Opinion ID: 2543420
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of Right to Object to Master Metering

Text: ¶ 19 Westside next argues that it submitted electrical plans to PacifiCorp in February 1998, which PacifiCorp accepted, showing master metering/sub metering and PacifiCorp waived any objection to master metering at the Broadway Lofts. We disagree. ¶ 20 Utah law is clear on the elements needed to find waiver: (1) A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right . . . . [T]here must be an existing right, benefit or advantage, a knowledge of its existence, and an intention to relinquish it. Geisdorf v. Doughty, 972 P.2d 67, 72 (Utah 1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Soter's Inc. v. Deseret Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 857 P.2d 935, 942 (Utah 1993) (other citation omitted)). PacifiCorp had no right to waive regarding Westside's purported request to master meter the Broadway Lofts. The PSC is the only body empowered, pursuant to rule 746-210, to ultimately find and grant an exemption to the master metering prohibition, not PacifiCorp. The utility has no discretion in granting an exemption. Utah Admin. Code Rule 746-210-1. ¶ 21 Furthermore, the record provides no factual support for establishing waiver on PacifiCorp's part. While Westside asserts that it submitted plans that PacifiCorp accepted that showed master metering the condominiums, there is no evidence of this. These plans were not presented at the evidentiary hearing and Westside's only witness testified he did not submit any such plans to PacifiCorp and had no knowledge of anyone else doing so. The documents Westside did submit at the hearing, one dated February 3, 1998, and the other apparently undated, were titled Requests for Electrical Service and do not refer to master metering. The logical inference from both documents, which state For each unit and In addition to the 101 units and the house panels, we have to provide 2 x 800 Amp [illegible] services for the future restaurants[,] respectively, is that individual metering, not master metering, was contemplated. ¶ 22 Thus, as a matter of both law and fact, Westside's waiver argument fails.