January 16, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Rebuke For PUC as Consumers Get Half a Win

By Tom Elias

Thomas B. Elias, Columnistc

The bottom line on the 2012 shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Station was that by all sensible logic, consumers should never have had to pay anything for its eventual scrapping.

And yet, customers of two of the three largest electric utilities in California have paid for its closure every month since early 2014, when the state Public Utilities Commission – without so much as a public hearing – assessed consumers almost 70 percent of the $4.7 billion costs. So far, customers of the Southern California Edison Co. and the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. have paid more than $2 billion.

But the incident has ended up as the first time in modern memory where the scandal-ridden PUC essentially admitted a mistake of billion-dollar proportions. This one resulted from a well-documented secret meeting during a 2013 trade conference in Poland which saw Edison executives and former PUC President Michael Peevey agree on terms of the 2014 decision and evade public hearings. An ongoing criminal investigation has so far yielded no indictments.

The monthly payments by consumers will now end, under terms of a new settlement agreed to early this month by Edison and several consumer groups. Customers will save about $873 million over the next four years, eliminating the “nuclear decommissioning charges” item on their monthly bills. The average customer will be spared paying a total of more than $100.

The new deal should serve as a warning to both the PUC and other major California utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and the Southern California Gas Co. that commission decisions are not necessarily final and can be altered if consumer interests are sufficiently persistent and if those decisions are not reached with integrity.

Most persistent in pursuing cancellation of the secretive earlier settlement were former San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre and his law partner Maria Severson, who endured frequent mistreatment from PUC commissioners as they represented a group called Citizens Oversight in pursuing the new deal.

“Consumers should feel good about not paying for this anymore,” said Aguirre. “But we’re well aware that stopping future collections is not the same as recovering all the money that’s been collected.”

In all, consumers who were assessed about 70 percent of the total shutdown costs in the original settlement now have paid about 53 percent of those expenses and won’t pay more.

That doesn’t alter the moral reality that in a perfect world, consumers would have paid nothing beyond the approximately $500 million worth of replacement power the companies provided after San Onofre was disabled.

This morality is clear because the plant had to be closed due to failure of a steam generator built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries whose design Edison knew could fail.

In a 2004 letter to Mitsubishi executives, Edison Vice President Dwight Nunn wrote that “I am concerned that there is the potential that design flaws could be inadvertently introduced into the steam generator design that will lead to unacceptable consequences (e.g. tube wear and eventual tube plugging). This would be a disastrous outcome…”

Despite that foreknowledge, Edison installed a steam generator that produced precisely the “disastrous outcome” of which Nunn warned, leading to closure of San Onofre many years before its lifespan was expected to end. Edison later sued Mitsubishi for the full costs of the shutdown, but got only $125 million, a small fraction of what it sought.

Since consumers had nothing to do with the conduct of either Edison or Mitsubishi, it made no sense for them to pay any of the decommissioning costs. But they will not be getting back what they’ve already paid.

The new settlement thus represents a sort of compromise, with consumers ending up out only about two-thirds of what the first settlement called for. It also spells relief for Edison, whose corporate fortunes have been uncertain as long as the San Onofre case hung over it.

But it’s a defeat for the PUC and its current president, Michael Picker, who voted for the 2014 deal and later pledged transparency, while steadfastly refusing to explain his reasoning, even to legislative committees demanding details. The PUC also faces the possibility of an FBI investigation of this entire fiasco.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Related Posts

Santa Monica’s Future: Will Developers or Residents Rule? – Part 2 Our Downtown

January 14, 2022

January 14, 2022

This is the 2nd of five weekly articles looking at the history and current condition of Santa Monica’s beachfront environment...

Column: Let’s talk About the Soil

January 12, 2022

January 12, 2022

Everyone knows that we are undergoing a climate change not seen on the earth before. We all understand what is...

A New Years Glimpse Into Santa Monica’s Future: Will Developers or Residents Rule?

January 7, 2022

January 7, 2022

It’s a New Year, a make-or-break year for Santa Monica!! How much do you care about your city and it’s...

Opinion: Attorney General Spurs on Big 2022 Housing Battle

January 7, 2022

January 7, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There will be plenty of political battles next year, starting with likely reelection challenges to Gov....

Should California Have a Formal Right to Shelter?

January 3, 2022

January 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist On a de facto basis, Californians have had a right to shelter for many years. But...

SM.a.r.t Wishes for 2022

January 3, 2022

January 3, 2022

We wish for: All California residents to gain back the control of their Cities from Sacramento’s draconian power grab by...

SMa.r.t. 2021 Christmas Card

December 22, 2021

December 22, 2021

Dear Readers, SM.a.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) wish you all a joyous Holiday Season and a Wonderful...

Seismic Water Resiliency

December 16, 2021

December 16, 2021

This is the 2nd part of two-part article  (see smmirror.com/2021/12/sma-r-t-column-its-not-your-fault/ for the first part) Last week we wrote about the...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Not Your Fault

December 13, 2021

December 13, 2021

This is a two-part article Two large tectonic plates are engaged in a titanic multi-million year battle to slip past...

One of LA’s Best Omakase Counters is Tucked Away in a Santa Monica Hotel Lobby

December 8, 2021

December 8, 2021

Sushi Chef Masa Shimakawa’s Soko restaurant offers an extraordinary culinary experience By Sam Catanzaro Tucked into the lobby of a...

Building Conversion in Today’s Market Environment

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

Adaptive reuse, repurposing, and up-cycling of industrial and commercial buildings (“Conversion”) for greater in-demand uses are rapidly becoming the direction...

Opinion: Shore Hotel and Unite Here Local 11

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

By David G. Brown  While reading one of the mass text messages recently sent by Unite Here Local 11 in...

State’s Housing Solution Starts Happening

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist It’s happening. Despite the best efforts of California’s highly ideological, developer-financed state legislators, the solution to...

Opinion: SB 9, 10: The Rebellion Begins

November 19, 2021

November 19, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist It was inevitable from the moment Gov. Gavin Newsom in mid-September signed this year’s two most...