PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 7/11/2000)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mark Scott and Marsha Layne Collins, Complainants, vs. San Jose Water Company, a California Corporation (U-168-W), Defendant. |
Case 99-11-017 (Filed November 16, 1999) |
Mark Scott Collins, for complainants.
Palle Jensen, for San Jose Water Company, defendant.
OPINION DENYING COMPLAINT
Mark Scott and Marsha Layne Collins, complainants, who are represented by Mark Collins, allege that the bill of defendant, San Jose Water Company, for the period of October 5, 1998 to December 5, 1998 is in error. On this bill, defendant records complainants' usage as 1,151 Ccf (hundred cubic feet) for this 64-day period totaling $1,576.03. Complainants request that we order defendant to rescind this bill. Defendant denies that the bill was in error.
At the evidentiary hearing held on April 6, 2000, the parties presented testimony and evidence to support their respective positions. The matter was submitted on May 11, 2000. We herein conclude that the complaint must be denied.
Complainants allege the December 1998 meter reading is in error and that a similar error occurred in December 1997. Except for these two periods, the usage ranged between 0-460 Ccf for the two-month billing in 1998, with no water usage in the spring and late winter months.
After the first high reading in 1997, complainants installed lock boxes to enclose the water controls. Thus, they allege that no unauthorized person had access to water usage on this vacant property in 1998. However, complainants admit that their landscaper, Gary Sergianni, has keys to the lock box with instructions to water hedges twice a week, and later to water weekly. Under penalty of perjury, the landscaper states that he investigated the 1998 incident of unusual water usage to ascertain if his workers had left water running. When hired, he was aware of the first 1997 incident of unusually high usage and took extra precautions to instruct his workers not to leave faucets open. At unannounced inspections of the property after December 1998, Sergianni found no traces of a leak, open faucet, or flooding of the property after his workmen completed their watering.
Complainants argue that the disputed usage translates into 860,948 gallons of water, or 13,452 gallons per day for 64 days. They equate this level of usage with a commercial or industrial site rather than a residential property with no structures or inhabitants. In addition, at a site visit of the property, it was evident that any such daily flooding of water onto complainants' property would definitely intrude on the neighbor's property below, and cause them to complain. Complainants have received no such complaint from any neighbors.
In 1997 after the high bill was reported, defendant reverified the meter reading and performed a water audit of the property, which did not uncover any unusual causes for the high bill. The meter was removed and replaced on February 13, 1998. The meter removed from the property was tested on March 3, 1998 and registered within the limits prescribed by the Commission at 100% average accuracy. In 1997, despite the findings that the meter reading was correct, defendant made a partial adjustment to complainants' bill and complainants paid the remaining past due balance.
On December 8, 1998 defendant detected a second high meter reading. The meter reader was a 26-year employee with approximately 20 years' experience in meter reading and an error ratio of less than 0.10%. The ITRON DCH hand-held meter reading device emits an audible alarm when an unusually high or low read is detected based upon the historical usage for each account. When this occurs, company policy requires the meter reader to reread the last five digits of the meter number and re-enter the usage before the next customer's meter data can be recorded. This specific meter reading device passed a routine test by the manufacturer on July 14, 1998.
Defendant notified complainants of this second high bill. Complainants requested an investigation, including a subterranean inspection of the property. Eight days after the second high reading, defendant's field service representative visited the property and obtained the same meter reading. No water leaks were detected on the property.
On February 3, 1999, defendant performed a water audit of the property. The meter reading was the same. No leaks were visible. Again on February 9, 1999, defendant took a third meter reading, finding the reading the same. Defendant removed and replaced the meter with a new one a second time on February 16, 1999. The meter replaced was purchased in January 1997 and installed one year prior, after the first high bill complaint. The replaced meter was retested for accuracy on March 8, 1999, with results of 100% average accuracy.
Defendant visited the property on two other occasions during the dispute over the bill. On both occasions, the water control was in an "off" position. However, on a third visit, after defendant locked the meter due to non-payment, defendant's supervisor noticed that the water control appeared to have been tampered with. Eventually, defendant removed the meter due to repeated attempts to tamper with the locked meter.
We must emphasize that the issue in this complaint is whether the utility bill is in error, not what happened to the water billed after it passed through the meter, or why such a large quantity was used.
Complainants make two distinct arguments regarding the bill: first, that they did not use the amount of water billed, implying an error in the billing equipment; and second, that the water was not received by them, implying that it was lost or stolen before delivery to the customers. However, the facts do not support either argument.
On numerous occasions close to the time of the disputed bill, defendant inspected complainants' meter and checked for water leakage on the property. The water meter was replaced just prior to this disputed bill. Both the old and new meters tested as being accurate. Defendant found no evidence of water leakage onto the property. Defendant also verified the disputed usage recorded by its electronic meter reading device performed by experienced personnel. Defendant found no defects in equipment or human error in recording usage. Because there is no evidence of water leaks and the equipment performed properly, we may reasonably presume that the usage billed actually passed through complainants' meter and was accurately recorded.
Complainants' argument that the water was not delivered and reference to Eyre v. Black (no citation provided) is unpersuasive. The water was delivered to the property through complainants' meter, which is defendant's only obligation. Defendant is not required to deliver water to the customer personally, as complainants imply. Defendant is not responsible for what happens to the water after it is delivered to the customer's property.
Defendant aptly cites one relevant case where we denied a complaint based upon a utility showing that the customer's meter had been tested, and proved to be operating accurately and that the customer's appliances were capable of producing the amount of usage charged. (Chris A. Wallis v. Southern California Edison Company, D. 96-02-056.) Likewise, in this proceeding, defendant presented testimony that complainants' irrigation system was operating and capable of delivering throughout the property the quantity of water billed, if left on continuously for 24 hours for 26 days. No error in defendant's equipment or recording of usage is shown.
Rule 73 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure allows the Commission to take official notice of such matters as may be judicially noticed by the courts of the State of California. Courts routinely take judicial notice of records within their own files. (See Evid. Code 452(d).) At the hearing, the presiding officer granted defendant's request to take official notice of Rule 16 of its tariff. After receiving a copy of the complete rule, complainants objected to official notice of this tariff rule because it did not show defendant's obligation to provide service. This objection is overruled since this document is clearly one to which this manner of receiving evidence applies, and upon its face shows defendant's obligation to provide service to the customer's meter only.1 Contrary to complainants' belief, defendant correctly relies on this rule to show that its responsibility for service ends at the service connection. We affirm the ruling to take official notice of this tariff rule. It is not the utility's responsibility to investigate any water theft or irregular water use by third parties that may be occurring on complainants' private property. The utility appropriately shut off the water when it discovered that someone had tampered with the meter.
1. Complainants allege that defendant's bill for the period October 5, 1998 to December 5, 1998 is in error. Defendant denies this allegation.
2. Complainants provide no evidence that defendant's billing equipment was faulty or that human error occurred in preparing the disputed bill.
3. Defendant provides evidence to show that it replaced complainants' meter in February 1998 and that this meter tested within prescribed limits at 100% average accuracy prior to the disputed bill.
4. Defendant reread the meter eight days after the 1998 high reading and inspected the property. No water leaks were observed. Defendant read the meter a third time obtaining the same reading. Two subsequent inspections showed the water control in an "off" position.
5. The Commission, like a court, routinely takes official notice of documents within its files.
1. Official notice of Rule 16 of defendant's tariff is hereby taken.
2. Complainants fail to carry their burden to prove their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. The complaint in this proceeding should be denied, effective immediately.
4. This proceeding should be closed.
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this proceeding is denied and this proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
1 "A. General
1. Utility's Responsibility
a. (1) In urban areas with dedicated front streets, rear service
roads or public utility easements the utility will furnish
and install the service pipe, curb stop, meter and meter
box at its own expense for the purpose of connecting its
distribution system to the customer's piping . . .
b. The service connection will determine the point of delivery
of water service to the customer . . . "
