‘Sunshine’ Rules : PUC Wants Lobby Limits in SDG&E; Merger Review

The state Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday suggested unusual restrictions that would severely limit the lobbying of commissioners during the PUC’s upcoming review of the proposed merger between San Diego Gas & Electric and Rosemead-based Southern California Edison.

The proposed rules are designed to “ensure that no party gains an upper hand by an ‘off-the-record’ contact other parties do not know about and cannot, therefore, rebut,” according to PUC spokeswoman Carol Kretzer.

The “sunshine” rules would limit contact with five voting commissioners and Lynn Carew, the PUC administrative law judge who will conduct hearings on the proposed merger. Parties to that review have 30 days to suggest modifications, according to Carew, who made the recommendation Thursday.

Similar Action in Past

The proposed limits would apply to the two utilities, the PUC’s public staff, the city of San Diego, other government bodies, consumer groups and special-interest groups.

The PUC in the past has adopted similar rules during major proceedings, Carew said. It limited contact with commissioners during recent construction reviews of the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants.

But Thursday’s proposal was unusual because sunshine rules typically are proposed by intervenors, not the PUC.

“We acted at the beginning of this case and essentially without a motion or request,” Carew said. “Our rationale is that this case is of interest to a wide variety of people, some . . . of whom are totally unfamiliar with the process. We think these (limits) will help to level the playing field.”

The sunshine regulations drew praise from Michael Shames, executive director of Utility Consumers Action Network, a San Diego-based group.

“Believe me, the PUC needs these rules, especially in a major case like this,” said Shames, who had planned to request similar rules.

Forced to Notify Others

If the PUC adopts Carew’s proposal, parties who contact a PUC commissioner or Carew would be forced to notify “all other parties of the date, time and location where the contact took place (and) what subject was discussed,” Kretzer said. “The other parties then have a chance to rebut.”

In a related development Thursday, San Diego City Councilman Bruce Henderson suggested that SDG&E; had breached terms of the city’s franchise agreement by turning “de facto” control of the local utility over to Edison.

“Southern California Edison has established and is, in fact, operating a utility in this city,” according to Henderson, who suggested that the city seek a court order to prohibit SDG&E; from sharing “proprietary” information with Edison.

Henderson also suggested that the city levy a utility tax on SDG&E; that would help pay for the city’s upcoming review of the proposed merger.

Henderson’s suggestion came after UCAN’s Shames suggested that the city spend at least $500,000 to determine how the merger would affect San Diego. Henderson suggested that the city, which is strapped for cash, consider a utility tax to finance the studies.

“This is an expensive process, and experts are going to be needed,” Shames told council members.

“Financially, we’re under-gunned,” acknowledged Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who described the proposed merger as the most important issue to arise in San Diego during her political career.