CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013, OR THEREAFTER
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“MESSAGE TO PUC: CHARGE EDISON FOR SAN ONOFRE”
More consumerism from the California
Public Utilities Commission – that was a fond hope of at least some of the
voters who gave Jerry Brown a rare third term in the governor’s office.
So far, they’ve been disappointed,
even though Brown appointees now make up a majority of the five-member
commission that decides what Californians pay for electricity, natural gas and
(in some places) water.
Under Brown's appointees, the
commission has encouraged a profusion of huge solar thermal energy projects
guaranteed to fatten the coffers of companies like Pacific Gas & Electric
and Southern California Edison. It has done little to punish PG&E for the
negligence leading to the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion that killed
eight and destroyed many more homes. It has kept secret the costs customers
will eventually pay for several new power sources. And more.
This is California’s most powerful
regulatory agency because once they’re appointed, commissioners can’t be
removed even by the governor who named them. Now comes a rare opportunity for
the PUC to prove it is just as interested in the welfare of state residents and
small business as it is in helping giant utility companies.
That chance sprang up when Ted Craver,
chairman of Edison’s parent holding company, announced unexpectedly in early
June that his firm will retire the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station beside the I-5 freeway on the Orange-San Diego county line. The plant
is partially owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Co., but majority owner
Edison operates it.
Before that announcement, most effects
of San Onofre’s troubles were in the hands of the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which waffled for many months over whether to let the plant
restart. It has produced no electricity since early 2012, when a leaking
generator tube released a small amount of radioactive steam into the
atmosphere.
That quickly raised fears of a rerun
of Japan’s Fukushima power plant disaster, in the long term the most
frightening aspect of the monster tsunami that struck northeast of Tokyo in
2011.
Ironically, it was a Japanese firm –
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – which built the generator that failed. Edison and
Mitsubishi are currently battling over how much that company should pay as a
consequence of all the problems caused by failure of its $700 million component.
Edison has said the San Onofre
problems came as a surprise, but a 2004 letter from a company executive shows
the firm may have known years earlier there could be design flaws in
replacement steam generators. Yet Edison still certified the new generator as a
like-for-like replacement. The letter was released in May by Democratic U.S.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, who pushed for extensive federal hearings while Edison was
still trying to get the plant at least partially reopened.
The issue for the PUC now is how much
consumers should pay for the complex, lengthy process of taking down the plant
and storing its high-level waste on site.
News stories on financial aspects of
the shutdown sometimes mention that San Onofre’s owners over decades have paid
more than $2.7 billion into a plant-retirement fund. But that’s not really
company money; it all came from customers, built into electricity rates just as
retirement expenses are for every nuclear power plant in America.
Now it turns out that amount is not
enough; there may be another $1 billion or so in costs. The PUC will decide
whether consumers or company shareholders pick up that expense.
The answer is obvious: the company
should pay. Yes, many of its shareholders are senior citizens on fixed incomes
who depend on steady dividends. But shareholders put in place the executives
who let the generator tube problem fester for years while they hoped it would
just go away.
Like most corporate shareholders, they
periodically elect the directors who hire management. So if management failed,
that is ultimately their responsibility. So shareholders should now pay all
expenses beyond the billions consumers have already kicked in.
If the PUC doesn’t decide the issue in
just that way, it will be continuing the consistent pro-corporate,
anti-consumer stance it has adopted throughout PG&E’s San Bruno penalty
process and many other questions for most of the last 40 years. By contrast,
making Edison pay would be a signal things may be changing.
-30-
Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most'
Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most'
Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It,” now
available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment