Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Legislation Hb3309 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate subcommittee hears criticism of House Bill 3309 over permitting timelines, utility oversight and energy-efficiency shortfalls
Summary
Witnesses and advocates told a Senate special committee that House Bill 3309 would shorten permitting timelines, limit appeals and roll back Public Service Commission oversight while doing too little to prioritize energy efficiency or protect frontline communities.
At a Senate special committee meeting, staff and witnesses discussed House Bill 3309, a revision of last year’s energy proposals, focusing on changes to permitting timelines, appeals, Public Service Commission authority and energy-efficiency policy.
Breeden, a committee staff member, briefed members on how 33‑09 differs from prior proposals and from H.51‑18, saying the bill keeps the Public Service Commission’s seven‑member structure and requires the PSC to issue an order on major utility facility siting rather than treating silence as automatic approval. Breeden also summarized changes to pre‑application meetings, appeal pathways through the Administrative Law Court and expanded PSC consideration of economic impacts to water as well as electric utilities.
Zakia Mickle, representing the South Carolina Energy Justice Coalition and the Sierra Club of South Carolina, told the panel the conversation around new generation has been mischaracterized. “The majority of the energy our utility friends are seeking to generate is to support industrial growth and large data centers,” Mickle said, citing a Santee Cooper statement she heard at a separate hearing that about “60 to 70%” of projected load growth between now and 2030 is expected to come from data centers. Mickle urged the committee to prioritize energy efficiency through a third‑party administrator rather than leave programs run by utilities, which she said are inaccessible to low‑income households and renters.
Mickle added several quantitative points: she said retail peak load growth attributed to residential and commercial growth was about 250 megawatts, that South Carolina’s electricity sales rose roughly 3% since February 2007 while population rose about 21% in the same period, and that some energy‑efficiency program applicants must match utility incentives with about $2,500 in private funds. She also expressed strong opposition to including language favoring small modular reactors in the bill, citing a February 2022 study she said showed SMRs could increase nuclear waste volumes by “2 to 30 times” compared with traditional reactors.
John Brooker, appearing as a witness, outlined legal and technical concerns with multiple bill sections. He called Section 12(a)’s six‑month automatic approval window a “major loophole,” noting it could start before an application is complete and that the provision would also limit standing to appeal. Brooker said the bill would narrow the PSC’s scrutiny of long‑term utility plans by excluding energy efficiency from proceedings, reduce transparency by restricting access to proprietary software used to assess utility plans (Section 20), and allow Santee Cooper to bypass public hearings for transmission tied to economic development (Section 19). He also said a five‑year limit on contracts for utility‑scale solar (Section 16) would make private financing infeasible.
Committee members questioned witnesses about alternatives. When asked whether an explicit decision deadline is necessary, Brooker said advocates support expediting appellate review but recommended a longer permitting timeline (he suggested 12 months rather than six) and stressed that timelines should start only after an application is complete. Mickle and Brooker both emphasized the need for stronger energy‑efficiency measures and competitive procurement for solar and storage.
Multiple senators and staff noted ongoing market activity around gas supplies and developer interest in projects referenced in the bill; witnesses responded that approval of an integrated resource plan (IRP) at the PSC does not substitute for project‑level siting and environmental review required under existing law. Witnesses expressed concern that some provisions would prioritize utility or developer interests over captive ratepayers and frontline communities, calling attention to the Kennedy’s site, which Mickle described as a predominantly Black, low‑income community with historical exposure to pollution from a coal plant.
No formal votes or motions were taken during the hearing. The committee indicated it will continue discussion at a future meeting and asked witnesses for state examples and data to inform potential amendments.
The subcommittee recessed after the hearing and scheduled follow‑up sessions to continue review of H.3309.
