Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Climate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances S.256 (CPACE) after adopting name and grid‑compatibility amendments and rejecting energy‑code repeal
Summary
The committee advanced S.256 to authorize voluntary commercial PACE programs; it adopted two amendments — a nomenclature change and a Santee Cooper technical accommodation — and voted to remove a proposed repeal of the 2009 energy code reference from the bill.
A legislative committee advanced S.256, the South Carolina Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy and Resilience Act (commonly called CPACE), after adopting two amendments and rejecting a subcommittee amendment that would have repealed a statutory reference to the state’s 2009 energy code.
Rebecca, committee staff, summarized the bill as authorizing local governments to establish commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency programs by ordinance. “Under a CPACE program, a local government may enter into a voluntary assessment agreement with the record owner of a qualifying property within a designated PACE area to finance certain clean energy improvements on the property,” Rebecca said. The assessment would be repaid through an assessment levied on the property and recorded by the local government.
Committee members and witnesses discussed mechanics, protections and costs. Rebecca said the program requires the consent of any senior mortgage lienholder before a PACE assessment can take priority, and that administration costs would typically be borne by the lender or borrower. She told the committee that “36” states have adopted similar programs, according to testimony in the record.
Lawmakers and witnesses also debated a separate, contested amendment that would have deleted the statutory reference to the 2009 energy code (section 6‑10‑30). Advocates for repeal, including Adrienne Monterre, executive director of the state chapter of the American Institute of Architects, argued that the repeal would let the Building Codes Council and the regular regulatory process review and adopt newer energy codes on a three‑year schedule. She said the current statutory language effectively frozen the state at the 2009 energy code and prevented that public regulatory review process.
Representatives of the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, including Alex James, opposed the repeal. James told the committee that the 2009 energy code became law after the state accepted federal funds and that raising the mandatory minimum to a more recent energy code could increase housing costs. He cited a committee exhibit estimating that adopting the 2021 energy code without modifications could add about $22,000 to the price of a median‑priced home, and that a net‑zero variant of the 2021 code could add substantially more (figure cited in committee discussion: about $68,000).
Other senators raised concerns about consumer protection and fraud in lien‑based financing structures. Senator Garrett asked whether eliminating attorney or title‑company involvement could open “the door for fraud,” and committee staff responded that lenders would generally require title searches and first‑mortgage consent, and that a PACE obligation could not be placed without mortgage holder consent.
The committee voted to remove the amendment that would have repealed section 6‑10‑30, keeping the 2009 statutory reference in place for now, and adopted two other amendments: a CPACE Alliance requested nomenclature change to rename the act the Commercial Property Assessed Capital Expenditure Improvement Act and a technical accommodation requested by Santee Cooper to ensure certain infrastructure tie‑in standards. With those perfecting amendments adopted and the 6‑10‑30 repeal removed, the committee reported S.256 out favorably as amended by voice vote.
