Puget Sound Energy has disputed the state’s consumer advocate, who continues to argue against the $7.4 billion merger of the investor-owned utility with a private, Australia-based investment group.

But it is difficult to understand clearly the basis of PSE’s counterarguments since much of the document the company filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is blacked out.

The massive redactions on the version of the document available to the public underscore the difference between the disclosure now required of PSE by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the far lesser standard of openness under the proposed new ownership scheme.

The Macquarie Consortium is a private equity fund that is not required to report its financial information to the SEC. As part of the proposed settlement with state regulators, Macquarie and PSE have agreed to provide more information than would ordinarily be legally required.

But it remains an open question whether the level of disclosure would be considered sufficient by ratepayers in PSE’s service area, which includes Skagit and Island counties.

Page after page of redactions on PSE’s most recent filing with the WUTC offer little explanation for why the company disputes the arguments of Simon ffitch, who heads the state Attorney General’s Public Counsel Office.

After the WUTC staff worked out a settlement that apparently satisfied PSE’s industrial customers and environmental groups, ffitch is the last standing spokesman for the public interest.

He argues that the debt levels allowed in the proposed merger still expose ratepayers to too much financial risk. The settlement, filed July 23, has Macquarie agreeing to add $200 million to the cash offer for the utility to maintain PSE’s BBB credit rating.

The BBB rating is Standard and Poor’s lowest “investment grade” rating. The next step down from there is junk bonds. So it might be helpful if the WUTC staff could explain how the $200 million in additional investment from Macquarie is sufficient to maintain the utility’s credit status quo.

Ffitch also questions whether some of the extensive redactions on the PSE filings are really all that necessary. PSE says there is proprietary information that must, for now, remain confidential but could be made public later.

We aren’t ready to say whether private or public ownership of our electrical utility is preferable. The ultimate question is which ownership structure in this particular case best serves the public interest.

Simon ffitch is doing his job by continuing to ask the tough questions before it is too late to get any more answers, redacted or otherwise.

• Editorials reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board and are written by its members: Publisher L. Stedem Wood, Editor Don Nelson and City Editor Dick Clever.