Econome Ruling Directing Defendant to Provide Certain Information in Answer, Setting Telephonic PHC and Calling for PHC Statements

JJJ/sid 7/28/2005

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Painted Turtle,

Complainant,

v.

Southern California Edison Company,

Defendant.

Case 05-07-007

(Filed July 12, 2005)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING

DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ANSWER; SETTING TELEPHONIC PREHEARING CONFERENCE (PHC); AND CALLING FOR PHC STATEMENTS

On July 12, 2005, The Painted Turtle filed this complaint against Southern California Edison Company (Edison) concerning a billing and meter reading dispute. The Commission served Edison with instructions to answer on July 21, 2005; thus, Edison's answer is currently due on August 22, 2005.

If the parties are unable to settle this matter prior to Edison filing its answer, this ruling directs Edison to set forth certain information in its answer. The ruling also sets a telephonic PHC and directs the parties to file PHC statements prior to the PHC.

Edison's Answer

In addition to other information Edison wishes to include in its answer to its complaint, Edison shall set forth the following information:

· Complainant does not allege any interruption in service. However, Edison should state whether service to complainant continues while this controversy is pending, and if so, how the parties are currently addressing the disputed bill.

· Why Edison changed the metering system from a multiple to a single meter system in late 2003.

· Whether Edison checked the single meter installed in late 2003 to determine whether it was operating properly. If so, when did this test occur and did Edison provide complainant with detailed results and an explanation of its meter testing?

· The reasons for Edison's installation of a new meter system in early 2005.

· The amount of complainant's monthly energy bill and the amount of energy used, by month, for 15 months preceding the 2003 meter change and for each month following the 2003 meter change.

· Why Edison did not bill complainant regularly for the period of January 12, 2004 through October 7, 2004, and why Edison had to back-bill complainant.

· Why Edison billed the complainant at the GS-2 rate during the disputed billing period.