COLUMBIA — After killing a similar bill last session, the South Carolina Senate came to a late-night agreement April 2 on a deal that would reform the state’s energy permitting process and clear the way for the conversion of a former Lowcountry coal-fired power plant to natural gas.
But while industry and environmental groups found ample room for compromise in the bill, some remain concerned about possible ramifications for ratepayers after a last-second provision added to the bill could leave residents on the hook for the cost of newly constructed power plants.
The 35,000 word legislation, which passed by a 38-3 margin, is a substantially retooled version of a similar bill which failed to move in the Senate last year after swift passage through the House.
Like last year’s bill, it allows Dominion Energy and state-owned utility Santee Cooper to collaborate on a simmering proposal to convert a coal-fired power plant near Canadys to natural gas. It also creates an expedited permitting process for utilities projects. And it makes all regulatory decisions by the state’s Public Services Commission immediately appealable to the state Supreme Court, a move advocates say could trim years off of project timelines.
But there are numerous changes, which environmental groups and consumer advocacy organizations said were needed to protect both ratepayers as well as sensitive ecological locations throughout the Palmetto State.
Provisions in last year’s bill some saw as anti-solar were removed from this year’s edition.
Efforts to modify the mission of the Public Service Commission to consider the economic implications of their decisions were removed from the bill after Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, expressed lingering “hard feelings” toward utilities companies. Those negatives arose in the wake of aborted construction of two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer power plant in Jenkinsville nearly a decade prior, which Santee Cooper customers are still paying for today.
A “market choice” provision opposed by electrical cooperatives over fears it could lead to instability in electric markets was abandoned after a late-night battle to include it in the bill, while language requiring large-scale power users like data centers to pay their fair share for constructing facilities necessitated by their consumption was also included.
Overall, there was plenty to like in the bill, Conservation Voters of South Carolina’s Energy Policy Director John Brooker told The Post and Courier. But one provision caused some heartburn.
During the final day of debate, lawmakers inserted an amendment into the bill closely mirroring language in a House bill called the “Energy Rate Stabilization Act.” In addition to allowing utility companies to raise rates by small amounts incrementally — rather than in large leaps every few years — the bill would also allow utilities companies to finance new projects through increases in customer rates.
“It fundamentally changes the way we regulate utilities in terms of rate increases,” said Brooker. “We’re concerned that there’s some affordability threats there. We’re not a consumer advocacy group, but we still care about that.”
The change, critics noted, also closely aligned with the key provisions in the 2007 Base Load Review Act passed by state lawmakers that set the stage for the fallout of V.C. Summer.
While the distrust surrounding utility companies have begun to fade among members of the General Assembly, some who were around during the scandal — like Massey, one of three people to vote against the bill — said they remained skeptical of the bill’s aims, particularly as they related to consumer protections.
“You can’t separate (this bill) from V.C. Summer, even though everybody — especially the utilities — want us just to move on,” Massey told reporters. “And I get it, maybe we should move on. But I’m still (angered) that people are paying for this, and they’re going to be paying for it for 14 years.
“I was trying to get some relief,” he added. “But I was unsuccessful in that.”
The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives for ratification. If a compromise is not agreed to, the bill will go to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers, who will then draft a final version to send to Gov. Henry McMaster.