Senate subcommittee reviews H.3309; witnesses debate procurement, rate design and regulatory rollbacks

A Senate energy subcommittee heard public testimony on House Bill H.3309, an omnibus energy measure, focusing on procurement, rate design, regulatory authority and permitting timelines.

The bill matters because it would change how new generation is planned and paid for in South Carolina, shifting decisions that affect rates, the pace of clean-energy deployment and local permitting. Advocates warned the bill as written risks shifting costs to residential customers, while developers and industry speakers urged clearer procurement mechanisms to meet fast-rising demand from large new customers.

Taylor Allred, with the Coastal Conservation League, told the committee H.3309 "could increase ratepayers' risk of paying higher bills than necessary and delay the growth in clean energy resources." He recommended revisions to integrated resource planning, stronger load-forecasting practices for utilities and requirements that large energy customers be surveyed about their clean-energy needs before utilities hardwire assumptions into models. "Otherwise, existing ratepayers could be exposed to stranded asset risks," Allred said.

Allred described several specific rate-making proposals: require service contracts for large new customers to meet an incremental-cost test so "incremental revenues exceed incremental costs," require Public Service Commission review of discounted economic-development rates and adopt a fuel-cost-sharing mechanism so investor-owned utilities absorb a portion of fuel-cost variances.

Hamilton Davis, vice president for regulatory affairs at Energy Re and a board member of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association, urged competitive procurement for the renewable and storage resources identified in utility integrated resource plans. Davis said competitive solicitations should be "transparent, predictable and required under statute" so the Public Service Commission can oversee execution of approved plans. He also argued that the bill contains rollbacks to policy changes made by Act 62 (2019) and to processes that previously improved competition and transparency.

John Ruth, identified as representing AARP, told senators his group's principal concern is "rates and rate shifting onto residential consumers." Ruth explained the way a revenue requirement is set in a rate case and said discounted or special economic-development rates can shift costs to households. He recommended mechanisms such as separate rate classes for large industrial users to avoid cross-subsidies.

Speakers from the conservation and clean-energy communities urged additions to H.3309: energy-efficiency targets, transmission-planning improvements and adoption of an energy imbalance market (EIM) to allow five-minute market settlements. Eddie Moore of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said two outside studies — the Brattle Group and Daymark — point to potential savings from wholesale-market reforms and recommended fuel-cost-sharing and procurement changes as near-term, consumer-protective reforms.

Witnesses also pressed clarity on appeals and standing language, warning that undefined changes to standing could limit the ability of affected parties to seek review of agency permits. Developers and some industry advocates said they support efficient permitting timelines but opposed automatic approvals if an agency fails to act within a deadline.

The panel did not take formal action on H.3309 during the hearing. Several witnesses offered to supply supplemental studies and data to the subcommittee; Taylor Allred agreed to provide a one-page summary and said she would send a Telos Energy transmission-impact analysis to staff.

The hearing closed with senators encouraging further stakeholder talks and staff follow-up as the legislature prepares to consider amendments to H.3309.