Southern California Edison Co. is the majority owner of the now-closed San Onofre nuclear power plant near San Clemente. (David McNew / Getty Images)
By Jim Peltz
April 30, 2015
Southern California Edison Co. denied that a private meeting between one of its past executives and the state’s former top utilities regulator influenced the company’s nearly $5-billion settlement of costs covering the closed San Onofre nuclear power plant.
The settlement was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission last November. It calls for Edison and the plant’s minority owner, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., to cover about $1.4 billion of the costs while their ratepayers shoulder about $3.3 billion.
“We did not negotiate this settlement with any CPUC decision-maker,” SCE President Pedro Pizarro said in a statement Wednesday. “Our actions throughout the San Onofre settlement discussions were consistent with both the law and our ethical standards.”
His comments came as SCE, a unit of Rosemead-based Edison International, filed emails and other internal documents with the utilities commission related to the settlement that were requested by regulators.
The request stemmed partly from criticism of a private meeting in March 2013 between now-retired Edison executive Stephen Pickett and Michael Peevey, who was commission president at the time, during an energy conference in Poland.
Critics maintained that the private meeting, which Edison first confirmed in February, violated PUC rules surrounding so-called ex-parte communications with regulators and thus called for the San Onofre settlement to be revisited or for financial penalties to be levied against Edison.
In a call with Wall Street analysts on Tuesday, Edison International Chairman Theodore Craver Jr. said, “Peevey’s contact with us, and any subsequent contacts, did not have any influence on the parties who were actually involved in the settlement negotiations.”
To read entire story, click here.