SC House approves energy bill that limits environmental oversight of new power plants
In a push to help South Carolina meet future energy needs, the state House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a comprehensive bill intended to make building power plants easier by limiting some government restrictions on new projects.
The complex bill, which advances efforts to build a large natural gas plant in Colleton County, passed the House 94-11 on Wednesday. The bill, H 3309, was amended last week to address some concerns, but it still includes limits on legal appeals and extensive regulatory reviews that supporters of the legislation say are inhibiting progress.
“What’s happening now in our current process is it has allowed radicals, really, to weaponize the judicial process, to put wrenches in the system, which causes delays of anywhere from six to 10 years’’ said state Rep. Gil Gatch, a Republican from Summerville, who chaired a committee that recommended the bill. “This bill closes those loopholes by setting time frames around the various filings that are part of the litigation process.’’
Gatch did not name the groups he was referring to and he did not say how common it is for energy projects to be held up six to 10 years. But Rep. Roger Kirby, D-Florence, told The State last week that one pipeline project needed by industry was bogged down in the state Court of Appeals.
Gatch called the bill an “all-of-the-above’’ energy approach that aligns with President Donald Trump’s “vision to unleash America’s full energy potential, cutting through bureaucratic barriers’’ that opponents of energy projects use to delay them. Republican Trump has been highly critical of government regulation, particularly of traditional energy sources, while also criticizing some types of renewable energy.
Gatch had little trouble persuading the Republican-dominated House to support the measure because of the state’s energy needs, which are tied to economic and population growth. But most Democrats also backed the bill.
Democratic Reps. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, of Orangeburg County, and Legislative Black Caucus Chairwoman Annie McDaniel, of Fairfield County, both voiced support for the legislation.
Cobb-Hunter questioned the growth of data centers that use up state energy resources, but she said many of her concerns in the energy bill had been mollified by amendments, including deleting a section that had once called for reducing the size of the state Public Service Commission from seven to three members. The size reduction was eliminated from the legislation.
Cobb-Hunter praised House leadership for being easy to deal with in developing the legislation. Gatch and others leading the charge have replaced several of last year’s bill supporters, including Rep. Bill Sandifer, an Oconee Republican who was defeated in the 2024 election. The House passed a similar version of the bill in 2024, only to see it die in the Senate amid complaints that it was unwieldy and had not been properly vetted.
Despite the overwhelming vote, 11 House members voted against the bill, including Rep. Spencer Wetmore, a Democrat from Folly Beach. Some environmental groups, including the moderate Conservation Voters of South Carolina, have raised objections about part of the legislation.
Wetmore said she had trouble supporting the bill because she said it includes provisions that could lessen environmental protections. Those include a six-month limit for environmental regulators to make decisions on permits needed for energy projects, she said.
“Working together, I think they did make many improvements from the bill that came up last time,’’ she said. “I almost hated to vote against it, but my district is still one that expects me to be on the front end of environmental issues.’’
Those voting against the measure were a mix of arch conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats.
Those included Anderson area Republicans April Cromer, Thomas Gilreath and Chris Huff; Richland County Democrats Heather Bauer, Seth Rose and Robert Reese; Republican Reps. Stephen Frank of Greenville and Rob Harris of Wellford; and Charleston County Democrats JA Moore and Tiffany Spann-Wilder, according to initial vote tallies.
The bill now faces a final vote in the House, which is expected to sign off on the measure, before the legislation is sent to the Senate. Senators have said they are likely to amend the bill.
Key parts of the energy bill include:
- Allowing and encouraging state-owned Santee Cooper to participate in a natural gas plant with Dominion Energy, a provision that will make it easier to build the 2,000 megawatt Canadys facility. The facility would still need approval from the state Public Service Commission.
- Encouraging development of a plan to expand nuclear energy, including the use of fledgling small modular reactors, and spent nuclear fuel recycling. If a small modular reactor project is abandoned, a utility can recover some capital costs. Recovery of costs typically comes through PSC rate cases.
- Requiring utilities to file proposed voluntary renewable energy program plans for review by the Public Service Commission. Renewable energy includes solar, a growing segment of the power sector.
- Requiring state agencies to decide on permits within six months or energy projects are automatically approved
- Sending some appeals directly to the state Supreme Court, bypassing the state Court of Appeals.
While the bill also has an array of elements that are supposed to encourage more energy projects, including natural gas and nuclear, it also places some limits on the expansion of solar energy.
Like the bill that failed last year, the 2025 legislation limits the length of contracts for solar farms to five years, a limit that makes financing the projects difficult for private developers, critics say. And it makes moderate-sized solar farm projects go through a complicated siting process that is generally reserved for major power plants.
Solar energy advocates have criticized those sections of the bill.
Another point of contention, as Wetmore said, focuses on the deadline for the Department of Environmental Services to consider permits for power plants and related facilities.
Concerns center around whether the DES would have time to make a permit decision in six months and about a provision that requires permits to be approved if no decision is made in that time. The bill also leaves open the question of whether utilities could submit incomplete applications for environmental permits, then wait out the six months so they can receive automatic approval.
Power plants have an array of environmental effects that, if not monitored, can send pollution into the air and water.
In addition to concerns about those sections of the bill, Wetmore also said she’s uneasy about the bill’s emphasis on large natural gas plants when smaller facilities might be justified, at least in the near future.
“It’s just hard for me to vote for that much natural gas all at once,’’ she said.”It’s not that I don’t think natural gas is going to have to bridge us to a renewable energy future, but I would have preferred us to lean on letting (the state) do smaller ones.’’
Update: A section of the bill that authorized Santee Cooper to act on behalf of the state to aid natural gas pipeline expansion was not included in the bill approved by the House.
This story was originally published February 12, 2025 at 6:16 PM.
