SDG&E;’s Rates in South Orange County

Your Feb. 17 article entitled “Sparks Fly as Utilities Vie for South County Area” is rife with inaccuracies, errors and misrepresentations.

It is true that San Diego Gas & Electric’s rates to some classes of customers are higher than Southern California Edison’s. I would question a reporter who did not write about the rate differential. However, I must also question an article which is inaccurate and clearly biased.

The article begins with a reference to a customer’s unusually high energy bill, with the cutline under her photograph stating that this year’s rate is much higher than the rate the customer paid last year. The figures in the cutline are completely wrong. . . .

The customer in the picture increased her energy usage 260% (correct figure) over the previous January. This was most likely due to this winter’s unusual cold, during which most of our customers doubled and tripled their energy consumption as they turned up the heat.

The reporter went on to say the city of Laguna Beach has received more than 500 letters, post cards and telephone calls from residents who want to see a change in their electric utility.

She did not note that Edison sent those post cards to our customers in South Laguna, urging them to be sent to the Laguna Beach City Council. She does mention a letter-writing campaign much deeper in the story.

Two of the three charts pictured in the article are incorrect. The larger of the charts does not carry out to 1988, nor does it show correct rate information for 1987. If this had been done, the chart would have shown this January’s decrease in SDG&E; rates and the Jan. 1 increase in Edison’s rates. . . .

The story failed to note the difference between a franchise and a service boundary. It is the boundary which must be changed by the PUC, not the franchise. Franchises are negotiated between the utility and the local governing entity. They set down the terms under which the utility will provide the community’s service. The boundary is determined by the PUC and gives the utility the right to serve the area. It is the boundary which is at issue in South Laguna, not the franchise. . . .

The story reports that Edison said it “has offered SDG&E; $2 million for its South Laguna lines. SDG&E; has rejected the offer.” The truth is that we have never, at any time, received an offer--verbal or written--from Edison for our facilities in South Laguna. . . .

The reporter referred to a December SDG&E; shareholder meeting which she wrote was held at the “elegant Ritz-Carlton.” The meeting was held at the Dana Point Resort.

I realize that we will not always receive “good press.” There are times when “negative” stories are warranted.

What I would like to see, however, is fair, factual and unbiased reporting of those stories.

MAURICE LUQUE

Corporate Communications Director

San Diego Gas & Electric

San Diego