For the second consecutive year, legislators are considering a sweeping energy plan whose cornerstone is a new natural gas plant to be built in a tiny Lowcountry community — but the bill is under fire from public interest groups that say it gives away important protections for the environment and consumers.
The bill died last year in the Senate because it contained what critics said were too many elements, ranging from looser regulation of the proposed natural gas plant to sections that pushed for an expansion of nuclear power, at the expense of solar energy. It also reduced the size of the state Public Service Commission, which critics said would grease the skids in favor of power companies.
Now, the House has revived last year’s bill, which is backed by the state’s major utilities: Dominion Energy, Santee Cooper and Duke Energy. The power companies say South Carolina badly needs additional sources of energy to meet growing demand, recruit industry and to supply power on extremely cold days.
Supporters of environmental protection and alternate forms of energy took aim at the bill Wednesday, telling a House of Representatives subcommittee the bill (H 3309), like the one last year, potentially exposes South Carolina to problems as the state rushes to add additional energy capacity.
“We believe many of the bill’s provisions will harm ratepayers and threaten our environment for decades to come,’’ said John Brooker, who tracks energy issues for the Conservation Voters of South Carolina. “House bill 3309 undermines the central safeguards by reducing regulatory oversight, accountability and transparency in our energy system.’’
Major concerns include sections of the bill limiting the amount of time state agencies have to determine if a new power plant is warranted. If a deadline to decide on a power plant is not met, the project is automatically approved, Brooker said. That may mean new projects don’t get proper scrutiny, he said. The bill also jeopardizes the ability of the state consumer advocate to speak for ratepayers and it rolls back policies established in a 2019 state law that encourage renewable energy, he said.
Like last year, critics of the legislation also questioned whether the bill will spark a repeat of the V.C. Summer nuclear construction debacle from 2017.
After the Legislature passed industry friendly legislation for the nuclear plant, power companies SCE&G and Santee Cooper launched a project to build two atomic reactors in Fairfield County. But the construction effort was beset with problems and both companies eventually walked away, after spending $9 billion. Ratepayers were being billed for an unfinished project.
The Legislature had allowed the state to charge ratepayers before the nuclear project was built. Even though the language in this year’s energy bill is not identical to the one allowing for the nuclear project, some interest groups say they’re worried the legislation is favorable to natural gas and nuclear at the expense of renewable energy.
Florence minister and community activist Leo Woodberry and Martial Robichaud, a representative of the grassroots Green Pond Rural Alliance in Spartanburg County, said they oppose reducing the size of the Public Service Commission from seven members, representing different parts of the state, to three at-large members. Fewer commissioners elected at large could make it easier for boondoggles like the V.C. Summer project, Robichaud said.
“We respectfully request that the current composition of the PSC be maintained,’’ Robichaud said, noting that “otherwise we may have another $9 billion power bill on behalf of the energy companies that ratepayers will have to deal with.’’
Other groups raising concerns at the packed hearing included the Sierra Club, the Coastal Conservation League, the League of Women Voters and the state’s rural telephone cooperatives. Concerns also surfaced about encouraging small modular nuclear reactors, an unproven technology that critics have said has too many hazards and costs associated with it.
Despite those objections, advocates of the legislation say energy reform is badly needed to encourage new power production as demand for energy increases in high-growth South Carolina. House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, introduced the extensive energy bill, along with about about 10 other lawmakers, last month.
The cornerstone of the legislation would authorize state owned Santee Cooper to go in with Dominion Energy on a large new natural gas plant in the Canadys’ community of rural Colleton County. The plant would be constructed at the site of a closed coal plant. It would replace generation to be lost when Santee Cooper shutters a coal-fired power plant near Georgetown. The Public Service Commission would still have to sign off on the plant.
Lack of energy
Keller Kissam, who oversees Dominion Energy’s operations in South Carolina, said the power company is having to tell some businesses it can’t provide the energy they want. He said the company is turning away data centers, huge users of energy that are increasingly looking to open in South Carolina.
But he said the company also can’t always serve other businesses. One hotel developer near Myrtle Beach said he needed natural gas, but Kissam said Dominion told him “Sorry, we can’t give it to you.’’ Kissam said there is a lack of natural gas capacity in the state.
He and Jimmy Staton, chief executive at Santee Cooper, said the legislation could help ensure speedier decisions on whether to approve power plants. The state needs additional capacity, not only for growth, but to deal with existing demands during extremely cold weather, such as that forecast next week, they said.
“The bill’s focus on permitting and regulatory provisions will be helpful,’’ Staton said. “We need to move with speed and we need certainty. I’d rather be told no immediately so I could move in a different direction than to get a yes and have to fight about it’’ for years.
State Rep. Gary Brewer, R-Charleston, said he worries about delays caused in getting energy projects approved.
“As we drag out the permitting process, your construction costs go through the roof,’’ he said. “That cost is then passed on to the taxpayer.’’
Aside from the push for a new natural gas plant, Santee Cooper is seeking proposals from private companies to assess whether restarting the V.C. Summer project is worthwhile. The project was partially complete when it was abandoned in 2017.
A recent report by members of the Governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council said it’s worth looking at restarting the project. The two reactors were being built adjacent to a single reactor established decades ago at the V.C. Summer site north of Columbia. Anti-nuclear activists said they will fight efforts to restart the plant.
Whether the House energy bill, as written, gets very far remains an open question. A special legislative committee has been examining a possible new energy bill, holding hearings in recent months
Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, said he and other senators plan to introduce separate major legislation to help improve the state’s ability to provide power. He expects energy to be a big issue in the Senate this legislative session. Davis has already filed other legislation regarding energy.
“The House put a lot more time into this particular matter last year than we ended up putting into it,’’ Davis said. He said the House bill in 2024 was too specific about certain energy decisions that should instead be weighed by the state Public Service Commission. “That was one thing where I know there was concern.’’
Rep. Gil Gatch, a bill co-sponsor who chaired Wednesday’s subcommittee meeting, said there could be some changes to the legislation, but the idea in bringing up a bill so similar to last year’s is because many legislators are familiar with it and South Carolina needs energy. Gatch said the bill needs to be vetted in the House labor committee. It could be sent to the full House in a month, he said.
“This made sense,’’ Gatch, a Summerville Republican, told The State. “I think it’s appropriate what we are doing. We will have to see where the testimony and input lands after all the stakeholders in the community speak to it. We are not trying to shove the bill down anybody’s throat.’’