Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewables Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solar and Storage Industry Urges Competitive Procurement, Flags Siting Act Changes
Summary
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.
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.
