To the editor: Edison International’s utility, Southern California Edison (SCE), understands that electric bills are a growing concern. We continue to work with California regulators to achieve fair, transparent rates. Your editorial on ways to address higher electric bills paints a misleading picture for customers.
Since 2020, unprecedented wildfire conditions, extreme heat and volatile commodity prices have caused SCE’s rates to outpace inflation. In a few years, we anticipate rate changes to return to levels that are at or below inflation (as they were from 2001-2019).
Also, the suggestion to move from an investor-owned to a public utility structure is misguided. A regulated business model that provides the opportunity to earn a fair rate of return is critical to raising capital to meet California’s climate targets. A government takeover would shift liabilities of operating the grid onto local governments, reduce access to capital markets and create uncertainty, all of which lead to higher costs (and rates).
Edison International shares the goals outlined in this editorial — to safely deliver reliable, affordable electricity while achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. We need viable options to get there.
Pedro J. Pizarro, Rosemead
The writer is president and chief executive of Edison International.
..
To the editor: I live in Anaheim, which has a municipal electric utility. My rates are dramatically lower than those cited in the editorial. This is due in part to the city’s regrettable reliance on coal, but also to the absence of private profit.
Private enterprise is showing itself to be an unsatisfying foundation for taking care of society’s basic needs. We see this play out in the exorbitant costs of shelter, food and other necessities. Wouldn’t it make sense to limit the market to satisfying wants rather than needs?
If a customer desires caviar over cabbage, so be it. But everyone should be able to afford vegetables.
Doesn’t the public deserve to have control over essentials? Products and services could be developed without the perverse incentive to use the cheapest components, to ignore health and environmental concerns, and to add as much profit as the market will bear.
Public spending can have downsides and perverse incentives as well. Inefficiency and preservation of cushy fiefdoms come to mind. These ills could be countered with greater transparency, oversight and citizen participation.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: Your diagnosis of what’s wrong with California’s electric rates is spot on. We just passed Rhode Island and now have the highest rates in the continental U.S.
But your prescriptions would just make things worse. Sacramento’s $45-billion budget deficit proves how terrible it is at financial planning. The bullet train proves it’s even worse at infrastructure.
It shouldn’t be like this. The primary source of electricity in California is natural gas, a fuel cheaper now than any time in the past 25 years. Other sources like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal don’t even use fuel. Never have generating costs been cheaper — yet never have utility rates been higher.
The problem is expensive mandates from the California Public Utilities Commission and other regulators, larding our electric bills to pursue their fanciful agendas. Sacramento isn’t the solution. Sacramento is the problem.
Robert Helbing, Monrovia
