[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6296921,"mediaKeyId","2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b","parentId",2512458,"title","Solar and Storage Industry Urges Competitive Procurement, Flags Siting Act Changes","audioSeconds",420,"startMs",2033000,"endMs",2453000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b&start=2033&end=2453","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b/thumbnail_2033000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6296921/South-Carolina/Solar-and-Storage-Industry-Urges-Competitive-Procurement-Flags-Siting-Act-Changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296921-6f31205af4d89c336b7b33bddb87e941/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169653&Signature=jNSXyC09HEub3fo~N625OQIGZbJR3pigrR3-g1PyDAWkQHVJUcrBvHvUx40WkRaHhgI8Ez6GYx1yW1zFOOeXINOAwzkaEh1epRR4p1HQLEFgvcRCswXQoYXUE3ClJ1QlMhPhLSjmZ9iAXG9lXb6OJSSZaQ5MdFDuGx2kGRRtGn9XdMIE8PNn~Ue~7wtxBOIM4tHO2RLz27goi2lvE0wgPQrpX~v214bZaYNkJQczDeJnKBk~IeFCaX45tDx9cF6rBF~Z4psnDpGEnlWcs8rP4irANiUT6OaC89i7awsYBF8qLQrj7e2P~bGf47F3WzT~K1C4JgvI7luRfxC5~gJPUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","Solar and storage developers told the Senate Energy Subcommittee they support expansion of renewables and storage but urged statutory protections to ensure competition, transparent procurement and local land‑use authority.

Hamilton Davis, vice president of regulatory affairs at Energy Re and a board member of the Carolina’s Clean Energy Business Association, said the industry supports deploying more solar and storage to meet growing load and replace retiring coal, but lawmakers should require competitive procurement driven by the utilities’ integrated resource plans and give the Public Service Commission authority to oversee those solicitations. “We think that process should be transparent, should be predictable, and it should also be required under statute,” Davis said.

Developers also urged caution about expanding state siting authority. Davis said placing land‑use review for projects above a certain size in the Siting Act would remove county authority over land use and add uncertainty and cost. He noted current siting triggers: projects above 75 megawatts require siting review; many South Carolina projects have been smaller than that threshold. The industry offered a rough rule of thumb that roughly eight acres are required per megawatt for photovoltaics and noted a 66‑megawatt project sited on about 530 acres as a recent example.

On procurement and market design, witnesses recommended steps to increase market competition, including using competitive solicitations for resources identified in IRPs, enabling participation in an energy imbalance market (EIM) and preserving intervenor rights to hire experts and submit rebuttal testimony in complex proceedings. They argued that these steps would reduce costs for ratepayers and avoid the risk of overbuilding or locking in uneconomic projects.

Ending note: Developers said they were not opposed to building new gas where needed but urged transparent, competitive processes and preservation of local land‑use input before the Legislature changes siting rules or appellate standing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 5, 2025 10:00 am Senate Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Subcommittee ","oneSentenceSummary","Solar developers told senators competitive procurement tied to approved IRPs and preserving local land-use control are needed for orderly renewable growth; they warned that broad changes to the Siting Act and appeal standing could add uncertainty and slow projects.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17641,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6296925,"Consumer Groups Warn Economic‑Development Rates and Data‑Center Deals Could Shift Costs to Households",1651,3901000,5552000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b&start=3901&end=5552","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b/thumbnail_3901000.jpg","/articles/6296925/South-Carolina/Consumer-Groups-Warn-EconomicDevelopment-Rates-and-DataCenter-Deals-Could-Shift-Costs-to-Households","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296925-f55a8a55118da897ec8f9354e63e7663/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169653&Signature=KPXfIhYPqLmBZNr0FmcfstDyQvziOuSA2zMOd~ZzqGSeiKRXevMg~AU4iCOHXHIlee5R8hCNzCbvXZNGQHt3V0hRUjjq5d1wHZ7Lv2hqZZ9SVwS-iTTq8o9GmXVlkFgyQQKZ6oz6L-F729rvktncHTVNqwBqaqr9ob0muH6WpHSUqRZFnuQurOw7QU97BD-RoIR18r3-E8CEcmhfFItaTHjwnz4KsujM8ShZLa74zBG8EedQ8YgcCUYvQhneRx1cICi5JjLX4Ihozu~Bfhpqaz9nMZDMp8PuF2L8EXq0B3siDKBrRaiwIYGhFNlilPwl-B6StGbaH6V2U3z0oXU4Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consumer advocates and critics of preferential industrial rates told a Senate Energy Subcommittee that language in House Bill 3309 and related proposals could allow “economic development” or transformational customers to receive discounts that shift costs to ordinary households.

“Rate setting is a zero‑sum game,” said John Ruth of AARP, who testified that if large customers are offered discounted rates, the commission’s revenue requirement must be allocated to remaining customers and could raise residential bills. Ruth recommended an approach used in other states — for example, creating separate rate classes or using an incremental‑cost test — so large new users pay costs their additions impose on the system.

Frank Knapp, a longtime energy commentator, criticized provisions that would change the mission language for the Office of Regulatory Staff and said the bill’s economic‑development rate language is “tremendously anti‑consumer.” He added that one section would permit transformational industrial customers to “pay up to 25 percent less than the cost of producing the electricity,” a gap he said residential customers would make up.

Those who testified asked lawmakers to protect low‑income and fixed‑income households from subsidizing large accounts, and to require Public Service Commission oversight of any discounted rates and transmission cost allocation tied to big industrial projects. Some witnesses suggested the Legislature consider the Indiana approach of a separate rate class for large data centers.

Ending note: Senators heard repeated requests to ensure any economic development incentives are crafted so they do not increase bills for ordinary residential customers and to require transparent PSC review before rate discounts are authorized.","AARP and other witnesses told senators that special rates and contracts for large new industrial customers — including data centers — risk shifting costs to residential customers and recommended tighter safeguards such as separate rate classes or incremental‑cost tests.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6296929,"Proposed Kennedy’s Gas Plant Draws Scrutiny Over Flooding, Equity and Cost Risks",0,4689000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b&start=4689&end=4689","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b/thumbnail_4689000.jpg","/articles/6296929/South-Carolina/Proposed-Kennedys-Gas-Plant-Draws-Scrutiny-Over-Flooding-Equity-and-Cost-Risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296929-6ee3a47a8c0f95a1e3e8dacb72669379/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169653&Signature=VohtFAxluCdQsXkizLLFOzTtYVsycTzcwvzFRoeIyZ39dvYm7I-7JNLYT6c~38HA5qS9VWsLYXmxCw76f9TJLFX6rLOn3U8GEm-oNgRQQ248r72GF6yYB4ZEB9IIMk0NZDSzwyjZUrxg8r~fJf5qY6VyscDJhn~o4vkeubuzVYi4bx0mlGFYwa0nIrVy2kkQqNBq4W2xhCRWnX~eb0AW-raRHRLrBIiwealsifVLp7g9lsOLCxEpjMx6i21DlMtTiHgrzGj-t3GlzzmJhwu07L~eiorrdBGZRmMgfc0rhfVLgcOZ4yISdf2Sc-7N6zQ2IM8O77rNS8~oe1O~r-v6cw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed combined‑cycle gas plant at Kennedy’s on the Edisto River drew sustained criticism at a Senate Energy Subcommittee hearing, where witnesses warned the site has discrete risks, unclear cost estimates and would sit near a historically burdened community.

Robbie Maynor, who said he lives “about 2 miles upstream from the proposed site,” told the panel the Kennedy’s community has lived with pollution from a now‑retired coal plant and nearby Interstate 95. “Residents in Kennedy's have had to live with pollution from that coal plant for 50 years,” Maynor said. He added that utilities are seeking both legislative authority for a joint plant and rollbacks of permitting protections.

Conservation witnesses and analysts said the combination of local site risk and the size of the proposed project magnify potential harms. Taylor Allred with the Coastal Conservation League said a single, very large plant would concentrate discrete flood and transmission risks and argued for portfolio diversification that includes storage and solar: “The biggest risk is just putting all your eggs in 1 basket with 1 gigantic power plant in 1 site that’s got its own discrete risks.”

Technical and cost questions highlighted at the hearing included the plant’s pipeline needs, transmission upgrade costs and how siting and IRP treatment differ. Hamilton Davis, a solar and storage developer, summarized a Telos Energy transmission impact analysis that his group commissioned: limiting a Kennedy’s plant to roughly 600 megawatts and adding battery storage at an alternate site could save Dominion customers about $231 million compared with a larger single site build, he said.

Witnesses also noted regulatory limits: integrated resource plans are forward‑looking planning documents and “cannot be viewed as tacit approval of the project,” Robbie Maynor said, citing a Public Service Commission statement about Santee Cooper’s IRP. Maynor and others urged the Legislature not to pre‑endorse a specific mega‑site or a joint‑venture arrangement before the commission has reviewed explicit siting applications and full cost estimates.

End note: Senators heard repeated requests for full cost transparency — including pipeline and transmission price tags — before any statutory language effectively endorses a single, very large plant at Kennedy’s. Witnesses suggested smaller units, diversified siting or pairing generation with storage as lower‑risk paths.","Witnesses raised site-specific concerns about a proposed large combined-cycle plant at Kennedy’s on the Edisto River — including flood risk, community health impacts from prior coal operations, pipeline and transmission upgrades and uncertain cost consequences for ratepayers.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6296931,"Lawmakers Hear Split Views on House Bill 3309, Omnibus Energy Measure",5653,93000,5746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b&start=93&end=5746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2512458-486ac421d1f71019f4ee5b8c9077c12b/thumbnail_93000.jpg","/articles/6296931/South-Carolina/Lawmakers-Hear-Split-Views-on-House-Bill-3309-Omnibus-Energy-Measure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296931-721b12248a8d5ac061ea1337dca5e802/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169653&Signature=SXl6UGgYXUhzXs0JdJsWepFXWK-UPvQ3vUcsp69ej315kcsC7SPeI83Ko6VkikDHulg0xEoHRbjGC1SmRvkRvePWitXWX8GWk9eodt-82N1-z-P1SeMylz7s2KF6aso7UftYk2Kfd10DHsECVchR0TX-uHkm~bhJMupPyJWnoSaHppAMKnsL9xyG9JPqAgzcCqkSfsBpohsP2KQMMnCnp0TZwu4p212dBhvTTlodOAyLnoFn6WQvWFXuGEC5FCk5mmHDgYdaub5cCZOsu-l6w-uNoB09TT-CO2mcltSfE~eOMv1WWz7J-4v0wpuwa-izIsxIfa~S72fCpy5EIl~1Ig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 3309 (H 3309), a wide-ranging energy bill pending in the General Assembly, drew sharply different testimony at a Senate Energy Subcommittee hearing where witnesses urged more protections for ratepayers, stronger procurement rules for renewables and clearer metrics for energy efficiency.

The bill “contains constructive amendments,” said Taylor Allred, coastal policy director for the Coastal Conservation League, but as written he warned H 3309 could “increase ratepayers’ risk of paying higher bills than necessary and delay the growth in clean energy resources.”

Why this matters: Lawmakers must balance two aims that several witnesses described as competing priorities — ensuring affordable, reliable power while enabling investment to meet rapid demand growth from large customers such as data centers. Multiple witnesses told the subcommittee that H 3309 could be improved with changes to integrated resource planning, rate design, efficiency programs and rules that allow large customers access to clean energy.

The Coastal Conservation League proposed several planning reforms, including requiring utilities to adopt best practices in load forecasting, to survey large prospective customers about their clean-energy needs, and to iterate transmission and generation modeling so portfolios avoid stranded-asset risk. “If these customers are included in load forecasts, the utilities should be required to survey them regarding their clean energy needs,” Allred testified.

Developers representing solar and storage companies pressed for mandatory, transparent competitive procurement tied to utility integrated resource plans. Hamilton Davis, vice president for regulatory affairs at Energy Re and a board member of the Carolina’s Clean Energy Business Association, urged the subcommittee to require competitive solicitations so renewable and storage offers are tested against other options rather than awarded by sole-source contracts.

Consumer advocates said the bill must avoid shifting costs onto households. John Ruth of AARP said the financial consequences of discount rates and special contracts fall to typical residential customers because “rate setting is a zero-sum game.” He recommended mechanisms such as an incremental-cost test or a separate rate class for very large, energy‑intensive customers.

Other reforms proposed by several witnesses included: adding a fuel‑cost sharing mechanism so investor‑owned utilities share some exposure to volatile gas prices; preserving the ability of the Public Service Commission and interveners to use third‑party experts in complex proceedings; and improving energy‑efficiency targets and program oversight — including a change that the Office of Regulatory Staff should study how to implement a third‑party administrator but not whether one should exist.

Several witnesses pointed to two market reforms as immediate priorities: participation in an energy imbalance market (EIM) to enable five‑minute settlement and more efficient dispatch across balancing areas, and a fuel‑cost sharing mechanism so ratepayers are not fully exposed to volatile natural‑gas prices. Eddie Moore of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said roughly “70% of the bill is essentially utility written” and urged the Senate to use the subcommittee process to rebalance the package.

Ending note: Witnesses from conservation groups, the solar industry and consumer advocates asked lawmakers to keep negotiations open and to incorporate more transparent procurement, stronger consumer protections and clearer efficiency obligations into any final bill. Several speakers asked the committee for more time to craft targeted amendments rather than adopt the House language wholesale.","Stakeholders including conservation groups, solar developers, consumer advocates and utilities told a Senate subcommittee that House Bill 3309 contains provisions that could speed resource deployment but also shift costs or reduce regulatory protections; witnesses urged amendments on planning, procurement, rate design and efficiency.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Solar and Storage Industry Urges Competitive Procurement, Flags Siting Act Changes

Consumer Groups Warn Economic‑Development Rates and Data‑Center Deals Could Shift Costs to Households

Proposed Kennedy’s Gas Plant Draws Scrutiny Over Flooding, Equity and Cost Risks

Lawmakers Hear Split Views on House Bill 3309, Omnibus Energy Measure