Thursday, Feb. 1, 2001 | 10:35 a.m.
You state correctly that "it should be determined if the company could have done a better job in negotiating decent prices for long-term contracts," and that this determination should be made "with a heavy dose of skepticism." Well, not too heavy.
PUC staffers, with the incomparable advantage of 20-20 hindsight, may be able to find that company officials, who must make their purchasing decisions prospectively, could have made better purchasing decisions some of the time. But it is immensely important in the interest of fairness that staff's advantage in determining fair gas costs after the fact be tempered with reality in deciding whether Southwest overpaid for gas and should not be able to recover some of its costs.
To second-guess and fault the company on its gas purchases, the regulators must assume that they could have made better purchasing decisions than company officials did with the same information company officials had at the time their gas-purchasing decisions were made. That is a tall order. That heavy dose of skepticism you recommend for regulators wants a strong measure of humility here.
There's no free gas or electricity anyplace, including Nevada. Southwest is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that it purchased the gas it serves on reasonable and customary terms and in good faith unless the contrary can be credibly shown.
C. H. MC CREA SR.
Editor's note: The writer is a former Southwest Gas employee who has been retired for 14 years.
archive
