The SC Public Service Commission surprised almost everyone this week.
The commissioners reversed themselves.
They ruled that SCANA and SC Elecric & Gas executives acted imprudently in …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continueNeed an account?
|
The SC Public Service Commission surprised almost everyone this week.
The commissioners reversed themselves.
They ruled that SCANA and SC Elecric & Gas executives acted imprudently in lying to them and the public about the failures of a $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 the PSC did not do was to reverse its decision that allows:
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 Aiklen 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 fotced 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.”
Other items that may interest you
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here