Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Assets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate carries over digital‑asset bill after extended debate over CBDC, power use and oversight
Summary
Lawmakers debated S.163, a proposal that would bar state and local governments from accepting or testing central bank digital currency and add oversight for high‑consumption digital‑asset operations. Sponsors carried the bill over for later consideration after questions about taxation, electricity use and regulatory scope.
The South Carolina Senate took up S.163, a bill introduced by the senator from Lawrence, Senator Verdon, that would add a chapter to state law to prohibit a governing authority from accepting or requiring payment using a central bank digital currency or from participating in a test of such a currency. Debate focused on how the measure would intersect with crypto mining, data centers, electricity demand and existing regulatory authority.
Supporters framed the bill as a narrowly tailored response to emerging digital finance and power‑intensive operations. The measure as discussed would require projects or businesses that use more than 1 megawatt of power to be subject to review by the Public Service Commission and would give the attorney general explicit authority to investigate fraud related to digital‑asset businesses.
Opponents and questioners pressed sponsors on areas left unresolved in the draft, especially tax treatment of digital assets, the bill’s interplay with municipal zoning, and whether existing law already provides tools for enforcement. Several senators said a clearer regulatory footprint was needed before establishing new state prohibitions or penalties. Senator Khamsin (Senator from Charleston) and Senator Corbin (Senator from Greenville) asked how the bill would affect data‑center operations and whether the Public Service Commission review would be sufficient to protect electrical reliability.
Senators also discussed industry behavior: proponents described mining operations that schedule power use to off‑peak hours and noted a “kill switch” feature that can rapidly cut consumption; skeptics said patterns can vary and expressed concern about sustained local demand spikes. Multiple senators referenced the presence of crypto ATMs and the growing retail exposure of digital assets among South Carolinians.
After extended discussion and several technical clarifications, the sponsor moved to carry the bill over for later consideration; the motion carried. No final vote on the bill’s substance was taken.
The measure remains pending, with senators signaling they want more detail on taxation, consumer protections and the mechanics of Public Service Commission review before a final vote.
