‘This mule is gonna kick us again.’ SC senators warn against fast tracking energy bill

A massive energy bill that seemed to have a clear and swift path to passage was met with resistance in the state Senate by a key leader Tuesday.

Minutes after a subcommittee voted to approve the Senate version of the ‘‘South Carolina Energy Security Act’ as an amendment to the House bill, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, asked to delay the bill until the fall.

“Because it’s important that we get (this issue) right, my recommendation is that we spend a lot of time over the fall working on this issue,” Massey said, citing the limited time left in the session and the need to retain the protections put in after VC Summer and the need for strength of the Public Service Commission.

Massey and other senators comments echoed state Sen. Wes Climer, R-York, who last week fought to recommit the measure back to a subcommittee, where policymakers could have more time to ask questions and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the bill’s contents.

Massey’s suggestion garnered bipartisan support as several senators cited their own concerns with the proposed legislation, its potential impact on the ratepayers and the memories and lasting impact of VC Summer.

State Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Colleton, whose district encompasses the newly proposed Canadys natural gas plant, spoke about affected people in her area and the unfulfilled promises of cleaning up the former coal plant.

“There is no lesson to be learned from the second kick of the mule,” Matthews said. “We need to pump the breaks (on this bill) because this mule is going to kick us again.”

Judiciary committee Chairman Luke Rankin, R-Horry, who has ties to a Santee Cooper board member, and the Senate bill’s author, Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, took issue with the assertion that the bill was being fast tracked. Both citing study committees from the House and Senate that had been working on the issue for several years.

“The sense of this (bill) being jammed down, fast-tracked, hurried through, I don’t take offense at that because I don’t believe that is a personal affront,” Rankin said. “Since 2021, four of our members in (the Senate) had been hard at work on the RTO study committee. Those of us who are crying ‘shock, foul, what are they trying to do,’ have not been tuned in.”

In Tuesday morning’s Judiciary subcommittee, Davis explained his amendment to the House bill as the group had S. 909 on its agenda. For his amendments, Davis had been working with the energy bill stakeholders, including the three utilities (Santee Cooper, Dominion and Duke Energy), the state’s co-operatives, large energy users, independent power producers, environmentalists and residential consumers.

He explained the major opportunities with the H. 3118, including the “legislative findings of fact” in regard to the Canady’s project — suggesting that was the purview of the PSC and other regulatory bodies, while the legislature should only authorize Santee Cooper and Dominion to work together.

Other Davis amendment proposals included a reduction of the PSC, restoring the approval process to current law, upgrading the state’s transmission capacity and keeping the Office or Regulatory Staff’s focus on consumers.

Clean energy, small business, consumer advocates and others, who didn’t testify when the committee first took up the House bill, raised concerns about the role of the protecting consumers, the joint-venture of Dominion-Santee Cooper at Canadys, the impact on ratepayers and a looming federal regulation.

At 11:59 a.m., subcommittee meeting ended with a voice vote passing Davis’ Senate bill 909, used as an amendment to H. 5118.

About 20 minutes later, Massey told the Senate floor how customers were still paying for VC Summer, while asking why this important piece of legislation was coming up less than a month left in the session.

Massey said customers of Dominion had been paying off the cost of VC Summer for the past five years and would be for the next 15, including 9.9% in profit for the company, on their energy bills. Massey said Santee Cooper and co-op customers would see the increases on the bills this coming January, when they began paying the costs of VC Summer, minus the profit portion.

“I got a real problem with this, that I’m expected to pay for the cost and a profit on (VC) Summer and the cost and a profit on Canadys. I don’t need them both and I’m not going to get them both, but I have to pay for both. The people of South Carolina need to understand that,” Massey said.

15 minutes after the Senate adjourned, the full Judiciary committee met and questioned the three utility leaders about the state’s needs for more energy and their input on the bill’s provisions.

The utilities maintain that in light of their “obligation to serve,” with an anticipated growth in energy demands, the House bill is critically necessary.

“Between now and 2030, we could a 40% increase in the electric needs on the Santee Cooper system,” said Jimmy Staton, president and CEO of Santee Cooper. “The bill enables us to move forward, it streamlines the process, and we find that critically important so that we do not have rolling blackouts as we move forward and we do not impeded the economic development of South Carolina.”