Discussion
The question presented in this case is whether PG&E violated any law, order, or rule of the Commission as defined in Pub. Util. Code § 1702. The burden of proof that such violation occurred falls upon complainant.
Here the evidence shows that complainants have consumed more electric energy, on average, since June 1999 when their meter was replaced.
Defendant has twice tested the new meter and found it to be registering accurately. Complainants have not proven that their meter is inaccurate or that defendant has otherwise conducted some wrongdoing.
1. Complainants complain that their electric meter has been inaccurately registering their energy usage since June 1999.
2. Defendant has tested complainants' meter twice since June 1999 and found it to be accurate.
1. Complainants have not carried their burden of proving some wrongdoing on the part of defendant.
2. The complaint should be dismissed, effective immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The amount of $1,432.59 on deposit with the Commission shall be disbursed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company to be credited to the account of Tim Garcia and Murlene Garcia.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
