If ever there was a question that reveals the wide range of ideological perspectives in South Carolina, it is whether the state should sell its electricity company, the SC Public Service Authority. Santee Cooper is a true Rorschach test of economic and political beliefs.
For observers with an affinity for capitalism – those who believe that commercial activities that can be carried out in the private sector should be conducted by private companies – the fact that Santee Cooper is one of America’s largest state-owned electricity companies (rivaling only a few other giants) government-owned public services in states like California and New York) is a compelling argument in its own right for sale. Many Southern Carolinians probably share this conservative view, based on the fact that the state elects large majorities of Republicans to the General Assembly every two years.
Another perspective comes from citizens who are concerned with environmental pollution and, especially, with the continuous accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. They focus correctly on the types of fuel used for energy production and the emissions that these fuels produce. Here, Santee Cooper is almost unique in America, because it uses coal to generate most of its electricity, despite decades of evidence that carbon-based energy production is warming the planet and despite decades of evidence that power plants coal contaminated our beautiful rivers and streams with so much mercury that the fish in them are not safe to eat.
These observers would appreciate the fact that the private investor-owned concessionaire that bid on Santee Cooper, based in Florida, NextEra, obtains only 2% of its energy from coal, while Santee Cooper produces 60% of its electricity production from from this dirty and destructive fuel.
People whose primary concern is electricity tariffs can look at the managerial competency record to assess how Santee Cooper compares to other companies: In the past decade, the agency has been involved not in one, but in two of the biggest financial disasters in history of State . The first was the foolish and finally abandoned attempt to build one of the last coal-fired power plants in the United States – ironically on one of the same rivers that were contaminated with mercury from existing Santee Cooper coal plants.
Santee Cooper abandoned this billion-dollar project after exhibiting an impressive degree of arrogance and incompetence. She bought and delivered almost a quarter of a billion dollars worth of parts and materials to the site before she even received the first license to build the plant. In the annals of financial disasters – including the infamous $ 2 billion municipal bond default to finance a power plant in Washington State for more than 40 years – the Santee Cooper coal disaster stands out.
But the coal plant pales in comparison to the ill-fated collaboration with SCANA (a company that no longer exists) to build a nuclear plant near Columbia. The total cost for taxpayers and taxpayers is still unknown, but somewhere around $ 10 billion.
Coherent arguments in favor of maintaining Santee Cooper as a pupil of the state are few and far between. Some politicians praised Santee Cooper’s value for economic development. The logic here is that state officials can commit Santee Cooper to power potential industries at prices that a private utility would not be able to offer. Even if that were true, it would be more transparent to voters and taxpayers if we simply hand the new sector a check for the financial benefits it would have received from the electricity discount.
The SC Legislature is currently debating whether to “reform” the Santee Cooper and continue to operate it. This strategy of reorganizing the Titanic’s deckchairs is sure to fail.
State lawmakers will continue to debate that decision in the coming weeks. There will be predictable obscuration, frightening tactics about higher electric tariffs, guarantees that the General Assembly is able to provide adequate oversight to this dishonest agency, and concern about the state divesting itself of such an “valuable” asset – that it actually cost the state. immeasurable financial and environmental damage.
The simple point is this: now, more than ever, energy production is a very important function to be managed by 170 senators and state representatives and a council of politicians, regardless of their other government powers.
What lawmakers can and should do is negotiate the best possible sales conditions for taxpayers and taxpayers, transfer the valuable natural sites that the concessionaire has acquired to the state for protection and sell Santee Cooper to a concessionaire owned by the competent investor – with all state and federal supervision requirements. South Carolina’s financial and environmental future depends on it.
Dana Beach is a conservationist and resident in Charleston.