House vote could keep public in the dark about SC pipeline projects
South Carolina residents don’t always learn about new pipelines that would cut through their communities until well after utilities have launched plans for them.
It’s a sore spot in places where people have tangled with power companies, and that’s why some legislators have backed efforts to require better public notice for folks who might be affected by big energy projects.
Now, those efforts are in jeopardy. The House of Representatives has quietly dropped a requirement for improved public notice as part of a major energy bill that’s up for a final vote in the Senate next week.
The extensive and complicated legislation, H. 3309, includes other major changes that are sparking complaints from senators who say they were left out of the loop and from environmentalists who say the changes make the bill friendlier to utilities at the expense of the public and South Carolina’s landscape.
“I wasn’t engaged in any of that, and many others weren’t,’’ Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, said of the House bill. “Almost nobody was.’’
Thursday’s 88-13 vote by the House for substantial changes in the bill potentially jeopardizes passage of a plan that has been on the table for the past two legislative sessions as a way to expand energy supplies in South Carolina.
A cornerstone of the bill is allowing state-owned utility Santee Cooper to work with Dominion Energy on a large, more than $1 billion natural gas plant in Colleton County. The measure also limits some legal challenges that could slow down energy projects. It allows utilities to raise rates in smaller amounts, more frequently, as a way to reduce one-time impacts on customers. And it encourages development of nuclear energy.
Many legislators agree that the plant needs to be built and fewer government restraints on energy expansion is a worthwhile part of the bill. Utilities say they badly need new sources of power as the state grows.
But the energy legislation is full of other measures that utility boosters and public interest groups have had difficulty agreeing on.
The bill appeared to be on the way to passage after the Senate addressed a range of concerns in early April. Senators approved the measure and sent it back to the House for consideration. It now must be considered again by the Senate with just three days left in the 2025 legislative session.
In addition to dropping greater requirements for public notice -- a decision that environmentalists say could make it easier to build a new gas pipeline to serve the proposed Colleton plant -- the House on Thursday also abandoned part of the bill that put some controls on data centers. These are huge energy users that many say are driving the state’s need for more power, which exposes the general public to rate increases when energy plants are expanded.
Energy efficiency measures, intended to reduce demand for power, also were watered down, a change conservation groups blasted.
House leaders did not explain in detail what concerns they had about public notice, data centers and energy efficiency sections of the bill, but environmentalists said they suspect utilities, which have influence in the legislature, didn’t like those parts of the legislation.
While House leaders said they negotiated with senators and think the upper chamber will sign off on their version of the bill next week, some senators were hesitant Friday to endorse what the House did.
Substantial debate could come up again Tuesday as the legislative session winds down. The legislative session ends Thursday, May 8.
Both Campsen and Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, expressed concern about dropping the public notice requirements and rules for data centers, which provide power for internet searches and artificial intelligence..
In approving the energy bill April 2, the Senate put limits on economic support from the state for data centers. Massey and Campsen said the state doesn’t need to provide extensive incentives for data centers because they are coming to South Carolina anyway. The state already has at least 14 of them, he said.
“That is going to be a problem,’’ Massey said of removing data center rules, which he said were basic and not as restrictive as in other states. “I have not been involved in the negotiations. I don’t know what was agreed to. But there will be a fight about that in the Senate.’’
Rep. Gil Gatch, however, said he believes the latest House version of the bill will get through the Senate. He had spoken with enough senators about the House changes that he was optimistic about passage.
“We worked diligently with the Senate and this is the compromise that we got, to get this over the finish line so that we can get energy to South Carolinians,’’ the Summerville Republican told reporters after Thursday afternoon’s vote. “As you know, we have an energy crisis, so any delay would probably be detrimental.’’
On the House floor, Gatch said data center oversight could be addressed in the future as its own bill. He later said the data center language was dropped because it had not been vetted fully. No public hearing had been held since the data center section of the bill had been added by the Senate as an amendment, he said.
“That process sort of got skipped a little bit,’’ he told reporters.
Santee Cooper said it is working to oversee data centers that need power from the state-owned utility. The agency’s board recently approved an experimental rate for large energy users, including data centers. The measure is intended to ensure those facilities pay for utility system upgrades, which will “protect other customers,’’ spokeswoman Mollie Gore said in an email.
Dominion spokeswoman Rhonda O’Banion said the Virginia-headquartered company was committed to being open with customers about the Colleton County project, located at the site of an old coal fired power plant in the Canadys community.
“We will continue to welcome input from stakeholders and comply with all legal and regulatory requirements,’’ she said. “The proposed Canadys project is no exception. Just as any project of this kind, it would undergo a rigorous regulatory process with the Public Service Commission of South Carolina and other oversight agencies, which includes siting and environmental permitting.’’
Irate communities and pipelines
One of the biggest concerns expressed by environmental groups is the removal of additional public notice requirements.
The section of the bill the House struck says utilities planning to build energy projects must provide written notice, via the mail, to any property owner whose land may be acquired or condemned for such projects.
The notice, provided two months before the utility applies for any government permit, must explain the need for the energy project and if any alternatives are available. It also must provide a way to contact the utility and the state Office of Regulatory Staff about the project. A public hearing would also have to be held.
Officials with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Coastal Conservation League said the public notice section is important – particularly now because Dominion and Santee Cooper plan a large natural gas pipeline to serve the Colleton County gas plant. The line would run from the Savannah area to South Carolina.
Some environmental groups say they are worried the pipeline will cover new territory and run through the ACE Basin, an internationally recognized nature preserve between Columbia and the coast south of Charleston. Pipelines can not only affect individual property owners whose land is used, but they can also disrupt natural areas, environmentalists say.
Kinder Morgan, a national pipeline company active in South Carolina and Georgia, reported April 17 that it plans to expand a pipeline known as Elba Express into South Carolina, according to Marcellus Drilling News. The $431 million project would cover 71 miles and would include “greenfield’’ areas, meaning it might need to acquire land or condemn land for the new pipeline, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said. Utilities have previously said they would try to use existing rights of way, or areas where power lines or pipes already exist, for a pipeline to Canadys, rather than greenfield sites.
There are some federal notice requirements, but environmentalist said that isn’t enough.
“There is not a good, clear, consistent way for the public to find out about these things,’’ said Kate Mixson, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This was intended to be a protection.’’
Frank Holleman, a former SELC lawyer who has worked extensively on environmental cases involving utilities, said that although there are some other types of public notice requirements for utilities seeking pipeline permits, they often kick in well after the projects have been mapped out.
Disputes from the mountains in northwest South Carolina to the Pee Dee region in the state’s eastern coastal plain have erupted in recent years over pipelines, and the public’s complaints about being left in the dark have surfaced more than once, he said.
Some Richland County residents were involved in a dispute with a Dominion subsidiary about 10 years ago, when they learned a natural gas pipeline would run across their land and through one of most scenic parts of the Columbia area. The company, at one point, had sought to condemn land for people who would not sell.
As it stands, people often don’t learn about a pipeline project until a utility land agent approaches them about selling their property for such a project , environmentalists said. And even then, the agents don’t always provide the full breadth of the project utilities have on the drawing boards, Holleman and Mixson said.
Public hearings and notice to landowners about the full extent of projects would be a substantial improvement, they said.
“At a minimum, you would think notice would be provided to people as a matter of just simple fairness,’’ Holleman said.
Overall, the S.C. Coastal Conservation League labeled the House approved changes bad for ratepayers and the environment.
“The changes that the House has removed would have protected electric utility customers from subsidizing big data centers, helped families and businesses save money through energy efficiency, and required landowners to be notified if a company might seize their property for a new fossil pipeline,’’ the Coastal Conservation League said in a statement Friday.
This story has been updated with more information from Rep. Gil Gatch about data centers.
Staff Writer Joseph Bustos contributed to this story.
This story was originally published May 3, 2025 at 9:18 AM.
