South Carolina subcommittee hears hours of testimony on Clean Air Act bill targeting geoengineering

A South Carolina legislative subcommittee heard more than three hours of testimony May 21 on H4624, the proposed Clean Air Act, focusing on restrictions and transparency for alleged geoengineering and weather-modification activities. Residents, physicians and advocates described local health and environmental concerns and urged the committee to advance the legislation; a representative of Rainmaker Technology, a cloud-seeding company, asked the panel to preserve regulated, local cloud-seeding operations.

Representative Gilreath opened the hearing and framed the bill as a citizen-protection measure, saying the panel should "do all we can to stop this" after citing patents and naming substances such as aluminum, barium and strontium that witnesses said are being dispersed in the atmosphere. "We know how Everyone in this room knows how important this bill is," Representative Gilreath told the committee as he introduced speakers and witnesses. (Representative Gilreath)

Why it matters: witnesses described two distinct categories of activity — localized, regulated cloud seeding performed at low altitudes to encourage precipitation, and alleged large-scale stratospheric aerosol injection or solar radiation management, which they said involves high-altitude releases and carries systemic risks. Supporters told the committee they view H4624 as a precautionary, state-level step to require transparency about who is releasing materials over South Carolina, what those materials are and what studies have been done to justify them.

Residents and local officials who spoke included Kelly Long, a Greenville County council member, who described observed die-offs of monarch butterflies, soil testing she said showed elevated aluminum levels on her property, and short-term nose and eye irritation she attributed to recent sky events. "If you pass this bill through, I think we need to vote today on it," she said, adding that the measure is "nonpartisan, environmental" and urged members to put constituents first. (Kelly Long)

Several medical and public-health witnesses urged cautious, preventive action. Dr. Andrea Lamont Nazarenko, president and cofounder of the South Carolina Health Rights Cooperative, distinguished hazard, risk and demonstrated harm and said federal and state precedents give lawmakers authority to act on precautionary grounds. "With atmospheric intervention, we are all susceptible to the risks," she said. (Dr. Andrea Lamont Nazarenko)

Physicians who testified described concerns about long-term exposure to airborne particulates. Dr. Denise Sibley, who testified about Tennessee's 2024 ban on geoengineering and cited federal budget and research documents, said stratospheric aerosols can remain in the atmosphere for years and affect soil, water and human health. Dr. Clayton J. Baker told the committee he has seen measurable metals in environmental samples and urged legislative protection. (Dr. Denise Sibley; Dr. Clayton J. Baker)

At the same time, industry testimony emphasized a distinction between cloud seeding and the alleged large-scale interventions targeted by the bill. Grayson Gee, representing Rainmaker Technology, told the committee cloud seeding is a long-established, hyper-local practice used to increase precipitation and is typically conducted below about 15,000 feet using small quantities of silver iodide or salt. He requested clearer statutory language — for example, a defined meaning of "publicly approved contract" — so that lawful cloud-seeding projects could continue under public oversight. "Cloud seeding is categorically different from the proposed or theoretical geoengineering concepts," Gee said. (Grayson Gee)

Legal testimony described federal research and private-sector activity. Blake Horowitz, a federal trial lawyer who said he helped file a lawsuit on behalf of a whistleblower, told the committee that federal documents, university research funding and privately held patents show activity and investment in weather-intervention research. He said his group’s filing and cited federal documents are available to the committee for review. (Blake Horowitz)

What the committee did not do: the subcommittee did not take a final vote on H4624. The chair said the panel lacked a quorum and will try to schedule a vote at a later date; members asked staff to collect the written materials and evidence offered during the hearing. "We don't have a quorum. We're not gonna be able to get a vote today," the chair said.

Next steps: committee members said they would continue to study the technical and legal evidence, seek additional documentation from witnesses and potentially reconvene later in the week to attempt a vote when a quorum is present.

The hearing record includes public and expert testimony on environmental sampling, federal documents and company plans; the committee requested additional documentation from the lawyers and private witnesses who testified. The hearing adjourned without a vote and committee staff said they will provide members copies of submitted reports and legal filings.