South Carolina lawmakers are once again advancing sweeping energy legislation, after an earlier version died in committee last year, to address what state leaders have repeatedly referred to as an "energy crisis." The more-than-70-page bill passed the South Carolina House Feb. 12 in a 94-11 vote and is now under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 3309 still aims to increase gas and nuclear generation and loosen some electric utility regulations, among other measures, though it differs in approach from previous iterations, Senate Bill 909 and House Bill 5118.
The legislation still would allow the South Carolina Public Service Authority, which does business as Santee Cooper, to jointly build and own a new gas plant of up to 2 GW with Dominion Energy Inc. subsidiary Dominion Energy South Carolina Inc. The bill also encourages Duke Energy Corp. subsidiaries Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Duke Energy Progress LLC to consider "a second powerhouse as well as a hydrogen-capable natural gas generation facility."
The latest version of the legislation, also known as the South Carolina Energy Security Act, no longer includes a provision from an earlier version to reduce the number of South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) members from seven to three, to be elected by the General Assembly.
The 2024 legislation incorporated strategies for adapting energy infrastructure to the effects of climate change and set carbon emissions reduction targets. However, the latest proposal does not directly address those issues, focusing instead on energy security and regulatory efficiency, though it recommends that regulators evaluate utilities' integrated resource plans that aim to "reduce emissions and modernize the electric grid."
The new proposal requires the PSC to "facilitate the construction of facilities in and the extension of natural gas service to unserved and underserved areas" and to "further the development of cleaner energy technologies on a cost-effective basis," among other new mandates.
The latest bill also eliminates renewable energy targets with specific timelines and provisions to promote energy storage included in the 2024 legislation.
Previous provisions that outlined a phased approach to slow or limit coal plant retirements and to develop electric vehicle charging infrastructure are also no longer included in the 2025 legislation.
The pending legislation outlines specific regulations for demand-side management and requires utilities to report on their demand-side programs annually.
Exploring nuclear
Under the new proposal, regulators and utilities are encouraged to "explore the potential" for deploying fusion energy and advanced nuclear such as small modular reactors (SMRs) at sites of current nuclear plants, sites where nuclear plants have been proposed but not constructed and other brownfield sites such as coal plants. Any utility pursuing deployment of such generation must provide annual progress reports to the PSC, including cost estimates.
If state regulators find those costs to be "reasonable, prudent and in the public interest," the legislation directs that the costs "may be recoverable through rates as they are incurred."
"It is the policy of this state to promote the development and operation of advanced nuclear facilities, including [SMRs], in the most economical manner and at the earliest reasonable time possible," the bill reads.
The current version of the bill establishes a larger, 10-person Nuclear Advisory Council in the Office of Regulatory Staff rather than in the Department of Administration and adds more responsibilities and authorities for that council, including developing a plan to advance the development of nuclear generation.
The legislation also allows the PSC to establish an SMR pilot program if endorsed by the Nuclear Advisory Council.
Criticism
Like its predecessor, the latest bill is opposed by clean energy and environmental advocates, among others.
"While a harmful methane gas bill was halted last year, the same bad provisions are back," the Southern Environmental Law Center said. "The House is pursuing damaging legislation that hastens the construction of methane gas pipelines and plants in the name of profit, rolls back existing transparency and fairness in the energy planning process, and leaves out commonsense solutions like cost-saving energy efficiency and clean energy."
The legislation as written "gives the [PSC] unchecked power to rubberband concepts of plans, with ratepayers again on the line to foot the bill with zero accountability and oversight," according to the Sierra Club. "Lawmakers are fixated on more natural gas and financially risky concepts of plans that include pursuing [SMRs]."
The proposal "guts regulatory oversight and transparency and eliminates longstanding consumer protections put in place" after the failed V.C. Summer expansion, the Conservation Voters of South Carolina said, adding that the bill encourages gas over renewables and allows the state to pursue "eminent domain for new methane gas pipelines."
After House passage of the bill in February, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) said he planned to sign it into law if it passed the Senate to "ensure we have the energy capacity needed to keep up with our record-breaking economic development and population growth."
?$responsive$)
