The House Speaker is being blamed for an unpopular state regulatory ruling.

A Public Service Commission decision was heavily influenced by a statement of support by House Speaker Jay Lucas, according to the environmentalist groups Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club.

“It is most unfortunate the PSC politicized its decision and demonstrated that they are more beholden to politicians who appoint them to office rather than to SCE&G customers,” said Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth.

“The decision by the PSC, which falls far short of the relief deserved by the beleaguered SCE&G ratepayers, underscore that reform of the PSC and the legislature’s Public Utilities Review Committee, which appoints commissioners, is desperately needed.”

Chronicle readers have questioned whether Lucas should have interceded in the PSC decision.

Lexington County Rep. Mac Toole said he agreed with readers about this.

New House member Chris Wooten of Lexington called it “a little hogwash on the speaker.

“Although this may have been his feelings (or not, as I haven’t talked with him personally) I do feel that he would not intentionally use his influence for this type of decision. I feel that the members of the PSC have their vote in this issue as individuals and if that is what they can sleep with at night then so be it.

“The speaker has a powerful voice, but the members of the PSC voted from their own conscience and I hope it is truly because of the findings in what is best for the rate payer.”

The Chronicle emailed Speaker Lucas asking for his response.

Clements said about $2 billion has already been paid by SCE&G ratepayers on financing costs in 9 Base Load Review Act rate hikes between 2009 and 2016.

“Those 9 rate hikes comprised a stunning 18% of the monthly bill when the project was terminated on July 31, 2017.

“Over $5 billion has been spent by SCE&G on uncovered construction costs of the failed project. SCE&G’s partner, Santee Cooper, which was responsible for 45% of the project and which is not regulated by the PSC, spent about $4 billion on the project.

“According to the PSC, an average electricity customer using 1000 kWh/month will pay $125.26 per month after the ruling, meaning about 3% of the monthly charge will go to the nuclear project.

“This amount is below the $147.70 that customers would be paying if the 18% nuclear charge were still being paid, as was the case until April 2018.

“Predictions of FOE that construction problems and cost overruns would develop have turned out to be painfully true. The PSC approved the project in February 2009 and FOE and partner Sierra Club watched the project unravel at every turn after the project’s initial approval.

“Parties that participated in the PSC proceedings have until December 31 to file a motion for “reconsideration” of the PSC decision. If the PSC upholds its decision then an appeal of it can be filed with the SC Supreme Court.”