Re­ject SCE&G set­tle­ment or suf­fer huge rate in­crease

The State - - Business -

First, all SCE&G in­come comes from ratepay­ers. The pro­posed set­tle­ment should be re­jected be­cause it set­tles law­suits by ratepay­ers against them­selves as the ratepay­ers will pay it. Fur­ther, the ratepay­ers would have to pay hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars to at­tor­neys who would be big win­ners.

These suits are very likely un­winnable and should be thrown out by the judge. It’s no won­der the at­tor­neys don’t want to go to court.

The SCE&G/SCANA board signed the set­tle­ment to avoid dis­cus­sion about their over­see­ing the project, pay­ing an out­landish re­tire­ment to the ex­ec­u­tives they should have fired, pay­ing $1 mil­lion for the Bech­tel Re­port and then ig­nor­ing it and set­ting up a $115 mil­lion sep­a­ra­tion fund for man­age­ment who were paid by salaries and ben­e­fits and re­ceived huge bonuses.

The Rate Com­mis­sion should have the board dis­close how much their com­pen­sa­tion ben­e­fits and bonuses have in­creased since 2007 and how much they were to get from the sep­a­ra­tion pie.

The judge and Rate Com­mis­sion should re­ject this set­tle­ment of du­bi­ous law­suits. It would only en­cour­age more suits. Ratepay­ers would be pay­ing them­selves and a huge at­tor­ney bill. The at­tor­neys know they can’t win these suits.

The Rate Com­mis­sion should in­sist that all prop­erty not used for pro­duc­tion or trans­mis­sion be sold and ap­plied to the debt.

With a new board and man­age­ment, SCE&G can solve their prob­lems. Ratepay­ers are the only source of in­come. This set­tle­ment will re­sult in a huge rate in­crease.

– William Pe­b­ley Lit­tle Moun­tain

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.