$9 billion and two abandoned reactors later, who's the victim here? SCE&G says it is
COLUMBIA, SC -- The Legislature gave several reasons for temporarily reducing our power bills and retroactively changing the law that encouraged SCE&G to spend excessively on its now-abandoned nuclear construction project. Among them was that while parent company SCANA “has taken steps to reduce its own costs related to the abandoned Project … its customers’ rates continue to reflect (all) of authorized Project costs prior to abandonment.”
Another was that “recognition of SCANA’s legal rights and remedies does not require that SCANA customers continue to pay one hundred percent of the rates previously authorized by the (Public Service) Commission when the Project was expected, upon completion, to provide valuable services to the customers.”
And while the Legislature wants people to be able to rely upon incentives it provides, “this reliance should be predicated upon a good faith effort to comply with all terms of any incentives so that noncompliance or misrepresentation in order to obtain offered incentives” does not unfairly cost the public. (Lawmakers determined that SCANA was not complying with the terms when it kept pouring money into two nuclear reactors even as it became increasingly apparent that the project could not survive.)
Lawmakers knew SCE&G would sue over the legislation they passed last month in hopes of paving the way for permanently reducing or eliminating the $37-million-a-month nuclear surcharge that SCE&G continues to collect more than 11 months after it abandoned the project. They also knew that court decisions can turn on legislative intent, and so they spelled out all that and more in a series of “whereas” clauses in one of the measures.
Read more: https://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article214359659.html
