Opinion: Nothing shady about the deal on closing the San Onofre nuclear plant

To the editor: The Times failed to recognize key provisions of the San Onofre nuclear plant closure settlement and mischaracterized events leading to the agreement. (“A tainted settlement on San Onofre closing costs,” editorial, Aug. 17)

The settlement ensures customers are not paying for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ faulty steam generators from the time they failed. The roughly $2 per month customers pay on average is for other investments in the plant over the nearly 30 years it provided safe, reliable and low-cost power.

We are aggressively pursuing claims against Mitsubishi, the steam generators’ manufacturer, and will share any recovery equally with our customers. Already, customers have been credited $293 million from an insurance recovery obtained on their behalf — also a condition of the settlement.

Contrary to the editorial, the settlement resulted from discussions over 10 months with key consumer advocates that were far more extensive and thoughtful than a single, prior conversation with a former California Public Utilities Commission official.

Ron Nichols, Rosemead

The writer is president of Southern California Edison.

..

To the editor: It’s outrageous that Edison thinks ratepayers should cover any portion of the cost of decommissioning the San Onofre nuclear plant. Put it another way, customers should not have to clean up Edison’s junk.

Did ratepayers have a share in profits at any phase of operation? Did ratepayers have any part of engineering mistakes? Did ratepayers have any part in overseeing maintenance of the reactors? Ratepayers did pay for any services delivered to them by Edison at rates set by the Public Utilities Commission.

So why not for once let Edison be honest to the people without whom there would be no need for it at all?

Paul J. Henneberry, Hemet

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook