03/08/2013 11:15 AM
Notice is given by the Administrative Law Judge of the attached memorandum containing additional questions from Commissioner McCabe to be answered by Joel T. Harris and Commonwealth Edison Company. Each party shall file its responses accompanied by a sworn, notarized verification within 7 days of service. \\\ Thank you for the answers submitted by the Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) in
response to my February 21 questions. Those answers addressed my questions in part but raised
new questions that should be addressed by both parties to further explain the strange procedural
history of this case. I request an answer to all questions within seven days of service. The
responses should be thorough, detailed, and accompanied by a sworn and notarized verification.
FOR JOEL T. HARRIS (“COMPLAINANT”):
1. When ComEd first tested your meter (on or about March 24, 2011), did ComEd perform
the test in your presence?
a. If not, did you give consent for the meter to be tested outside your presence?
FOR COMED (“RESPONDENT”):
1. Your response to Question 3 in the prior set of questions, which asked whether ComEd
offered the Complainant an opportunity to be present during the first meter test, indicated
that you generally “attempt to coordinate with customers to schedule testing” but that the
Complainant was not present during that test. We note that the coordination of schedules
is not the same as ensuring either a customer’s presence or the customer’s specific
consent that testing occur outside the customer’s presence. Please provide any manuals,
standard operating procedures, or other guidance documentation that directs ComEd
employees and/or agents on how to respond to a customer’s request for a meter test.
a. If no such manuals, standard operating procedures, or other guidance
documentation exists, please explain how ComEd ensures that its responses to
customer complaints regarding meter testing are handled appropriately,
consistently, and in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.
2. Your response to Question 1 in the prior set of questions also notes that a ComEd
technician “was directed to contact the building manager, not Complainant.” Who so
directed the technician?
02/21/2013 1:48 PM
Notice is hereby given that the Administrative Law Judge, on her own motion, reopened the record pursuant to Section 200.870 of the Rules of Practice (83 Ill. Adm. Code 200.870). \Notice is also given by the Administrative Law Judge of the attached memorandum containing questions from Commissioner McCabe to be answered by Commonwealth Edison Company. Commonwealth Edison Company shall file its responses accompanied by a sworn, notarized verification within 7 days of service. \\\INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: BONITA BENN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FROM: ANN MCCABE, COMMISSIONER
SUBJECT: QUESTIONS FOR RESPONDENT IN DOCKET NO. 11-0461
After a review of the record in this case, some outstanding issues appear worthy of exploration. I am forwarding questions for the Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”), with the hope that such questions would allow us to more thoroughly explore and evaluate the merits of the case. I request an answer to all questions within seven days of service. The responses should be thorough, detailed, and accompanied by a sworn and notarized verification.
1. According to the test result submitted by ComEd as Exhibit 1 on January 11, 2012, ComEd had information as early as April 11, 2011 (two months before the formal case was filed) that the meter was allegedly not malfunctioning. Why did ComEd wait nine months to claim that the meter in question was not malfunctioning?
a. Did ComEd communicate these test results to Joel T. Harris (“Complainant”) or to the Commission at any time prior to January 11, 2012?
b. If so, when?
2. Did ComEd or its agents conduct any tests or prepare any reports connected to this case other than the specific tests and reports filed by ComEd as exhibits on January 11, 2012?
a. If so, please submit all records, documents, or discussions related to those tests or reports.
3. Did ComEd offer Complainant an opportunity to be present or to have a representative present when it conducted field tests of the meter at Complainant’s residence?
4. Did ComEd offer Complainant an opportunity to be present or to have a representative present when it conducted tests of the meter after it was removed from Complainant’s residence?
06/03/2012 5:00 PM
Deadline for Commission action.
01/11/2012 11:00 AM
Evidentiary Hearing. HEARD & TAKEN. EXHIBTS ADMITTED IN HARD COPY: [Complainant Exhibit A: Copy of ComEd Refund 3/30/11: $597.49
Complainant Exhibit B: ICC Letter dated 1/4/11 to Harris re: informal complaint
Complainant Exhibit C: ComEd Letter dated 1/11/11 to Harris re: correct billing
Complainant Exhibit D: Public Utilities Act, Section 9-252.1
Complainant Exhibit E: Statute and regulations to support Complaint
Complainant Exhibit F: List of documents to be requested in the event of an appeal
Complainant Exhibit G: Complainant’s ComEd billing statements
Complainant Exhibit H: Complainant’s ownership documents
Complainant Exhibit I: Calculation of requested refund][Respondent Exhibit 1: Meter Shop Test
Respondent Exhibit 2: Field Meter Test
Respondent Exhibit 3: Foreign Load Test
Respondent Exhibit 4: Meter Reading History for Meter 142037208
Respondent Exhibit 5: Informal Complaint
Respondent Exhibit 6: ComEd Account Activity Statement
Respondent Exhibit 7: Respondent’s ComEd billing statements
Respondent Exhibit 8: ComEd Gas Meter 997151244]
01/11/2012 11:00 AM
Respondent’s Objection to Complainant’s reading from statute introduced as Exhibit D and interpreted by Complainant, overruled and noted for the record.
Respondent’s Objection to Complainant alleging ALJ and Counsel would not listen to Complainant’s introduction of statute in previous pre-hearing conference, sustained and stricken from the record.
12/15/2011 11:00 AM
EVIDENTIARY HEARING. CONTINUED & RESCHEDULED TO 1/11/12 @ 11AM.
08/31/2011 2:00 PM
Hearing went as scheduled & Continued Generally.
07/20/2011 11:00 AM