Complainant is served by transformers larger than those needed to provide standard electric service.
Mr. Mueller testified that when a customer requests non-standard service, Respondent prepares documents listing the required facilities. These documents are developed under the tariff guidelines, which form the basis for the charges. Even without a rental agreement, Respondent is required by the tariff to charge for the facilities. He stated that the rental fee requirement is contained in the 1993 tariffs, which are still in effect. Mr. Mueller also sponsored Respondent’s Exhibit 2, 83 Ill. Adm. Code 280.100, which allows a utility to back-bill non-residential customers up to two years.
Mr. Mueller testified that maximum demand determines the size of the transformer to be installed at a single point. Complainant is being served at two points. One point is a community transformer bank. The amount Complainant is billed is based only on the size of the bank needed to serve his load. The other point is 3 167 kVA transformers. If Complainant had only a single point of service and that service was capable of handling its maximum load, there would be no rental charge.
Mr. Mueller explained that the distribution facilities charge on Complainant’s Exhibit 1 varies monthly, based upon maximum kilowatt usage. It recovers the cost of the standard transformer needed to serve a customer’s maximum demand. He stressed that Complainant’s bill reflects recovery only of the cost of the standard transformer. For the past 17 years, Complainant had been paying a distribution facilities charge, but had not paid rental to recover the cost of the non-standard transformers. The back-bill for $2081.28 reflects the unpaid rental. Complainant should have paid rent since 1993 when the non-standard facilities were installed, but due to a mistake by Respondent, it was not charged. Mr. Mueller could not explain Respondent’s failure to charge for the additional facilities.
Mr. Mueller explained that the non-standard facilities rental amount had increased to $86.72 since 1993, because Complainant’s standard facilities usage had decreased from 430 kw to less than 100 kw. As the usage decreased, so did the standard facilities rent. The standard facilities’ rent is credited against the nonstandard facilities rent. When the rent decreased, the amount of the credit also decreased, causing the non-standard facilities rent to increase.
In reply to Complainant’s question whether Respondent sent Complainant the contested bill because its usage declined due to the economic downturn, Mr. Mueller stated that Respondent is not recovering the cost of the facilities through monthly usage. Under the Act, these costs should be imposed upon the party who incurred them, which in this Docket is the Complainant.
b. Testimony of Mr. Mastache
Mr. Mastache testified that the audit process in this matter was initiated when Respondent realized that Complainant was receiving service from more than one point,
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.