[SCCC] N6AA CW Sprint Report

[Richard J Norton]

Richard J. Norton
21290 Hillside Drive
Topanga, CA 90290
(310) 455-1138
September 21, 2010

Consumer Affairs Branch
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2250
San Francisco, CA 94102

cc:  Southern California Edison Company
PO Box 6400
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-6400
ATTN: Director of Consumer Relations
ATTN: Chief Engineer
ATTN: General Counsel


Subject: Interference to Radio Reception from Unmaintained SCE Power
Lines in Topanga, and Inept Maintenance Procedures Resulting in
Unnecessary Costs Passed on to Consumers

2010 Interference Details

On March 5, 2010, I reported interference to radio reception from
unmaintained power lines to Southern California Edison. SCE is well
aware of their lines producing such interference, and has had staff
and procedures to repair their equipment for many years. Their “RTVI
Inspector” coordinated with me and apparently submitted three service
orders to repair faulty equipment.

Over 6 months later, nothing has been done. I spoke to a supervisor at
SCE's public inquiry number this morning (Craig #3866) who reported
this and his inability to get any estimate of when they might even
start.

Communication to SCE upper management about similar inaction in years
past has produced action as well as a now-forgotten promise of prompt
attention. I hope this might have a similar effect.

Inept Maintenance Activities Lead to Unnecessary Higher Costs

I have lived in my present house for nearly 40 years. I have reported
this type of interference many times (probably 25), and eventually
each time have eventually had it repaired.

The sad observation to be made is that the interference always comes
from essentially the same two sources. SCE repairs what appears to be
the same problem over and over again. They do not report the details
of what they actually repaired to me. They might fix one insulator one
year, and the adjacent one the following year, but the problems appear
to come from the same poles. Sending work crews to repair the same
problem every year or two for nearly 40 years does not seem to
showcase a well designed and preserved distribution system. The
engineering design of such distribution systems is straightforward,
and the principals have been known for years.

SCE should not be rewarded for poor engineering practices with the
ability to include costs of repetitive repair in their operating costs
which are then burdened with profit in the form of higher rates. I
request that the PUC reduce the profit that SCE be permitted until
their engineering standards are raised to reduce such unnecessary
repetitive actions.

Yours truly,



Richard J. Norton