OPINION: This is what has to change after the SC nuclear meltdown
IF SCE&G AND Santee Cooper were free-market businesses, they'd probably be out of business in the wake of
If SCE&G were even just a regular regulated monopoly -- one that didn't have the Legislature's blessing to charge ratepayers
But state law reduced SCE&G's risk and made it financially and psychologically easier for the company to pursue a high-risk plan to build the nation's first new nuclear reactors in decades. And state law allowed
What to do about the laws that govern SCE&G is less clear -- and figuring that out needs to be the focus of legislators when they begin hearings later this month on how a
__________
The nuclear power play
SCE&G customers will continue paying for nuke project, even though it won't be built
Days after abandoning nuclear project, SCANA says it earned
Legislators turn against law that stuck SC residents with bill for scrapped nuclear reactors
SCE&G and VC Summer: By the numbers
__________
First and foremost, we need to know how much blame goes to the 2007 Base Load Review Act, which allowed SCE&G to charge customers for electricity they will never receive, and which the company hopes to use to charge us up to
Was the whole concept of that law flawed? Are we guaranteeing irresponsible decision-making when we allow a regulated monopoly to charge customers up front for nuclear and coal-fired production facilities, and keep charging them even after the project is abandoned? Or would that mechanism, which is intended to reduce interest costs, make sense if the utility had to put more of its investors' money at risk?
What about the
If the commission didn't have enough authority to reject rate increases, that needs changing. If there was enough authority but commissioners failed to use it, then perhaps it's the commissioners who need changing.
Or did legislators -- who elect commissioners to the well-paid political posts -- make it too clear that they were not to reject rate increases? If so, we need to change how commissioners are selected. (Yes, legislators would need to change as well, but that's up to voters.)
If the office has sufficient authority, did it do its job but get overruled by the PSC? If not, then perhaps that staff needs changing, and perhaps the way it's selected. The executive director is nominated by a legislative committee and technically appointed by the governor, sort of like magistrates.
What happens when SCE&G builds the new capacity that nuclear reactors will not provide? If it builds a natural gas plant, it won't be allowed to charge ratepayers for construction unless or until the plant produces electricity. But should SCE&G ever be allowed to charge us for a facility that replaces an abandoned facility we've already paid
And what about the whole idea of monopolies? I doubt we've reached the point where small carbon-based or alternative-energy plants can provide everyone in the state access to electricity, which we'd need before we could switch to a free-market system. But a lot of people believe that time is coming. If lawmakers are going to spend a lot of mental energy on our state's energy future, they ought to start thinking about how we get to that place, and what we do once we're there.
Finally, a question legislators will avoid if we let them: Should a monopoly be allowed to make campaign donations to the legislators who have the power not only to revoke its monopoly status but also to shield it even more from the consequences of its decisions? And if so, how on earth do you justify that?
___
(c)2017 The State (Columbia, S.C.)
Visit The State (Columbia, S.C.) at www.thestate.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
George Mitchell blasts LePage for attacks on Susan Collins, Angus King
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News