ALTERNATE CURRENT: LET THE WIRED BEWARE; CONSUMERS INTERESTED IN REAL COMPETITION MUST TAKE CARE TO AVOID INFORMATION OVERLOAD.

Byline: RICHARD NEMEC

SINCE we are surrounded by the aura of Hollywood, it is easy to envision a new TV movie debuting this fall in Southern California called ``The Electrons Are Coming, The Electrons Are Coming!''

Such is the state of the electric industry revolution that will hit the commercial air waves in the final weeks of 1997.

A massive consumer education campaign will unfold to make all of us wiser energy buyers now that we will have more choices about our electric service. The campaign is paid with some $87 million funneled through California's ``Big Three'' private electric utilities and overseen by state government regulators.

The fear among our government leaders - fueled by the experience following the breakup of AT&T's long-distance monopoly a decade ago - is that a lot of fly-by-night operators and scam artists will come out of the woodwork, preying on ma and pa power buyer in their homes and small businesses.

But the warning stops short. What isn't communicated is that consumers should use equal caution in dealing with their traditional local utility company in the new environment.

Why? Because as Willie Shakespeare would say, ``I think thou doth protest too much.''

California's Big Three, among the nation's largest and most profitable electric companies, are unrelenting in their lobbying of the California Public Utilities Commission to guarantee a ``level playing field'' in the new competition that begins next year. But consumers must understand that they have to pay handsomely to help create that desired leveling.

In the meantime, unregulated energy marketers - many tied to regulated interests elsewhere around the nation - are screaming just as loudly that the utilities are holding all of the cards because they know the dealer, the five gubernatorial-appointed CPUC commissioners who are guiding the implementation of a 1996 California law that is reformatting the electric industry.

While both sides of the debate have vested interests and legitimate rationales, consumers should keep a close eye on both sides and a firm hand on their wallets. Their surveillance could be made a bit easier if the PUC before the end of the year can summon the consensus and courage to put strong enough rules in place so the three giant utilities can't take unfair advantage of their 100-year histories as unchallenged, legal monopolies.

The issue centers on the business relationships between the continuing utility companies and their unregulated affiliate companies that they have been establishing in anticipation of parts of the electric business being deregulated and turned over to the free market.

The deregulation involves principally the building and ownership of power plants at the production end, or the beginning of the electricity chain, along with retail services related to the use of electricity at the customer's end of the chain. In between, the utilities will still own the wires carrying the power to you.

The PUC commissioners have listened to both sides and they have the benefit of some federal regulatory guidelines covering this area to use as a potential example. But ultimately they have to choose between self-enforcement and tougher rules with penalties.

For example, should Southern California Edison be able to lend the name and reputation that it has carefully crafted with its 4 million-plus customers to its unregulated affiliate?

These affiliates ostensibly will be competing with Edison to provide power and related services to many of their customers, particularly their largest commercial/industrial customers with multimillion-dollar annual power bills.

Or should its affiliates be restricted in how they market to Edison customers?

History should tell us that the Big Three have some enormous advantages. They have been dealing with the PUC as a critical part of their business throughout this century. They know how to ``work with'' - which means ``around'' - regulation; they are adept at milking both the local and state elected government officials.

If freer markets and real competition are the goals because they will deliver lower prices and more choices to customers, along with innovations in the ways we buy and use electricity, then who has a more vested interest in manipulating the process for reaching that goal? It has to be the utilities more than anyone else.

So, the best thing that could happen is that the PUC will error on the side of restricting the lifelong monopolies as it relates to their unregulated affiliates. And for the consumers, they had best reserve a wary eye for all the salespeople hawking their electricity wares, most of all those friendly former monopolists who are now singing the praises of competition.