alj/zk1/nd3 proposed decision agenda id #20066 adjudicatory

421075347 - 1 -

ALJ/ZK1/nd3 PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #20066 Decision __________ BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr.,

Complainant,

vs. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E),

Defendant.

(ECP)

Case 21-04-011

DECISION FINDING BILLING ERROR AND GRANTING ASSOCIATED RELIEF

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page DECISION FINDING BILLING ERROR .......................................................................2 AND GRANTING ASSOCIATED RELIEF ...................................................................2 Summary ............................................................................................................................2 1. Factual Background ...................................................................................................2 2. Procedural Background ............................................................................................6 3. Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................10 4. Complainant’s Contentions ...................................................................................10 5. Defendant’s Contentions ........................................................................................12 6. Discussion .................................................................................................................13

6.1. PG&E Did Not Violate Fire Safety Protocols .............................................14 6.2. PG&E’s Technician Did Not Trespass at the Oregon House Property

When the Technician Conducted a Meter Test in Mr. Cauchi’s Absence ...........................................................................................................14

6.3. PG&E Did Not Violate Cal. Pen. Code Section 632 .................................15 6.4. Billing Subsequent to April 22, 2018 Is Within the Statute of

Limitations for Recovery of Reparations ...................................................16 6.5. Reparation of $2,589.26 Is Awarded for Billing Errors on Energy

Statements Associated with the Oregon House Property from July 2018 to October 2018 .............................................................................16

7. Assignment of Proceeding .....................................................................................20 8. Waiver of Comment Period ...................................................................................20 ORDER .............................................................................................................................20

C.21-04-011 ALJ/ZK1/nd3 PROPOSED DECISION

- 2 -

DECISION FINDING BILLING ERROR AND GRANTING ASSOCIATED RELIEF

Summary

This decision finds billing error in the electrical service account of

Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr.’s property, located in Oregon House, California, from

July 2018 to December 2018, likely due to smart meter malfunction. Pacific Gas

and Electric Company (PG&E) is directed to pay $2,589.26 in reparation to

Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr. within 60 days of the effective date of this decision. This

decision also finds that PG&E did not violate fire safety protocols, commit

trespass, or violate California Penal Code Section 632. This proceeding is closed.

1. Factual Background Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr. (Mr. Cauchi) owns a 20-acre property located in

Oregon House, California (Oregon House property), at which he received gas

and electrical service through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) prior to

November 2018. Mr. Cauchi resides in a property located in Newcastle,

California (Newcastle property), at which he continues to receive electrical and

gas service through PG&E.

On November 21, 2016, Mr. Cauchi’s residence at the Oregon House

property was destroyed by fire.1 On April 11, 2017, Mr. Cauchi requested PG&E

reconnect the electrical service at the Oregon House property. Mr. Cauchi, who

is an electrician by trade, installed a temporary electrical panel at the Oregon

House property for the stated purpose of allowing contractors to demolish and

remove the remains of the house using ordinary power tools. The demolition

work was completed in August 2017.

1 Complaint, Attachment 1 at 1.


- 3 -

While Mr. Cauchi’s bills for the Oregon House and Newcastle properties

were consolidated prior to the fire, PG&E sent separate energy statements for the

Oregon House and Newcastle properties to the Newcastle property starting in

April 2017. From April to August 2017, Mr. Cauchi’s energy statements for the

Oregon House property where billed based on an estimated basis due to

communication problems with the onsite smart meter.

PG&E field technicians were sent to the Oregon House property on both

May 13, 2017 and August 23, 2017, to investigate the communication issue with

the onsite meter. At the August 23, 2017 visit, the PG&E field technician noted

that the house on the property had been destroyed by fire. PG&E then listed the

property as no longer having a residential customer and cancelled all prior

electrical service charges from April to August 2017. A summary of energy

statements sent to Mr. Cauchi for the Oregon House property from April 2017 to

October 2017 are summarized in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Separate Billing for Oregon House Property from April to October 2017.

Energy Statement Date Service Date Amount Due

Estimated Bill?

Amount Paid

4/25/2017 4/12/17 - 4/24/17 $64.322 no $64.32

5/31/2017 4/25/17 - 5/23/17 $68.83 yes $68.83

6/26/2017 5/24/17 - 6/22/17 $91.83 yes $0.00

7/27/2017 6/23/17 - 7/24/17 $10.51 yes $102.00

8/28/2017 7/25/17 - 8/23/17 $91.83 yes $91.83

2 This energy statement includes a charge of $39.82 for service from April 12, 2017 to April 24, 2017 as well as a charge of $24.50 for initiating service.


- 4 -

Energy Statement Date Service Date Amount Due

Estimated Bill?

Amount Paid

10/24/2017 7/25/17 - 10/23/17 -$60.69 no $0.00

10/27/2017 4/12/17 - 4/25/17 -$219.613 no $0.00

PG&E also sent Mr. Cauchi a statement, dated November 28, 2017, which

had no new service charges.

PG&E did not send any further energy statements for electrical service to

the Oregon House property from December 2017 to April 2018, though PG&E

continued to provide electrical service to the property. On April 18, 2018,

electrical service at the Oregon House property was shut off. The service

technician noted that there was a broken lock associated with the meter and

PG&E’s service records indicate service was terminated due to a broken lock.

According to Mr. Cauchi, service was terminated at the Oregon House property

on April 18, 2018, at his request.4

On June 4, 2018, PG&E recorded and subsequently prepared transcripts of

calls between Mr. Cauchi and various customer service representatives, wherein

Mr. Cauchi expressed concern that the electrical service at his Oregon House

property was terminated and requested that PG&E to turn the service back on.

In response, PG&E: (1) restored the electrical service at the Oregon House

property remotely on June 4, 2018, (2) restored the charges for electrical service

use at the Oregon House from April 2017 to June 2018, and (3) combined the

electrical service charges for the Oregon House property with Mr. Cauchi’s

electrical service charges for the Newcastle property.

3 The October 21, 2021 energy statement includes a $38.82 charge for electrical service from April 12, 2017-April 25, 2017, and a credit of $259.53 for prior electrical service. 4 Mr. Cauchi oral statement at the status conference held on September 30, 2021.


- 5 -

On July 2, 2018, Mr. Cauchi received a 24-page bill containing service

charges for his electrical service use at both the Oregon House and Newcastle

properties, which included energy use charges from April 2017 to June 2018

recorded at the Oregon House property. Mr. Cauchi subsequently began

receiving combined monthly bills for both properties until November 13, 2018,

when he requested termination of his electrical service at the Oregon House

property.

Mr. Cauchi made a few, minimal payments on the combined bills for the

Oregon House and the Newcastle properties between July 2018 and

December 2018, which do not fully cover the costs incurred at the Newcastle

property and do not appear to address the amount billed for the Oregon House

property at issue herein. The electrical service charges placed on Mr. Cauchi’s

combined bill, related to the Oregon House property from July 2018 to

December 2018, are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Electric service charges for the Oregon House on Mr. Cauchi’s Combined Bill for the Oregon House and Newcastle Properties (July 2018 to December 2018).

Statement Date Service Date Amount Due Estimated Bill? 7/2/2018 4/26/17 - 5/23/17 $12.46 no

7/2/2018 5/24/17 - 6/22/17 $13.41 no

7/2/2018 6/23/17 - 7/24/17 $14.25 no

7/2/2018 7/25/17 - 8/23/17 $13.31 no

7/2/2018 8/24/17 - 9/22/17 $13.41 no

7/2/2018 9/23/17 - 10/23/17 $186.19 no

7/2/2018 10/24/17 - 11/21/17 $327.74 no

7/2/2018 11/22/17 - 12/21/17 $374.74 no

7/2/2018 12/22/17 - 1/22/18 $199.27 no


- 6 -

Statement Date Service Date Amount Due Estimated Bill? 7/2/2018 01/23/18 - 2/21/18 $186.33 no

7/2/2018 2/22/18 - 3/22/18 $187.41 no

7/2/2018 3/23/18 - 4/23/18 $171.70 no

7/2/2018 4/24/18 - 5/22/18 $9.58 no

7/2/2018 5/23/18 - 6/21/18 $69.96 no

8/1/2018 6/22/18 - 7/23/18 $302.97 no

8/31/2018 7/24/18 - 8/22/18 $288.95 no

10/2/2018 8/24/18 - 9/21/18 $109.81 no

11/1/2018 9/22/18 - 10/23/18 $67.755 no

12/3/2018 10/24/18 - 11/13/18 $106.86 no

On August 22, 2018, Mr. Cauchi requested PG&E conduct a meter test at

the Oregon House property.6 An initial test was planned for October 2, 2018,

which Mr. Cauchi cancelled when he deemed that the service technician did not

give him sufficient notice to attend the meter test in-person.7 A PG&E technician

later conducted a meter test on November 8, 2018, and found the meter was

operating properly.8 This meter test was completed prior to Mr. Cauchi’s arrival

at the Oregon House property. At Mr. Cauchi’s request, service at the Oregon

House property was shut off on November 13, 2018.

2. Procedural Background On April 22, 2021, Mr. Cauchi filed the instant case against PG&E, alleging

PG&E violated rules, laws or California Public Utilities Commission

5 The November 1, 2018 contains a $107.17 charge for electrical service and a $39.42 California Climate Credit. 6 Complaint, Attachment 1 at 2. 7 Ibid. 8 Id., Attachment 5 at 1 (PG&E Letter, dated November 13, 2018).


- 7 -

(Commission) orders for the following: (1) failure to turn off power at the

electrical meter on the Oregon House property after the November 21, 2016 fire,

allegedly causing the electrical meter to incur a dead short, (2) PG&E’s alleged

trespass on the Oregon House property on November 8, 2018, when a PG&E

technician tested the electrical meter in Mr. Cauchi’s absence despite

Mr. Cauchi’s request to be present during the meter test, (3) PG&E’s alleged

overbilling for electrical service at the Oregon House property from April 2017

through November 2018 as a result of intermittent smart meter malfunction, and

(4) PG&E’s violation of California Penal Code (Cal. Pen. Code) Section 632 for

recording his calls with a customer service representative without his consent.

Mr. Cauchi requests the Commission order PG&E to separate the billing for the

Oregon House and the Newcastle properties and provide reparation in the

amount of $3,200 to $3,4000 in allegedly erroneous charges billed to the Oregon

House property.9

An instruction to answer was issued on April 30, 2021. An expedited

complaint hearing was held on May 28, 2021.

Subsequently, the parties provided additional evidence at the request of

the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to verify various statements made

at the hearing. Mr. Cauchi provided the following information:

1. Page from Energy Statement for Oregon House Property for period May 24, 2017 to June 22, 2017, dated June 1, 2021;

2. Photo of overlapping first pages of Mr. Cauchi’s energy statements from 2017, dated June 1, 2021;

3. Photo of overlapping first pages of Mr. Cauchi’s energy statements from 2018, dated June 1, 2021;

9 Id., Attachment 1 at 2-3.


- 8 -

4. Page from energy statement at Newcastle and Oregon House properties from December 2018, dated May 28, 2021;

5. Mr. Cauchi’s hand-written notes on calls made to PG&E relating to the Oregon House property billing, dated June 1, 2021;

6. Mr. Cauchi’s spreadsheet summarizing Oregon House and Newcastle property billing from January 2017 to December 2018, dated June 1, 2021;

7. Photo of Oregon House property after fire, dated May 28, 2021;

8. PG&E service technician’s results for November 8, 2018 meter test at Oregon House property, dated May 28, 2021; and

9. Mr. Cauchi’s medical record of an injury, dated June 1, 2021.

PG&E provided the following additional information:

1. Record of Service Activity at Oregon House property, dated June 7, 2021;

2. Transcripts of Recorded Calls Between PG&E and Mr. Cauchi, dated June 7, 2021; and

3. PG&E Record of Customer Contact on June 4, 2018, dated June 7, 2021.

On June 25, 2021, the assigned ALJ set a second expedited complaint

hearing for July 14, 2021, to provide the parties with an opportunity to respond

to the information served after the hearing, and requesting additional

information.10 On July 1, 2021, the assigned ALJ reset the second expedited

complaint hearing for September 1, 2021 by ruling, at Mr. Cauchi’s request.

10 The assigned ALJ requested: (1) legible copies of Mr. Cauchi’s 2017 and 2018 bills from the Oregon House property, and (2) a declaration supporting PG&E’s transcribed calls.


- 9 -

On September 1, 2021, the second expedited complaint hearing was held to

provide the parties with an opportunity to respond to the new information. At

the hearing, Mr. Cauchi was provided with an opportunity to respond to the

PG&E employee who prepared the transcribed calls from June 4, 2018.

At the second expedited complaint hearing, Mr. Cauchi expressed concern

about the logistics of providing copies of his 2017 and 2018 energy statements.

As part of the discussion, PG&E agreed to provide copies of Mr. Cauchi’s 2017

and 2018 energy statements for the Oregon House property for the period at

issue.

On September 15, 2021, PG&E provided copies of the billing associated

with the Newcastle property account, which was combined with the Oregon

House billing statements from July 2018 to November 2018. The assigned ALJ

set a status conference to discuss the status of the 2017 and 2018 energy

statements by e-mail Ruling dated September 24, 2021. After further clarification

from the assigned ALJ by e-mail, PG&E served the separate bills for the Oregon

House property for the period from April 2017 to October 2017, on

September 30, 2021.

A status conference was held, on September 30, 2021, to discuss the

production of the energy use statements for the Oregon House property. At the

status conference, PG&E also agreed to provide a statement from

November 2017. PG&E served the November 2017 energy statement on

October 13, 2021. This matter was deemed submitted on October 13, 2021. This

decision is based on the complaint, response, testimony at the hearings, and the

additional information provided to the assigned ALJ as part of this proceeding.


- 10 -

3. Burden of Proof In review of the applicable law, California law has long held that the party

bringing a claim has the burden of proving that claim.11 The Commission follows

this rule in its complaint cases.12 California Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util.

Code) Section 1702 requires that a complainant must allege “an act or thing done

or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge

heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation or claimed

to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the

commission.” This means that the complainant, in this case Mr. Cauchi, has the

burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a majority of 51 percent or

more) that the complaint allegations are true.

4. Complainant’s Contentions Mr. Cauchi first contends that PG&E violated procedure with respect to

the fire at the Oregon House property in November 2016 when it failed to

disconnect power to the property.13 According to Mr. Cauchi, the main circuit

breaker did not trip during the fire, which allowed the dead short to travel back

to the meter.14 Mr. Cauchi alleges that the dead short caused the smart meter to

malfunction intermittently, which resulted in PG&E’s overbilling him from

November 2016 to October 2018, as discussed below.15 According to Mr. Cauchi,

11 Cal. Evid. Code § 500. 12 See In Complaint of Service-All-Tech, Inc. v. PT&T Co. (Cal.P.U.C., 1977) 83 CPUC 135, Decision (D.) 88223. 13 Complaint, Attachment 1 at 1. 14 Id., Attachment 1 at 3. 15 Ibid.


- 11 -

irregular and unreliable electrical service readings are a common and

widespread problem with PG&E’s electrical smart meters.16

Second, Mr. Cauchi contends that a PG&E technician trespassed at his

Oregon House property on November 8, 2018. Mr. Cauchi asserts that he

requested to be present during the scheduled meter test. Despite his request, the

PG&E technician failed to give him sufficient notice prior to conducting the test

and committed trespass by completing the meter test before Mr. Cauchi was able

to arrive at the property.17

Finally, Mr. Cauchi alleges that PG&E overbilled him for electrical service

at the Oregon House property during the period between April 2017 and

October 2018.18 At the hearing, however, Mr. Cauchi did not dispute the charges

from April 2017 to August 2017, during which time he admits contractors used

electricity to demolish and remove the remains of his burnt house. Mr. Cauchi

maintains, however, that after the demolition ended in August 2017, he no longer

resided at the Oregon House property and that there was no load from which to

draw electricity. Mr. Cauchi stated that he was surprised by a 24-page bill for

$1,869.85 on July 2, 2018, which included charges at both the Oregon House and

Newcastle properties.19 Mr. Cauchi stated that he visited the Oregon House

property, on July 10, 2018, and verified that the “main breaker was in the off

16 Id., Attachment 1 at 3 and Attachment 6 (Moneywatch article titled, “PG&E owns up to smart meter errors, but falls short of contrition,” dated April 27, 2010). 17 Id., Attachment 1 at 3. 18 Id. at 2. 19 Id., Attachment 1 at 2.


- 12 -

position and all subpanel breakers feeding the 20-amp temperature circuits

[were] off.”20

Mr. Cauchi described his bills in the following months as “ridiculous” and

“three times my home usage;” and claimed that “clearly the reporting from the

meter to the automated billing system is in error.”21 Mr. Cauchi urges the

Commission to find that the bills he incurred for electrical use on the property

from August 2017 to October 2018 were the result of erroneous smart meter

readings resulting from a dead short occurring in November 2016.22

At a second expedited complaint hearing held on September 1, 2021,

Mr. Cauchi objected to the admission of PG&E’s transcribed calls between

himself and two separate PG&E customer service representatives on June 4, 2018,

as violating Cal. Pen. Code Section 632. At the hearing, Mr. Cauchi both denied

making the calls to PG&E and stated that he had tried to call PG&E on

June 4, 2018, several times without being recorded and couldn’t get through,

then finally had to speak to a customer service representative in a call that

recorded his conversation.

5. Defendant’s Contentions PG&E denies violating any procedures related to the fire that burned

down the house at the Oregon House property on November 21, 2016. At the

hearing held on May 28, 2021, PG&E stated that it disconnected services to the

property on November 17, 2016, for nonpayment on the account.

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Id., Attachment 1 at 1-3.


- 13 -

PG&E also denies that its service technician’s visit to conduct an electrical

meter test at the Oregon House property on November 8, 2018, amounted to

trespass.23

Finally, PG&E denies that smart meter malfunction at the Oregon House

property resulted in erroneous billing for the period between April 2017 and

November 2018.24 After the hearing, PG&E provided evidence of the following:

(1) its record of services at the Oregon House property from November 17, 2016

through November 13, 2018, (2) transcripts from its June 4, 2018 recorded calls

with Mr. Cauchi along with the PG&E representative’s caller notes, and (3) the

record for Mr. Cauchi’s request to start service on June 4, 2018, to support its

claim that it correctly billed Mr. Cauchi’s during the period in dispute.

PG&E asserts that the meter test, conducted on November 8, 2018,

indicated that the meter was functioning properly. PG&E admits that the meter

test showed a local load that could not be accounted for. At the hearing PG&E

recommended that Mr. Cauchi investigate the source of any unaccounted-for

load on the property and maintained that it was the customer’s responsibility to

trace loads on their property.

6. Discussion Upon review, we find Mr. Cauchi failed to meet his burden to show that:

(1) PG&E violated any fire safety protocol, as discussed in Section 6.1, (2) PG&E

trespassed at the Oregon House property on November 8, 2021, as discussed in

Section 6.2, or (3) PG&E violated Cal. Pen. Code Section 632, as discussed in

Section 6.3. We also address the statute of limitations for recovery of reparations

23 Answer to Complaint at 2. 24 Ibid.


- 14 -

in Section 6.4. Finally, we find Mr. Cauchi met his burden of proof to show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the smart meter at the Oregon House

property malfunctioned from April 2017 to November 2018, leading to billing

error, and order PG&E to pay reparation in the amount of $2,589.26 within

60 days of the effective date of this decision, as discussed in Section 6.5.

6.1. PG&E Did Not Violate Fire Safety Protocols Mr. Cauchi first contends that PG&E violated its fire safety protocol on

November 21, 2016, when it failed to shut off power to the Oregon House

property, leading to a dead short. Mr. Cauchi does not cite to any specific

protocol or tariff. The record evidence in this proceeding, however, does not

support Mr. Cauchi’s allegations of a PG&E violation of fire safety procedure.

PG&E provided a record of service showing it disconnected electrical service at

the Oregon House property on November 17, 2016, for nonpayment, four days

before the fire destroyed the house on Mr. Cauchi’s property. Therefore,

Mr. Cauchi’s claim that the fire caused the smart meter at the Oregon House

property to dead short is unsupported by the record evidence. Accordingly, we

find that PG&E did not violate any rule, law, or order for failure related to the

fire which destroyed the house on Mr. Cauchi’s Oregon House property on

November 21, 2016.

6.2. PG&E’s Technician Did Not Trespass at the Oregon House Property When the Technician Conducted a Meter Test in Mr. Cauchi’s Absence

Next, we address Mr. Cauchi’s allegation that a PG&E employee

trespassed on the Oregon House property when conducting a meter test on

November 8, 2018. Trespass to land is a common law tort. The Commission

does not have jurisdiction to review damage claims for violations of tort


- 15 -

doctrines.25 Instead, “the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to reparations in

the form of a refund or adjustment to a utility bill.”26 Thus, Mr. Cauchi’s claim

for trespass fails for lack of Commission jurisdiction.

We will, however, review whether PG&E violated any rule, law, or order

of the Commission by entering Mr. Cauchi’s property to conduct the meter test

in Mr. Cauchi’s absence. It is uncontested that a PG&E meter technician entered

Mr. Cauchi’s property on November 8, 2018, to conduct an electrical meter test at

Mr. Cauchi’s request. PG&E’s Electrical Rule 16.A.12 grants PG&E personnel

access to the Oregon House property for the purpose of meter testing. A plain

reading of Rule 16.A.12, which states that

PG&E shall at all times have the right to enter and leave Applicant’s Premises for any purpose connected with the furnishing of electric service (meter reading, inspection, testing, routine repairs, replacement, maintenance, vegetation management, emergency work, etc.)

is consistent with the PG&E’s technician’s ability to access the smart meter

at the Oregon House property even in Mr. Cauchi’s absence. Accordingly, we

find PG&E did not violate any rule, law, or Commission order when a PG&E

technician entered the Oregon House property to test the electrical meter on

November 8, 2018.

6.3. PG&E Did Not Violate Cal. Pen. Code Section 632

Mr. Cauchi objected to the introduction of PG&E’s transcribed calls from

June 4, 2018, into the record of this proceeding during the second expedited

complaint hearing held on September 1, 2021. He asserted that the transcripts

25 See D.20-02-032 at 14. 26 Id. at 15.


- 16 -

were made from recordings of conversations made without his consent in

violation of Cal. Pen. Code Section 632, which prohibits the recording of a

confidential communications without the consent of all parties.

Cal. Pen. Code Section 632 does not apply “to the use of any instrument,

equipment, facility or service furnished pursuant to the tariffs of a public

utility.”27 PG&E is a public utility which provides customer service pursuant to

its tariffs, and therefore Cal. Pen. Code Section 632 is inapplicable to Mr. Cauchi’s

communications related to his utility service at the Oregon House property.

6.4. Billing Subsequent to April 22, 2018 Is Within the Statute of Limitations for Recovery of Reparations

The statute of limitations for recovery of reparations in complaints is three

years from the filing date of a complaint.28 Mr. Cauchi’s claim for reparation

from the period prior to April 22, 2018, is therefore barred by the statute of

limitations pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 736. However, the outstanding

charges for which Mr. Cauchi seeks relief were billed by PG&E from July 2018 to

November 2018, and are, therefore, within the statute of limitations for recovery

of reparations.

6.5. Reparation of $2,589.26 Is Awarded for Billing Errors on Energy Statements Associated with the Oregon House Property from July 2018 to October 2018

We now address Mr. Cauchi’s request for relief from billing error at the

Oregon House property. As discussed above, there is insufficient evidence to

support a finding that PG&E violated its fire safety protocols, leading to a dead

short during the fire at the Oregon House property. However, we will consider

27 Cal. Pen. Code § 632(e). 28 Pub. Util. Code § 736.


- 17 -

other evidence supporting a finding of smart meter malfunction, resulting in

billing error at the Oregon House property after April 22, 2018.

It is undisputed that the electrical meter at the Oregon House property

experienced communications issues from April 25, 2017 to August 23, 2017,

requiring estimated billing statements for this period. PG&E acknowledged

these communications issues by issuing a corrected billing for this period in its

energy statement dated July 2, 2018. The energy use for this period is consistent

with the use of ordinary power tools used for demolition work to remove the

remains of Mr. Cauchi’s house on the Oregon House property. Accordingly, we

find PG&E’s billing for energy use at Mr. Cauchi’s Oregon House property from

April 26, 2017 to August 23, 2017 accurate.

Next, we turn to the billing period from August 24, 2017 to April 18, 2018.

This represents the period after a PG&E service technician visited the Oregon

House property to address the smart meter noncommunication issue but prior to

the date when the power on the property was shut off. During this period,

PG&E did not bill Mr. Cauchi for energy use at the Oregon House property but

continued to provide energy.

We find that it is more likely than not that the smart meter at the Oregon

House property continued to malfunction during this period due to: (1) the

onsite smart meter’s history of malfunction, (2) the relatively high energy use

(ranging from $171.60 to $374.74) recorded at the property, (3) the lack of any

structure or other discernable load on the property, and (4) evidence of

tampering with the smart meter as suggested by the broken meter lock. PG&E’s

failure to bill Mr. Cauchi monthly energy statements during this period also

weighs in favor of awarding reparation for the amount backbilled on July 2, 2018.


- 18 -

For the next period at issue, from April 18, 2018 to June 4, 2018, all parties

agree that PG&E did not provide service to the Oregon House property.

Minimum use and other charges backbilled on July 2, 2018 for this period are

therefore in error.

Finally, we address the final billing period, from June 4, 2018 to

November 13, 2018. This represents the period starting from the date PG&E

restarted service to the Oregon House property through the period when

Mr. Cauchi requested the meter test, and ending on the date Mr. Cauchi

requested PG&E terminate service at the Oregon House property.

We find it more likely than not that Mr. Cauchi called to restart service at

the Oregon House property on June 4, 2018. We also accept as true the

statements in PG&E’s transcript of Mr. Cauchi’s calls with PG&E customer

service representatives, wherein PG&E recorded Mr. Cauchi’s statements

asserting there was some irrigation on the property and that Mr. Cauchi wished

to restart his service.

We do not, however, find sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Cauchi took

responsibility for the energy use charges on the Oregon House property prior to

the June 4, 2018. As discussed previously, Mr. Cauchi could not have known

about the high energy use charges accrued from August 24, 2017 to

April 18, 2018, as PG&E never billed Mr. Cauchi for this amount. We accept

Mr. Cauchi’s statement that he was “surprised” by the 24-page bill for Oregon

House and Newcastle properties on July 2, 2018 as true.

It is reasonable to believe that the smart meter malfunction at the Oregon

House property was not fully resolved by the meter technician’s visit on

August 23, 2017. PG&E provided no evidence of remedial actions taken to

address the broken meter lock, other than to terminate service to the property.


- 19 -

The remote activation of the meter on June 4, 2018 further suggests that any error

in the smart meter located on the property was not addressed.

The energy readings at the Oregon House property continued to remain

high, ranging from $67.75 to $302.97 from June 4, 2018 to November 13, 2018.

Even assuming Mr. Cauchi was aware of a water pump for irrigation on the

property, the energy use on the property is very high and erratic for solely

irrigation purposes.

Furthermore, we weigh Mr. Cauchi’s actions to address potential billing

error at the Oregon House property in favor of a finding of continued smart

meter malfunction. Mr. Cauchi visited his property after receiving the

July 2, 2018 bill and ordered a meter test. In response to the PG&E technician’s

finding that the smart meter was operating normally on November 8, 2018 and

acknowledgment that the meter was reading an unexplained load, Mr. Cauchi

cancelled his service at the Oregon House property. Mr. Cauchi has made

multiple calls to PG&E’s service center to resolve the billing error at his property

and, to this day, remains visibly frustrated by the electrical service readings from

the period in question.

This decision finds that Mr. Cauchi provided sufficient evidence to show,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that billing error occurred in PG&E’s energy

statements for the Oregon House property dated July 2, 2018 to

December 3, 2018, likely due to malfunction of the onsite smart meter.

Accordingly, this decision grants Mr. Cauchi $2,589.26 in reparation for billing

error. PG&E is ordered to provide Mr. Cauchi $2,589.26 in reparation within

60 days of the effective date of this decision.


- 20 -

7. Assignment of Proceeding Darcie L. Houck is the assigned Commissioner and Zita Kline is the

assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.

8. Waiver of Comment Period Under Rule 14.7(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,

the Commission may waive the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public

review and comment on the decision of the assigned ALJ in a complaint under

the expedited complaint procedure. Under the circumstances of this case, it is

appropriate to waive the 30-day period for public review and comment.

O R D E R IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Vincent J. Cauchi, Jr.’s request for relief against Pacific Gas and Electric

Company (U39E) is granted, in part.

2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E) must provide Vincent J.

Cauchi, Jr. $2,589.26 in reparation within 60 days of the effective date of this

decision.

3. Case 21-04-011 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated __________________, at San Francisco, California.

alj/zk1/nd3 proposed decision agenda id #20066 adjudicatory

Documents