ALJ/RAB/MOD-POD/jt2 Mailed 1/26/2007
Decision 07-01-027 January 25, 2007
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Complainant, v. Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E), Defendant. |
Case 05-11-004 (Filed November 1, 2005) |
James Sherwood, Vice President-Operations, for Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., complainant.
Stacie Schaffer, Attorney at Law, for Southern California Edison Company, defendant.
Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc. (Bee Sweet) alleges that Southern California Edison Company (SCE) wrongfully charged Bee Sweet for on-peak electric usage penalties1 of $22,785.96 in 2004 and $20,613.34 in 2005. Bee Sweet paid the 2004 demand charge and seeks reparations plus interest; Bee Sweet has not paid the 2005 demand charge and seeks its cancellation. SCE denies the allegations, asserting that Bee Sweet was properly charged for its electric use. Public hearing was held May 11, 2006 in Fresno, when the matter was submitted. Relief is denied.
1. Bee Sweet's Evidence
Bee Sweet acquired Mar River Ranch, a citrus ranch of 125 acres, in December 2003. The ranch had a water supply system, including wells, pumps, controllers, a reservoir, and electrical panels. The ranch has two wells each with its own pump, electrical panel, and time clock to control use. SCE supplies power to the two well pumps, which are approximately 1/4 mile apart in a remote area at the end of the SCE distribution line. The pumps are wired so that they cannot be operated by hand; they can only be operated through programmable time clocks. Both pumps were programmed and tested to shut down during peak times.
When discussing rate plan options with SCE's service representative, Bee Sweet was told that each of the two pumps on the ranch was already installed with an SCE-provided time management load control (TMLC) unit to prevent the pumps from operating during on-peak times. The SCE representative said that there would be a charge of approximately $2,500 per pump to activate the units. Bee Sweet felt that, since the TMLC units were already installed and wired at the pumps, the $5,000 SCE charge seemed inequitable. It did not connect the units. SCE removed the units.
During the time periods at issue, Bee Sweet chose to take service under SCE's Schedule Time-of-Use - Agricultural and Pumping, Super Off-Peak-Demand Metered (TOU-PA-SOP-1). TOU-PA-SOP-1 benefits customers who can shift load to the super-off-peak time period - it provides a discount on energy- and time-related demand in exchange for interrupting power when requested by SCE. Super-off-peak is defined as midnight to 6:00 a.m., all year, every day. On-peak is defined as 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. summer weekdays, except holidays. Under TOU-PA-SOP-1, the summer season starts at 12:00 a.m. on the first Sunday in July and continues until 12:00 a.m. on the first Sunday in October. Off-peak is defined as all other hours not super-off-peak or on-peak.
To ensure compliance with the SOP tariff, Bee Sweet took the precautionary steps of programming its pumps to go off at least 30 minutes before the on-peak time period and not to go back on until at least 15 to 30 minutes after the on-peak time period. Bee Sweet's manager checked the operation of the pumps' time clocks by personally programming the clocks and checking the time of operation. During July 2004, Bee Sweet employees would go by the pumping stations to verify that neither pump was operational during the on-peak time period.
SCE's August 2004 bill for the period July 3, 2004 to August 4, 2004, showed energy and demand charges for on-peak usage; the demand charges alone amounted to $6,452.75. Bee Sweet immediately contacted its SCE service representative, who said that it was probably just a power surge issue or some other anomaly in the line and not to worry about it; SCE would investigate the problem and take care of it. Bee Sweet again checked the time clocks at both pumps and verified that they were programmed correctly, and that no one had access to the locked pumping stations. Bee Sweet's employees said there is no way the pumps ran because they would have noticed water on the ranch and would have heard the pumps.
SCE's September 2004 bill contained not only the demand charges from the prior month, but also additional demand charges for on-peak usage in violation of the SOP during the month of August. The September bill showed a total demand charge for August of $10,292.57. Bee Sweet again contacted SCE and was assured that SCE was investigating the problem. Bee Sweet again checked the pumps and verified that they were properly programmed and that the time on the clocks matched the actual time to insure everything was properly set up for accurate operation and compliance.
Bee Sweet's monitoring of the pumps showed that in July the pumps were never operational during the on-peak time period. Further, the pumps showed no evidence of operation during the restricted time period during the month of August. Bee Sweet claims that SCE's records show that the pumps only came on during the on-peak time period for a brief time. Bee Sweet stresses the importance of this because the brief time period when they supposedly came on would not have been long enough to pump sufficient water from the 800 feet depth to the surface and then distribute the water to the ranch.
In September, Bee Sweet and SCE representatives discussed the possibility that power fluctuations were causing the problem, and that since the pump sites are at the end of the SCE distribution line, just beyond a large industrial user, the problem could be the result of line abnormalities. SCE's bill in October for the billing period September 3, 2004 to October 2, 2004, showed on-peak usage for that billing period with demand charges of $6,040.64. On October 26, 2004, there was a meeting at the ranch at which an SCE service representative, an SCE meter technician, and the CEO of Bee Sweet were present. During the site visit, the meter technician checked the meters to see if they were operating properly.
On January 15, 2005, Bee Sweet received a letter stating that SCE had found "no electrical revenue metering abnormalities or distribution circuit events that correlated with the on-peak kilowatt billing usage." The letter went on to state that an SCE engineer had determined that the internal batteries in the Bee Sweet time clocks that keep time during voltage outages were inoperative, " ... which could allow the pumps to operate during on-peak if not reset." The letter further states that it is "[m]y recommendation ... to install Edison TMLC devices at both of the pumping locations to avoid further on-peak billing usage." The installation of the TMLC devices will "prevent any on-peak usage in the future." ... "[t]his is accomplished because the internal clock within the Edison electrical revenue meter controls the TMLC device and the operation of the motor contactor relay, preventing on peak usage."
Bee Sweet's expert testified that the internal batteries in each of the pumps' Alex-Tronix time clocks were operational during the entire 2004 SOP period (July-October). The time clocks also confirm that there were a number of power surges or fluctuations at the pump sites. Between July 2004 and October 2004, the time clocks were checked on numerous occasions to verify that they were properly programmed and that the time set on the clocks matched the true time of the day. On several occasions, the screen on the clocks stated "Power Failure-Press Adjust." This meant that there had been an SCE power failure, not a failure of the battery backup in the clock. When "Adjust" was pressed on the clock, the main screen returned to normal. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, in early 2005 Bee Sweet authorized SCE to install the TMLC units and paid the installation fee of $5,077.50.
After the TMLC units were connected on SCE's equipment, Bee Sweet's electrician hooked up the TMLC units to Bee Sweet's pumps pursuant to the SCE diagram.2 In order to hook up the wires, no access was necessary to the TMLC units. Bee Sweet believes there is no doubt that the wires at the junction boxes were correctly hooked up because the units would not have functioned at all if the hook-ups were not accurate and complete. As soon as the wires were hooked up, SCE tested the units to ensure that they were working properly. Notwithstanding, the August energy bill for July service showed on-peak charges.
In 2005, SCE's September billing and October billing showed on-peak usage. As with previous on-peak usage, the actual usage is minimal and would not have benefited the ranch because the water could not have pumped from well depth and be disbursed out to the trees during the brief usage. During August and September, Bee Sweet employees scrutinized the ranch to further verify that Bee Sweet was not using the pumps during the restricted on-peak time period. In addition, the time clocks were checked on numerous occasions to verify the programming was correct. On several occasions the clocks showed that SCE had a power failure in the area because the clocks would state "Power Failure-Press Adjust." If that message was showing on the clock, an employee would press Adjust and then verify that the clock itself had not lost power and that the time on the clock was accurate and the program for watering was still intact. The on-peak charges for 2005 were $20,613.34; the total amount in dispute for 2004 and 2005 is $43,399.30 (see Appendix A-2).
1 Bee Sweet refers to the difference between on-peak use and off-peak use as a penalty. The tariff does not refer to a penalty for on-peak use, rather, it is a demand charge, but the difference in charges is so substantial that as a matter of convention Bee Sweet believes the descriptive "penalty" is appropriate. We will use the term "demand charge."
2 SCE's policy is that SCE will not hook up the TMLC unit to the customer's equipment.
