Self-Serving Deregulation

* Re “Deregulation Didn’t Foster Competition,” Feb. 7: Perhaps the authors of California’s 1996 utility deregulation law stole a page from the 1996 Telecommunications Act in Washington. The Telecommunications Act was yet another major law announced with a PR blitz promising to increase competition. In practice, it cleared the way for an unprecedented wave of mega-mergers that consolidated the number of companies that dominate the media from roughly 23 to 10--thus severely limiting competition. To Californians feeling pinched by the utility crisis, the double talk must sound familiar.

Once again, we see corporate lobbies with PR voices concealing the self-serving provisions of laws that they have shaped to their own advantage. Who is looking after the public interest amid these Orwellian statements?

JOHN BARBER

Long Beach

*

Re “Legislators to Promote Energy Conservation,” Feb. 6: Those of us who have disciplined ourselves to conserve energy, from the time of the Arab oil embargo in 1973, should not be made to regret our efforts. Nor should those of us who have replaced nearly all of our energy-guzzling incandescent lightbulbs with energy-miser fluorescent bulbs. If enacted, the legislative proposal asking us to further reduce our usage by 10%, or miss out on a tax break or a rebate, would be grossly unfair.

ELLEN STERN HARRIS

Executive Director

Fund for the Environment

Beverly Hills

*

To resolve the statewide power crisis George Skelton said that what we needed was another Gov. Pete Wilson, or perhaps a dictator (Feb. 1). We had a similar complex, major problem in California: water supply. It took the courageous leadership of Gov. Pat Brown, not a dictator, to work through by innovative political means an eminently successful set of solutions.

ARNOLD MILLER

Fullerton

*

Re the state’s proposal to buy transmission lines, Feb. 8: There’s an old saying that applies here: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. After decades of reliable and fairly cheap electricity, politicians let the fox in the henhouse. Now, in an effort to dance around the issue, they are proposing to buy transmission lines. If your car won’t run because someone stole the engine, you don’t solve the problem by buying a new set of tires. It’s the generators, stupid!

ROBERT PEREZ

Rancho Cucamonga

*

Referring to the utilities’ parent firms, your Feb. 7 editorial makes the assertion that a California Public Utilities Commission-sponsored audit found that “the holding companies milked the utilities of billions in cash that might have been used to avoid much of the debt.” To the contrary, the audit confirmed that Southern California Edison used proceeds from deregulation-related activities appropriately and in full compliance with guidelines.

SCE was forced by the state to sell its gas-fired plants in the L.A. basin. Not one cent of “profit” on these sales went to Edison International. Instead, the depreciated book value of the plants, which represented our investors’ original investment, was returned to them in the manner prescribed by the PUC, according to its guidelines for a balanced capital structure at the utility. The amount over this investment, approximately $600 million, will be accounted for by the PUC in determining the end of the rate freeze. Previous audits have also found complete compliance by Edison International with the rules on affiliate transactions.

Investors in utilities are typically individuals of modest means. It is irresponsible to suggest that their investment somehow should have been commandeered to subsidize the consumption of electricity.

THOMAS J. HIGGINS

Senior VP, Edison International

Rosemead