Politicians Eager to Gain Glory in Battle for SDG

Given the enormous size of the proposal at hand--a possible public takeover of San Diego Gas & Electric Co.--the advice that Assemblyman Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista) offered to the San Diego County Water Authority earlier this month was eminently sound.

“Go forward, but go forward with caution,” Peace told the water board. “Resist that insatiable desire to jump on a white charger and flail at the monster from the north.”

That advice aside, several white steeds--each with a politician in the mount--already have appeared on the horizon. And--to extend Peace’s metaphor--the herd is almost certain to grow larger.

In the 3 1/2 weeks since SDG&E;’s board of directors voted to accept a proposed $2.4-billion merger with Southern California Edison, many local officeholders have stepped forward to voice concern or outright opposition to the deal, as well as to suggest possible alternatives.

Although the issue undeniably merits intense scrutiny and attention, local officeholders’ eagerness to link themselves to it also is understandable from a political perspective. The proposed buyout offer by Edison’s parent company, SCEcorp., has been Page 1 news for the past month and probably will remain so throughout much of 1989. More important, many political consultants, civic leaders and the officeholders themselves view the growing battle to stop the merger as being, at this point, tantamount to a no-lose proposition for those involved.

A Noble Fight

If the politicians block Edison’s takeover plan, the thinking goes, they will be heroes who helped preserve local control over the utility. And, even if they fail, they still could say that they waged a noble fight against insurmountable odds.

Or, as consultant David Lewis put it: “If you win, you win. And, if you lose, you still come off looking good.”

Not all elected officials agree with the analysis that the brewing political struggle over the merger is a no-risk operation. Some feel that it is too early to assess the political implications of such a sweeping, volatile issue.

“Right now, it’s like fresh meat has hit the Amazon River and the piranhas are devouring it,” said one San Diego City Council member who has deliberately remained in the background. “This thing can take too many turns down the road. That’s why I have no desire for a lot of ink on it.”

That concern, however, has not deterred many other local officials who already have positioned themselves in the forefront of the battle.

Arguably, no one has been more visible in that effort than San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor. Alarmed at the prospect of Rosemead-based Edison controlling a San Diego utility, O’Connor has been active on a number of fronts--urging SDG&E;’s directors to reconsider the merger, playing hardball with Edison’s chairman by refusing to meet with him, musing over the public takeover option and fueling the anti-merger momentum by suggesting that the city underwrite the Water Authority’s $250,000 feasibility study.

Those actions have been complemented--or, in some cases, simply duplicated--by the efforts of a phalanx of other local officials:

- State Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) has agreed to be the point man in Sacramento in the push for a change in state law needed to authorize the water board to own and operate a gas and electric company.

- Peace, saying he wants to be sure that all options are explored, has introduced legislation that would enable the Water Authority to purchase federally restricted hydroelectric power not available to private utilities.

- La Mesa Mayor Fred Nagel and Chula Vista Mayor Greg Cox have drawn headlines with their concerns over the proposed merger, with the latter being instrumental in the formation of a seven-member task force that, under the aegis of the San Diego Assn. of Governments (Sandag), will study that deal and other options. Other officials, although expressing displeasure with the proposed merger, have voiced equal wariness of a public takeover, noting that it could cost their cities millions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

The scrambling for field generalships in the merger battle reflects its perception as, if not a no-risk issue, at least a very low-risk fight in which potential dividends heavily outweigh liabilities.

“I haven’t found anyone--in government, business or the community--who thinks this merger is a good idea, other than some utility executives and stockholders,” San Diego City Councilman Ron Roberts said. “From that standpoint, it’s difficult to see any downside.”

By opposing or at least questioning the merger, local officials “can push all the right buttons,” political consultant Sara Katz explained. They can invoke the civic pride involved in having a city’s name included in a utility company’s title, while hewing to the virtually unassailable position that San Diego’s interests are better served through a locally controlled utility as opposed to one based in the Los Angeles area.

Although most observers see little political danger in opposing the merger, some argue that advocating alternatives to it does pose risk. Stirling said that if he is unable to gain approval of the legislation needed to make the public takeover option legally possible, that failure could be interpreted as a sign of political impotence on the part of the entire San Diego legislative delegation.