PUC Promises Public a Role in SDG&E; Review

A state Public Utilities Commission official promised Friday to hold “as many public participation hearings as possible” in San Diego during the agency’s upcoming review of Southern California Edison’s proposed merger with San Diego Gas & Electric.

PUC Administrative Law Judge Lynn Carew said copies of “testimony, exhibits and other documents” generated by the PUC review will be stored and available for public viewing at the downtown branch of the San Diego Public Library.

During a lengthy pre-hearing session Friday in San Diego, Carew also ordered SDG&E; and Edison to describe the “nature and extent” of their business dealings since the merger was announced in November. Carew ordered utility lawyers to detail the role that Edison executives have played “in SDG&E;’s daily operations and management decision-making.”

Complaint by UCAN

Carew’s order followed a complaint by San Diego-based Utility Consumers Action Network that SDG&E; and Rosemead-based Edison have ignored state regulations that prohibit the transfer of proprietary information.

Joseph Malkin, SCE’s Los Angeles-based attorney, argued that the “great deal” of information exchanged so far was “essential . . . to prepare for this (PUC) proceeding. . . . There is no ‘de facto’ control of SDG&E; by Edison.”

Carew on Friday also refused to adopt Edison’s proposed hearing schedule. That “expedited” schedule suggested that the PUC’s extensive review be completed by Dec. 27. Carew, who will dictate a schedule during an upcoming pre-hearing in San Diego, complained that Edison’s proposed schedule left “little time” for her to write a decision that the full PUC would use to approve, amend or reject the proposed merger.

Edison’s “unusually ambitious” schedule was driven by the desire to complete the proposed merger before a March 31, 1990, “drop dead date” that was included in the merger agreement, Malkin said.

Malkin also complained that a lengthier hearing schedule could jeopardize the merger “because there’s more chance for some external event to take place that (would change) the value of the deal.”

However, Deputy City Atty. William Shaffran contended that the March 31, 1990, deadline “should have no effect whatsoever” on the PUC’s review.

‘Level the Playing Field’

In a brief speech during the session, Mayor Maureen O’Connor demanded that the PUC “level the playing field by strictly limiting and supervising the expenditures made by all parties in this takeover effort.” O’Connor in recent weeks has attacked Edison as a free-spending company that expects to spend $16 million to prove its case to the PUC.

O’Connor also asked the PUC for an “accounting” of discussions between regulators and utility executives involved in the merger.

During the hearing, Carew refused to immediately institute “sunshine” rules that would severely restrict the lobbying of PUC officials. Instead, she ordered parties to the review to study proposed regulations that are expected to be adopted in 30 days.

The PUC took the unusual step of taking two “public advisers” to the meeting, largely because O’Connor had invited San Diegans to attend the meeting. The advisers counseled a handful of San Diegans on the complexities of the upcoming review. Pre-hearing sessions such as Friday’s meeting in San Diego generally are attended only by attorneys, utility representatives and consumer group leaders.

The public advisers will return to San Diego on Thursday and Friday to conduct workshops that will explain the public’s role in the decidedly complex review.