2. Background

Flamingo filed this complaint on May 25, 2000, alleging that it was Pacific's responsibility to remedy an unsightly and unsafe condition caused by the deterioration of the wooden fence (called a utility rail) and the resulting sprawl and tangle of cable. Flamingo alleged that Pacific had installed the utility rail, but failed to maintain it. Since Pacific in August 1999 had placed the cable underground behind units 12 through 16, without charge to the mobile lodge, Flamingo asserted that Pacific should be required to do the same thing for cable and lines serving units 1 through 11.

Pacific was granted an extension of time to investigate the complaint, and it filed a timely answer on July 17, 2000. Pacific asserted that Flamingo had installed the utility rail, and maintenance of the rail was Flamingo's responsibility. Pacific alleged that it had done the work behind units 12 through 16 because of a service outage at one of the units there, while there is no service outage behind units 1 through 11. In the absence of an outage, Pacific states that its tariffs require the property owner to pay the cost of converting "aerial" cable to an underground installation.

On July 21, 2000, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) directed the parties to respond to a series of questions, including what tariffs and other provisions of law they relied upon. The parties responded on August 28, 2000. On September 28, 2000, a prehearing conference was conducted by telephone, and the parties were directed to explore settlement. Settlement efforts were unsuccessful. On October 17, 2000, a hearing was conducted in Corona. The Commission heard from four witnesses, and it received 18 exhibits into evidence. Briefing was completed on December 15, 2000, at which time the case was submitted for decision.