<PAGE>
<PAGE>
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report: December 14, 1995
Date of earliest event reported: December 8, 1995
SCEcorp
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
CALIFORNIA 1-9936 95-4137452
(State or other jurisdiction of (Commission (I.R.S. employer
incorporation or organization) file number) identification no.)
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
(P.O. Box 800)
Rosemead, California 91770
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
818-302-2222
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Item 5. Other Events
On December 8, 1995, California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) Commissioners Gregory Conlon and Henry Duque issued a
new alternate proposed order on Southern California Edison
Company's (Edison) 1995 General Rate Case. This proposed
alternate order, the prior alternate order proposed by
Commissioner Fessler on November 21, 1995 and the
Administrative Law Judge's original proposed decision are
scheduled to be considered at the CPUC's December 20 meeting,
when the CPUC could accept any of these options, reject all of
them or take some other action. A copy of a press release
issued by Edison on December 11 describing the alternate
proposed decision is filed herewith as Exhibit 20.
Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information
and Exhibits
(c) Exhibits
Exhibit
Number Description
- ------- -----------
20 News Release -- Edison Reacts to New Proposed
Alternate Decision for 1995 General Rate Case
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
SCEcorp
KENNETH S. STEWART
----------------------------------
KENNETH S. STEWART
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
AND CORPORATE SECRETARY
December 14, 1995
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Exhibit 20
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Corporate Communications
(818) 302-2255
EDISON REACTS TO NEW PROPOSED ALTERNATE
DECISION FOR 1995 RATE CASE
ROSEMEAD, Ca, December 11, 1995 -- Southern California
Edison today said it was very disappointed that the proposed
Alternate Order (AO) in the 1995 General Rate Case (GRC)
issued on December 8 by California Public Utilities
Commission Commissioners Gregory Conlon and Henry Duque
failed to adopt the GRC settlement negotiated by Edison and
the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) in
November, 1994. While acknowledging that the AO was an
improvement over the proposal previously made by
Commissioner Daniel Fessler, the Company said the new AO, if
adopted by the Commission, would have adverse impacts on
Edison shareholders and employees.
The Edison settlement negotiated with DRA included
substantial revenue reductions from Edison's request and
from the then prevailing rates. The new AO would further
reduce the Company's operating revenues by as much as $58
million in 1996, including a $43 million cut in operating
and maintenance funds and a potential (but not yet decided)
10% reduction in the rate of return on the equity portion of
the investment in Edison's San Onofre nuclear plant (SONGS).
Relative to the settlement, the AO would reduce
Edison's customer rates about .1% (one-tenth of 1%). Since
most of Edison's expenses are fixed, the effects of the
additional $43 million cut in annual O&M funds would fall
largely on the Company's 16,000-person workforce, where $43
million represents 6.7% of Edison's labor budget or the
total wages and benefits for about 1,000 employees. Edison
already has among the fewest number of employees per
customer of the nation's utilities.
"While restructuring and performance based rate making
will, in any event, require additional company downsizing,
to lose at the outset $43 million or 6.7% of our anticipated
labor budget, would be very difficult," said John Bryson,
chairman and CEO of Southern California Edison. Bryson said
Edison was perplexed that the proposed order modified its
settlement with DRA in ways that reduced funding for
services to all customers while, at the same time,
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
increasing funding for outmoded programs such as energy
efficiency rebates to a very limited number of customers.
Edison said that while it was encouraged by the AO's
approval of the settlement's basic framework relating to
SONGS, it will vigorously oppose the AO's suggestion that
the return on the equity portion of its SONGS investment
could be reduced to 90% of the level agreed on in the
settlement. Bryson said that: "With the SONGS settlement,
the company agreed to accept a substantial risk and cost on
the shareholder side of the balance. The further 10% hit
suggested in the AO has no basis and would be inequitable.
It also would be inconsistent with the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) we have worked out on industry
restructuring issues with customer representatives and
independent power producers."
Bryson reaffirmed Edison's support for the MOU and said
the Company will continue to work with the other MOU parties
to achieve incorporation of an acceptable SONGS resolution
and all the other MOU principles in the Commission's pending
restructure decision.
Edison also expressed concern about the continued
viability of the settlement process at the Commission.
Bryson said: "As they act on the GRC/SONGS matter and as
all the stakeholders move toward the new restructured
marketplace, we urge the Commission to weigh carefully the
value of negotiated settlements and consensus agreements."
"The whole process will be undermined if compromises
made in hard-fought negotiations to reach a settlement or
consensus position come to be seen only as starting points
for further adverse ratcheting."
"As a result of actions already taken, Edison customer
rates will decline by 5.6%. If the AO is adopted, the
decline will increase to 5.7%," Bryson said.
In conclusion, Bryson said that: "Edison will continue
to push hard for the right result in the CPUC proceedings.
But whatever the outcome, we will do what is necessary to
compete successfully in the new marketplace, provide high
quality customer service and earn a fair return for our
shareholders."
_______________________________________________
The Alternate Order proposed by Commissioners Conlon
and Duque, the prior Alternate proposed by Commissioner
Fessler and the ALJ's original Proposed Decision are
scheduled to be considered at the CPUC's December 20
meeting, when the Commission could accept any of these
options, reject all of them or take some other action.
Comments on the Conlon/Duque AO are due by December 15.
