Roger, we are having a factual dispute about the relative size of generation and
of T&D costs in utility rates. And the facts are indisputably on my side.
But I want to take up one of your points:
Roger Odisio wrote:
(snip)
> My impression is that of all the state to deregulate so far, Calif. has handled
> it especially badly (been most utility friendly), but surely they disallowed
> more costs that otherwise would have been collected from ratepayers under
> regulation, than PG&E is likely to recover in new rate increases for T&D. If
> you say not true, then Calif. will indeed jump to the head of the class as
> deregulation dunces.
>
>
Roger, is there an "if" missing in what you meant to say: "... but surely IF
they disallowed ..." ?
I'm going to respond as if the "if" were there. Forgive me if I'm missing your
meaning.
California did NOT disallow nuclear costs, for PG&E or for Edison. The California
utilities (including San Diego G&E, relatively small) were awarded around $28
billion (with a "b") in stranded costs, of which about $14 billion was for the
nukes. And the utilities, besides being fully paid off by the customers for the
utility investment in the nukes, got to keep the ownership of the nukes. They
continue to run, and will continue to run. In addition, both Edison and PG&E got
on-going operating subsidies for the nukes.
So California is at the head of the class for deregulation dunce.
