The SC Public Service Commission surprised almost everyone this week.
The commissioners reversed their ruling that SCANA and SC Electric & Gas executives intentionally acted imprudently in lying to them and the public about the failures of their $9 billion nuclear project.
Office of Regulatory Staff spokesman Ron Aiken said, “We believe it is of vital importance that a legal finding of imprudence on the part of the utility be issued not just to satisfy the law but to send a message to all utilities regulated by the PSC that compliance, transparency and accountability are requirements that cannot be violated without penalty.”
What the PSC did not do was to reverse its decision that allows:
• Dominion Energy to buy Lexington County-based and managed SCANA and its SCE&G subsidiary.
• A $22-a-month rate cut and $1,000 payment that Dominion promised 727,000 SCE&G ratepayers.
Amid public criticism, the PSC appears to be adopting a tougher stance toward the utilities it once favored.
House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Darlington, advised the PSC to let Dominion take over SCANA, which it did.
Now he urged the PSC to reverse itself on SCE&G executives lack of prudence in managing the failed project and misleading regulators..
“It is essential to restore public trust, and this finding will go a long way in acknowledging that the regulatory compact … was broken by SCE&G,” said Tom Ervin, the only commissioner to maintain SCE&G’s executives were imprudent.
The Chronicle asked the state watchdog ORS what was the penalty for lying to regulators and who could prosecute those who did.
“The penalty is what they already ruled without specifying why … the disallowance of about $3 billion in capital costs spent after March 12, 2015,” said Ron Aiken of the ORS. “There’s no further benefit.
“They acknowledge that the reason for the disallowance was imprudence.”
Does an imprudence ruling mean ratepayers will not be saddled with another $2 billion in nuclear costs?
And will this give ratepayers a legal way to recover any of the higher rates they were forced to pay?
“No,”Aiken said, “unless a party wishes to file suit individually and does not accept the settlement reached in the class-action suit.”