Santee Cooper finally settled his debt … only not very well

I am (fortunately) not a taxpayer Santee Cooper – Catastrophically poorly managed and indebted state service in South Carolina. I am, however, a contributor to the State of Palmetto – owner of this anti-competitive albatross.

I am also a citizen of South Carolina … which continues to be repressed on several fronts by the chronic ineptitude of this “dishonest agency”, which has a monopoly guaranteed by law when it comes to producing energy generated inefficiently and hostile to the environment.

I will never know why state lawmakers failed to follow the advice I gave them thirteen years ago and sent Santee Cooper to the private sector … because that would have turned a multi-billion dollar loss into a multi-billion dollar windfall.

Instead of unloading the utility, however, lawmakers decided to plunge Palmetto’s state headfirst into a $ 10 billion economical boondoggle command – NukeGate. This project was to produce a pair of next generation pressurized water reactors, capable of generating 2,300 combined megawatts of energy.

Instead, it produced nothing but lies … and debts … and higher rates for South Carolina’s energy customers.

The lies and debts continued long after Santee Cooper and his former private sector partner, SCANA, shut down the sloppy construction of these abandoned reactors almost four years ago.

What has the SC General Assembly done since then? Nothing …

Unfortunately, the debate on the latest Santee Cooper “reform” proposal after the NukeGate The fiasco totally failed to resolve the growing debt of the concessionaire. Likewise, there has been almost no discussion of the impact that this wave of red paint is having (and will continue to have) on Santee’s residential, commercial and industrial consumers.

Until this week, this is …

On Tuesday, state lawmakers tasked with evaluating the future of Santee Cooper finally resolved to address the debt issue … seeking detailed answers from utility executives about how their “reform” plan would reduce the company’s exposure to potential defaults .

Not surprisingly, Santee Cooper was limited in his ability to answer such a question.

A lawmaker who questioned the leaders of Santee Cooper was a senator Josh Kimbrell from Spartanburg, SC – who pointedly asked if the concessionaire’s optimistic view of its current cash position was due to the fact that it had “full faith and credit” from South Carolina behind it.

“If there was any way to get state support off the table, in other words, to ensure that South Carolina taxpayers were not responsible for the debt – would you still have an optimistic outlook on long-term bond prospects? Kimbrell asked.

Santee Cooper did not have an answer, saying to Kimbrell “that sounds like one of those questions from the securities council”. However, its main legislative facilitator – President of the Judiciary of the Senate of SC Luke Rankin – fired back that the state government was not about to pay Santee Cooper’s debt if the agency went into default.

That is true?

Senator SC Wes Climer Rock Hill, SC made it clear that a default by Santee Cooper would be disastrous for the state under any circumstances – referring to it as a potential “contagion” event.

Even Rankin seemed to agree with that assessment … insofar as he knew what the word “contagion” meant.

“I don’t understand that, but it clearly makes sense,” he said.

Our…

Letting go of fears of contagion, Santee Cooper taxpayers will clearly pay for the dealership’s continued neglect – again, assuming lawmakers don’t come around and throw this anchor away before it’s too late.

Which brings us to the next round of questions …

Another lawmaker who did not hesitate to question Santee Cooper about his financial details was the newly elected senator Michael Johnson from Fort Mill, SC

According to Johnson, the energy prices that the utility has charged its regional electric cooperative are more than ten percent higher than the rates assessed by Duke Energy. Johnson wanted to know how the current “reform” bill would impact this discrepancy in the future.

The initial response he received was opaque …

First, lobbyist Santee Cooper Geoff Penland tried to pass Johnson’s investigation by referring him to the so-called “transparency” provisions in the legislature’s “reform” bill.

The senator was not believing …

“Your answer is that transparency will result in lower rates,” said Johnson. “I’m not sure if transparency alone will change the tax structure in South Carolina.”

It certainly won’t …

Penland’s second attempt to get out of this box was quite enlightening, however.

“At the moment, Santee Cooper is in a fee freeze related to the Cook agreement,” he said, referring to a controversial collective action agreement reached last year with his clients.

*****

RELATED | Santee Cooper “Reform” Bill that looks like a stoppage tactic

*****

Wait … What does this agreement have to do with the tariffs that Santee Cooper charges from the state’s network of electric cooperatives? Particularly in relation to your debt?

“In terms of advancement, (the cooperatives) would have the ability to influence this more,” said Penland, apparently implying that once the fee freeze was lifted, Santee Cooper would have more flexibility to deal with the price difference. with cooperatives.

The only way to achieve this “flexibility?” Higher rates….

Like I said … it ended up being a very revealing exchange.

Look, I’m happy that lawmakers are finally questioning Santee Cooper about his debt – which simply cannot be resolved through “reform”. Still, it was disappointing to see the continuing lack of concern for public service contributors in these discussions. In fact, the only two lawmakers who seemed to have a real heart for what is happening to Santee Cooper customers were senators. Marlon Kimpson Charleston, SC and Margie Bright Matthews from Walterboro, SC

Both lawmakers impressed me with their questions … which have always sought to bring the conversation back to the real-world ramifications of proposed policy changes for low-income taxpayers (who already pay a disproportionate percentage of their income in energy costs).

Kimpson and Matthews deserve credit for bringing these issues to light … and I certainly hope their concerns remain at the forefront of policymakers’ thinking as the debate over Santee Cooper progresses.

(SPONSORED CONTENT)

*****

WANT TO TURN OFF THE SOUND?

Is there anything you would like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open mic policy! Send your own letter to the editor (or guest column) by email HERE. Do you have a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Have a technical question or a failure to report? CLICK HERE.