Here's something you might be interested in.
San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre learned today (Feb. 5) that Southern California Edison (SCE) has still not made a filing that should have been critical in its California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) general rate case that ended late last year. A CPUC administrative law judge granted SCE a stunning 18.6% rate increase to begin taking effect this year. But the judge didn't pay significant attention to a critical factor: in 2005, SCE got the OK from the commission to put into effect its steam generator replacement program. SCE had a plan to replace four old generators at San Onofre with four new ones. But two years later, not one of the new steam generators was operative. SCE was supposed to file whether or not this program was cost-effective. Aguirre asked the company today if it had made this filing. It admitted it had made no such filing, and wouldn't do so until March of this year. But it had been granted the huge rate increase in 2012, even though the steam generators had already failed. How can SCE say this March that the steam generator replacement program was cost-effective? It was a disaster.
It appears that SCE stalled the filing until the rate case was approved, suggests Aguirre. Ratepayers have coughed up $700 million during this period in which SCE was not coming forth with this reasonableness review.
San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre learned today (Feb. 5) that Southern California Edison (SCE) has still not made a filing that should have been critical in its California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) general rate case that ended late last year. A CPUC administrative law judge granted SCE a stunning 18.6% rate increase to begin taking effect this year. But the judge didn't pay significant attention to a critical factor: in 2005, SCE got the OK from the commission to put into effect its steam generator replacement program. SCE had a plan to replace four old generators at San Onofre with four new ones. But two years later, not one of the new steam generators was operative. SCE was supposed to file whether or not this program was cost-effective. Aguirre asked the company today if it had made this filing. It admitted it had made no such filing, and wouldn't do so until March of this year. But it had been granted the huge rate increase in 2012, even though the steam generators had already failed. How can SCE say this March that the steam generator replacement program was cost-effective? It was a disaster.
It appears that SCE stalled the filing until the rate case was approved, suggests Aguirre. Ratepayers have coughed up $700 million during this period in which SCE was not coming forth with this reasonableness review.