9 p.m., Feb. 22
CPUC group wants to protect consumers on San Onofre charges
Division of Ratepayer Advocates says Edison and SDG&E should remove nuclear facility charges from customers' rates
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), a wing of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), representing consumer interests, today (June 25) filed a motion urging the CPUC to direct Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to remove from their customers' rates the majority of San Onofre-related revenues except those essential to safety and security. Since Edison decided recently to close the nuclear facility, debate has heated up about whether shareholders or ratepayers will be hit with various San Onofre-related costs. The DRA wants to protect consumers. However, the full commission, which has few such leanings, makes the final decision.
In the filing, the DRA said, "The Commission has a duty under Public Utilities Code 451 to ensure that all utility charges are just and reasonable. Allowing a non-operational plant to be part of the rate base, and charging ratepayers expenses for [a] non-operational plant plant, is so clearly unreasonable that failure to remove [San Onofre] costs from rates immediately would be a violation of Section 451."
Unfortunately, the DRA is not powerful inside the CPUC. However, recent commission appointments may be slowly moving toward a pro-consumer stance. Stock of Sempra Energy, parent of SDG&E, rose 0.95% to $80.99 today and has not moved in after-hours trading. Stock of Edison International, parent of SCE, rose 0.89% to $46.51 and has not moved after-hours. However, the general market was strong today and those moves may mean nothing.
More like this:
- Will San Onofre settlement help ratepayers? — March 27, 2014
- Study: CPUC and Edison collaborated to scam ratepayers — July 5, 2013
- Filing: SDGE, SCE ratepayers getting shafted over San Onofre — Feb. 2, 2013
- SDG&E, the IOU WEBA Application, and Proposition 16 — May 23, 2010
- Uninsured Wildfire Billings Still Tied Up in Negotiations — May 19, 2010