Should SC senator vote on sweeping energy bill? His ties to power company spark questions

As chairman of a key legislative committee, state Sen. Luke Rankin can decide what the panel discusses, guide the direction of conversations and use his position as a bully pulpit to support bills he thinks are important.

This year, Rankin’s authority extends to legislation that would help the state-owned Santee Cooper power company build a large natural gas plant that some people question as risky and not the best way to meet the state’s future energy needs.

Rankin has publicly expressed support for a big gas plant, but has been less vocal about his business relationship with a Santee Cooper board member.

Rankin and board member David Singleton, a long-time friend, are partners in a holding company for land they own jointly in eastern North Carolina. Their limited liability corporation was formed in 2005 when they purchased the undeveloped tract, Rankin said.

Recently, Rankin’s wife gained the Santee Cooper board member’s help in securing a free land lease from the utility for an animal shelter in the Myrtle Beach area. A state oversight panel approved the 40-year-lease Wednesday at a meeting in Columbia.

Those connections are now sparking questions about whether Rankin should vote or discuss the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee that he chairs.

Lynn Teague, vice president of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, said she believes Rankin should disclose the relationship when the legislation comes up for debate. He has publicly revealed the business relationship in state Ethics Commission forms, as well as in legislative screening transcripts, according to Rankin and public records.

But he would be wise to do more, Teague said.

“I think he should recuse‘’ himself from voting, said Teague, a critic of the sweeping energy legislation that allows for the large natural gas plant. “At the very least, there certainly should be public knowledge about this.’’

John Crangle, a long-time ethics watchdog at the State House, said Rankin’s relationship to Singleton does not appear to be an ethics violation because the animal shelter is a non-profit venture that does not provide any personal gain to Rankin or his family. The state ethics law restricts public officials from voting or taking action on matters in which they could gain financially.

Still, Crangle agreed with Teague that Rankin should be open about any connections to Santee Cooper. Rankin might consider seeking an ethics ruling on whether the relationship is a conflict, Crangle said.

Rankin, R-Horry, has not refrained from discussing the legislation that affects Santee Cooper and he has indicated to The State that he might vote on the measure “unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Ethics Commission.’’ Rankin did not elaborate, but told The State there is a need for more energy in South Carolina.

In a written response to questions from The State, Rankin said he has no economic interest in either the animal shelter or Santee Cooper and does not stand to gain from Santee Cooper’s action to provide a lease to the Myrtle Beach area shelter. Rankin said he supported legislation several years ago that brings greater oversight of Santee Cooper.

“I am accountable to and I answer to the residents of Senate District 33,’’ his written response to The State said, noting that “I’ll continue to work to help improve the lives and futures of those in our community.’’

House and Senate bills affecting Santee Cooper are among the highest profile pieces of legislation this year in the S.C. General Assembly.

The bills differ somewhat, but have the same basic message: the state needs more energy and South Carolina should take away some of the impediments for power companies to establish more electricity generating ability. Most notably, the bills expressly allow Santee Cooper to jointly build a large power plant with non-state-owned utilities, including Dominion Energy.

In his role as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Rankin is presiding over meetings about the Senate version of the bill. On Thursday, he led the conversation during a 90-minute subcommitee meeting that focused mostly on the legislation affecting Santee Cooper.

He asked if anyone at Thursday’s meeting disagreed with him that South Carolina needs to generate more electricity.

“Not one hand in this room said we don’t,’’ Rankin said.

The Senate bill, like the House version, has drawn fire because it would in some cases weaken environmental oversight of energy projects.

As proposed, the Senate bill puts time limits on how long state regulators can review the way energy projects impact water quality, raising concerns about whether that will allow permits to be rushed through. The bill says the state “shall limit review’’ of an application to approve a key water quality permit that all projects must have.

An amendment under consideration by senators would eliminate the time limit requirement, which would calm concerns by environmental groups. But the amendment has not been voted on yet.

The House bill has an array of elements that critics say favor power company arguments over the public’s, curtail important environmental oversight, and favor nuclear and natural gas over renewable energy, such as solar power. The bill also clips the authority of the state Consumer Advocate as an independent voice on behalf of the public, critics say.

A House committee made changes to the bill Wednesday that power plant boosters say were intended to ensure that the legislation does not undermine the authority of the state Public Service Commission, the quasi-judicial panel that approves new power plants and changes in energy rates. But the bill, which still allows Santee Cooper to participate in a large new natural gas plant, requires state agencies to put approvals or input for such a facility ahead of other priorities.

Critics have said a large new power plant is not the best option for meeting future energy needs. Instead, they favor a greater mixture of solar energy, smaller natural gas plants, battery storage and energy efficiency as ways to meet demand.

Utilities and some legislators say they’re not opposed to solar, battery storage or energy efficiency, but a big natural gas plant is a more reliable way to provide a consistent flow of energy that South Carolina will need in the near future.

Rankin, a Santee Cooper supporter who opposed efforts several years ago to sell the public utility to an out-of-state company, has spoken in favor of a 1,200-megawatt natural gas plant that would be developed jointly by Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper.

To serve the plant, Santee Cooper and Dominion would need to lay miles of pipelines, some of which could be built across private land, whether or not the landowners agree.

Rankin said his business relationship with Singleton involves only land ownership in North Carolina, just over the state line from the Myrtle Beach area. Rankin is a 50% partner in Columbus Farms Realty Holdings LLC, according to a disclosure form he filed with the state Ethics Commission.

Singleton, who is a vice-chair of the Santee Cooper board, helped Rankin’s wife obtain land from the utility for the animal shelter in Horry County. She said she contacted Singleton because she knew him through her husband.

Rankin’s wife, Lindsey, said she pursued the Santee Cooper property the same as she would any other land.

Santee Cooper’s general counsel told Singleton he did not have a conflict of interest because he would not benefit from the animal shelter transaction., records show. Santee Cooper also had an independent investigator determine there was no conflict, the state-owned utility said.

Sen. Rankin told The Sun News he purposely refrained from any communication with Santee Cooper regarding the animal shelter. Records from Horry County show he communicated with the county to obtain a letter saying the animal shelter was an approved use in a limited industrial zone, which is the zoning for Santee Cooper’s land.

Rankin said he has no economic interest in the Myrtle Beach area humane society, Santee Cooper or the land. But several homeowners in the Myrtle Beach area who opposed the animal shelter have questioned Sen. Rankin’s role in the issue..

Meanwhile, during an October 2022 meeting of the state Public Utilities Review board, of which Rankin is a member, he grilled a state electric cooperatives representative about why they were not on board with plans for a new natural gas plant that had been proposed.

That facility would have been built in Georgetown County to replace a polluting coal plant that was getting old and increasingly expensive for Santee Cooper to operate.

“Why in the world, would y’all opt out of the generation (plant) that we know has to be built of 1,200 megawatts?’’ Rankin asked.

The cooperatives had been concerned about the expense and the wisdom of building the large plant at the Winyah coal site, particularly in light of a 2017 nuclear construction project fiasco that had soaked ratepayers. The large nuclear project in Fairfield County was abandoned amid cost overruns and delays.

When Santee Cooper and SCE&G, Dominion’s predecessor, walked away from that project, they had spent $9 billion collectively and charged customers for the upfront work.

Rankin suggested, however, that a large new natural gas plant could save ratepayers money in the long run. Power generation facilities built separately by Santee Cooper and Dominion could ultimately cost more, he said.

“With all that we’ve heard ... there’s no way to build two and it not cost each more money,’’ Rankin said during the October 2022 Public Utilities Review Committee meeting.

After the cooperatives balked at the Georgetown County facility, a new plan was floated to have Santee Cooper and Dominion Energy jointly build a natural gas plant of comparable size in Colleton County. That plant is expressly called for in the legislation before the S.C. General Assembly.