COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4430",Who"John McCarthy", Logo,old,Department csd)
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4430",Who"John McCarthy", Logo,old,Department csd)
@style(indent 8)
@blankspace(8 lines)
@begin(address)
The Editors
The Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, California  90053
@end(address)
@begin(body)
The logic of San Diego Gas and Electric's critics is incredible!  ("San
Diego G&E Takes Flak for Soaring Rates", L.A. Times, 16 March, 1982).  
Let's look at the facts:
@begin(itemize)
   73% of SDG&E's electricity is produced by oil and gas

   SDG&E electricity costs 11.3 cents per kilowatt

   a neighbouring utility generates half of its electricity with hydro, the
other half nuclear

   the neighbouring utility produces electricity for @p(one-third) the price
of SDG&E
@end(itemize)
@begin(multiple)
Conclusion: hydro and nuclear make sense.

Conclusion: the critics who railed against and opposed SDG&E when it
wanted to build
nuclear and coal stations should share the major blame and perhaps responsibility
for the current situation.
@end(multiple)

Yet, those same critics are now saying that SDG&E should have considered
other alternatives.  The reality should be inescapably obvious when one considers
that the only practical means for building a generating station (or stations
for that matter) that can supply half-a-million people at a time are coal,
oil, gas, hydro and nuclear -- and that these are the only sources available for the
"lion's share" of the job for the foreseeable future, as has been confirmed
by literally dozens of exhaustive scientific studies.  What alternatives are
the critics suggesting?  Burning walnut shells?
@end(body)
Sincerely,




John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science