends completely through the diameter of the pole near the ground.
17. The existence of a longitudinal crack in a utility pole is referred to as a "freeway" by utility companies. Freeways occur during the manufacturing process, and do not significantly affect the structural integrity of a pole because of the manner in which the pole is manufactured.
18. Pole 1863791E was fumigated for termites in 2001, and showed no signs of hollowing or shell damage upon testing in early November 2007 by Edison. 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. Calculations performed by an experienced Edison City Planner indicate that Pole 1863791E meets all temperature and loading factor criteria and satisfy stress factors and modulus of rupture requirements relied upon by Edison in its system design.
19. There is no evidence in the record concerning any actual measurement taken by either party of the clearance of the line above the Elna property.
1. Complainant has not cited a specific section of GO 95 that he relies upon in asserting that his wiring is "underpowered" because of the occurrence of flicker.
2. Based upon the evidence before us we cannot conclude that complainant's wiring violates any provision of GO 95.
3. We conclude that the wood pole in question satisfies temperature and loading factors under GO 95 Rule 43, and safety and modulus of fracture requirements under Rule 44 and Rule 48.1, by reason of the facts stated in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. On this basis we conclude that complainant has not satisfied his burden of proof that the condition of Pole 1863791E violates any provision of GO 95.
4. We conclude that complainant has not satisfied his burden of proof that the present clearance violates the clearance requirement specified by GO 95.
5. Neither party offered any testimony about taking an actual measurement of the clearance. Conclusion of Law 4 therefore does not adequately serve the purpose of carrying out our responsibility to ensure that Edison is complying with public safety requirements. Consequently, verification of the clearance is required.
6. Pursuant to Rule 12.4 of GO 95, the Commission may order reconstruction or alteration of existing lines and it is reasonable to invoke this rule on our own motion because of the uncertainty of the evidence.
7. It is reasonable to order Edison to inspect and measure the clearance of the secondary line above 39015 Elna Way, and report its observation to complainant and the Commission.
8. If the clearance fails to comply with the clearance specified by GO 95, it is reasonable to order Edison to alter or reconstruct the line at its expense in the interest of safety, as provided in Rule 12.4.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Commission General Order (GO) 95, Rule 12.4, Southern California Edison Company (Edison) shall, within 30 days of the effective date of this Order, inspect and measure the clearance of the secondary line above the residence at 39015 Elna Way, Cathedral City, and report its findings in writing to Lawrence A. Rupprecht, to the owner of the subject property, and to the assigned commissioner and the assigned administrative law judge. If that clearance fails to comply with any requirement of GO 95, Edison shall immediately alter or reconstruct the line at its sole expense so that it complies with all applicable clearance requirements.
2. Except as provided under the preceding paragraph, relief is denied and Case 07-06-001 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated August 26, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
