City, Consumer Group Fight Review Deadline in SCE-SDG&E; Merger

The city of San Diego and a local consumer group are opposing a proposal that calls for state regulators to complete their review of San Diego Gas & Electric’s proposed merger with Southern California Edison by March 30, 1990.

In a filing made last week with the state Public Utilities Commission, the utilities suggested that their proposed review schedule included ample time for merger critics to voice concerns to regulators. “While our proposed schedule is not a leisurely one . . . it can hardly be characterized as a ‘rush to judgment,’ ” according to the filing.

The March 30, 1990, deadline coincides with a “drop dead” date that the two utilities included in their merger agreement, which was announced in November. The utilities have maintained that either company could abandon the deal if it is not completed by then.

However, the proposed hearing schedule has drawn strong opposition from the city and from Michael Shames, executive director of Utility Consumers Action Network, a San Diego-based consumer group.

Wants Review Extended

The consumer group has asked commissioners to extend their review of the proposed merger until February, 1991, nearly a year longer than suggested by Edison and SDG&E.; The city of San Diego believes that the review should be extended until December, 1990, according to William S. Shaffran, deputy attorney for the city of San Diego.

PUC Administrative Law Judge Lynn Carew will hear arguments on the proposed review schedule in a preliminary hearing Thursday in San Diego. It is unclear when Carew will set a deadline for the review.

SDG&E; and Edison have been arguing for a shorter review, while the utility consumers’ group, the city and other intervenors who question the need for a merger have been pressing Carew to approve a lengthier proceeding.

The schedules proposed by the city and the consumers’ group are driven largely by a disagreement between the utilities and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, a PUC staff group that will issue a report on the proposed merger.

Edison and SDG&E; maintain that the PUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates could complete its review and issue a report by July 17 of this year. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates, however, has maintained that it cannot complete its report until late this year.

Shames said Monday that the utility consumers’ group needs two months to gather testimony for its report to the PUC. However, the group can’t begin that review until after the Division of Ratepayer Advocates issues its report, Shames said. “That’s our major stumbling block with the schedule” presented by the utilities, Shames said.

The city and the consumers’ group also are arguing that Edison and SDG&E; have failed to address significant issues in testimony. “UCAN feels that Edison’s (merger application) is incomplete, as do a lot of other intervenors who believe that a lot of proper issues were not addressed,” Shames said.

The city and the consumers’ group have argued in PUC filings that the utilities have failed to address the proposed merger’s effect on competition in the electric utility industry and whether there are alternatives to the merger that would benefit customers.