SDG&E; Told to Open Secret Files on Merger

The state Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday ordered San Diego Gas & Electric to make public a foot-tall stack of previously secret documents that SDG&E; used in 1988 as its board of directors pondered a merger offer from Southern California Edison.

Barring an appeal from SDG&E;, the public could get a rare, inside look at the decision-making process that led the utility’s directors to accept Edison’s merger bid. The proposed merger now is under review by the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The documents also are expected to offer more information on why San Diego businessmen Charles (Red) Scott and O. Morris Sievert protested the proposed merger by resigning from SDG&E;’s board in late 1988. During a previous deposition, Scott testified that Edison executives improperly induced SDG&E; board members to support the now-controversial merger.

However, both Scott and Sievert declined to answer many questions that the city of San Diego raised during depositions in 1989 because the PUC had not yet ruled on SDG&E;’s contention that the documents contained proprietary information.

Wednesday’s ruling clears the way for the city to use the documents next week when its attorneys resume depositions of Scott and Sievert. The depositions evidently will be open to the public because of the highly unusual ruling by three PUC administrative law judges.

The PUC order “means that we can now go forward with the depositions without having to close off the rooms” to the public, assistant City Atty. Deborah Berger said. “And, we get to see some information that we haven’t seen before.”

The city contends that the depositions of Sievert and Scott, when coupled with the corporate documents, will buttress its contention that the proposed merger between SDG&E; and Edison is not in the best interests of San Diegans.

Reed maintained that the documents will not affect promises by SDG&E; and Edison that the merger will produce lower rates and better service for SDG&E;’s existing customers.

“We weren’t attempting to keep these confidential because they were contrary to our merger case,” Reed said. “They were confidential because they have business information that we thought competitors should not have or that were irrelevant to the merger.”

“They may well produce a story in the press, but they don’t go to the merits of the merger,” said Reed, who maintained that anti-merger forces will use the documents for “public relations purposes.”