When solar power took a hit from the PSC, people got mad. Now many want changes
Four Columbia area legislators pledged this week to fight what they call unfriendly decisions against ratepayers by the state Public Service Commission, a quasi-judicial panel that recently sided with big utilities against the state’s emerging solar energy industry.
At a forum Tuesday night, Reps. Nathan Ballentine, Micah Caskey and Ivory Torrey Thigpen, and Sen. Mia McLeod, said they’re frustrated with PSC decisions and with continuing setbacks the solar industry is dealing with in South Carolina.
Lawmakers called for changes, including the possibility of new Public Service commissioners. The PSC has been criticized for taking the side of utilities in rate cases over the interests of people who pay power bills.
A recent PSC decision favoring big utilities over solar energy companies goes against a recently adopted state law that was supposed to help renewable energy expand in South Carolina, Ballentine told the crowd of about 60 at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.
“The PSC did exactly the opposite of what every elected official in the state wanted to have done,’’ said Ballentine, a Republican from the Chapin area. “We sure as heck didn’t’ want it to go backwards. ‘’
Solar energy is an emerging form of power in South Carolina. Considered non-polluting, solar farms and rooftop solar panels are viewed by many as a way to reduce monthly power bills and stabilize electricity rates. Critics say solar isn’t as reliable as nuclear, natural gas or coal because sun power won’t work at night.
Last month, the PSC voted against rates sought by solar companies that do business with utilities and against long-term contracts sun energy companies say they need to survive in South Carolina. The PSC’s decision granted shorter-term contracts and rates more favorable to Dominion Energy and Duke Energy, utilities that serve most of the state.
Solar companies say favorable rates will allow for sun power expansion, which will stabilize electricity rates for customers. Utilities dispute that.
McLeod, D-Richland, said the PSC’s issues extend beyond solar. She said she found it hard to believe the PSC would approve a rate increase sought by a water and sewer utility in her district on the heels of the V.C. Summer nuclear debacle in 2017. SCE&G, now Dominion Energy, and state owned Santee Cooper raised electricity rates for customers, spent $9 billion on the nuclear construction project, then walked away without finishing two new reactors northwest of Columbia.
“It is shameful,’’ McLeod said to applause. “We are going to hold these people accountable, and ourselves, to make sure that we get a handle on this.’’
The PSC operated for years with relatively little scrutiny, but the 2017 V.C. Summer nuclear construction fiasco brought massive criticism against the commission for approving many of the rate increases and costs that drove up the price. The PSC said it had little choice but to approve the rate increases because a law favorable to the project had required that.
Tuesday’s forum, sponsored by the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, was held several months before the state Legislature is expected to decide on four candidates for the seven-member PSC.
Legislators said they want commissioners, who make more than $100,000 annually, to stand up to utilities. More than 20 people initially filed for seats on the commission. The filing period ends in late February.
“I’m looking for somebody with a little backbone,’’ Ballentine said.
Caskey, R-Lexington, said the recent solar vote by the PSC was a “bad decision’’ that ignored the advice of its own consultant in the cases involving Duke Energy and Dominion Energy.
Some of those attending the meeting suggested that, in addition to making changes at the PSC, the state should consider other ways to help customers and improve the climate for renewable energy.
Forum attendee Meira Warshauer suggested the state require utilities to buy a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources, which include solar and wind. Unlike many states, South Carolina has no such requirement, known as a renewable portfolio standard. A bill introduced several years ago in the Legislature died in the face of opposition by utilities.
Despite criticism of utilities and PSC decisions, the commission says it does its best to weigh the interest of power companies and their investors against the interest of ratepayers.
In last month’s ruling decried by solar farm companies, most commissioners said they made the right decision. PSC members said they were actually looking out for ratepayers with their decision.
If the agency awarded rates too favorable to solar developers, sun energy producers would be “more willing to build facilities, but ratepayers would pay a higher price,’’ the PSC said.
Commissioner Tom Ervin defended the PSC’s decision to limit contracts for solar developers to 10 years and establish rates that critics say are favorable to utilities. Ervin called it a “myth’’ that solar companies can’t work with 10 year contracts, according to his comments in a PSC filing this week.
Contracts of longer than 10 years could lock utilities into rates that could become unfavorable over time — and cost ratepayers money, utilities say.
“The fact is that a 10 year contract term better protects both ratepayers and small .... solar developers,’’ Ervin wrote.
But commissioner Justin Williams, the lone dissenter on the PSC’s ruling, said he thinks the panel made a mistake. He said the state’s 2019 Energy Freedom Act was intended to help solar energy expand. He said he favored 15 year contracts so solar development companies could get financing.
This story was originally published December 11, 2019 at 6:14 AM.
