Utility Southern California Edison on Thursday argued that any change to the $4.7 billion settlement for the premature closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) would be both unfair and bad for its customers.
The California Public Utilities Commission in May reopened the 2014 settlement to determine whether it “is still reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest.” Thursday was the deadline to file opening briefs in the matter.
The San Diego-area plant’s two operational reactor units were taken offline in 2012 due to a leak in one of two new steam generators provided by Mitsubishi. The closure became permanent in 2013.
Under the settlement, state consumers would have to pay about $3.3 billion of the cost for shutting down the plant, with Edison customers paying $2.5 billion of that. SCE parent company Edison International and SONGS minority owner San Diego Gas & Electric must pay the remaining $1.4 billion.
“On November 20, 2014, the Commission found that the Settlement was reasonable, lawful, and in the public interest,” attorneys for SCE wrote in the 80-page brief to CPUC. “Consistent with the Commission’s policy in favor of settlements, the Commission found that the Settlement reflected a reasonable compromise that was within the range of possible outcomes if this matter had been fully litigated, that it was negotiated at arms’-length, that it received broad support, that it was consistent with Commission precedent, and that it complied with the law.”
The CPUC findings “were correct when the Commission made them, and they are even more strongly supported today,” the brief adds. It notes that SCE’s pre-settlement position had been that its customers pay $3.7 billion, and makes the case that moving ahead with consumer advocates’ litigation might have proved more expensive for those customers.
However, the agreed-upon settlement occurred more than a year before the commission fined Southern California Edison nearly $17 million for failing to report ex parte communications during a 2013 conference in Poland between an SCE executive and then-CPUC President Michael Peevey in which the settlement was reportedly discussed. In announcing the reopening of the settlement, the commission said it wanted to determine whether the settlement remained viable and fair following disclosure of the meeting.
Southern California Edison said in its brief Thursday the meeting in Warsaw had no impact on the “reasonableness” of the agreement, and that the state Office of Ratepayer Advocates and the consumer advocate organization The Utility Reform Network had concurred.
Consumer advocates, in a separate filing Thursday, said the Poland meeting does call into question the viability of the settlement, and that SCE should bear responsibility for the SONGS shutdown, the Los Angeles Times reported.
“Before the PUC can take any corrective steps on San Onofre, the circle of officials who knew about the secret San Onofre deal … have to step away,” attorney Michael Aguirre told the newspaper.
Southern California Edison said its residential customers are paying about $2 per month for investments in the facility made before its closure. “The portion of customers’ bills attributable to San Onofre is not related to the faulty steam generators, but to pay for other reasonable investments in a plant that provided safe, reliable, low-cost power for nearly 30 years,” SCE President Ron Nichols said in a press release.
The company noted that it is “aggressively pursuing arbitration” for compensation from Mitsubishi for the steam generators, and that 50 percent of that money (after legal fees) would be returned to its customers.
