Santee Cooper should help to create economic growth in SC — not work to block it

We are two members of a larger bipartisan group of legislators that asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to take a case that will decide the fate of 600 high-paying jobs and a nearly $1 billion annual impact on the Lowcountry’s economy.

This $1 billion annual loss is happening for one reason only: while Santee Cooper is a state agency that is required by law to promote job creation, the reality is the utility is doing everything it can to accomplish the opposite.

The core issue is whether Goose Creek has the right to establish a municipal electric utility as 21 other cities have already done under South Carolina law.

This utility would provide power from the open market to the Mt. Holly aluminum plant and other new customers located on land that will be annexed into the city, thereby saving the plant from closing and attracting new businesses to Goose Creek.

Last December Goose Creek voters approved the plan by a 2 to 1 margin.

Why?

It’s because they understood that it would substantially increase tax revenue to the city through the operation and growth of both the Mt. Holly plant — which has promised to rehire 300 employees that it was forced to lay off due to Santee Cooper’s high power price — and new businesses as well. That’s the reason why Goose Creek Mayor Greg Habib has called this plan a “game-changer” for the city.

Stakes are high

But despite the clear legal right of Goose Creek to provide power, Santee Cooper is blocking the city’s effort.

This is the same Santee Cooper that was SCANA’s partner in the scandalous $9 billion nuclear debacle. And this is the Santee Cooper that now claims that it has the exclusive right to provide power to Mt. Holly and refuses to budge, even though its opposition will cost the state billions more.

The city of Goose Creek filed a lawsuit against Santee Cooper and is asking the high court to decide this issue because of the need for a speedy decision.

In addition to the important statewide policy at issue, there is very clear reason why a speedy decision is needed: the plant will close permanently at the end of the year unless it is allowed to buy power from the city of Goose Creek.

We have undertaken this rare step to save jobs because the pandemic has crippled our once-thriving economy with a half-million people recently filing unemployment claims.

The stakes are so high that legislators on both sides of the aisle feel a moral imperative to urge the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Leaders in South Carolina are constantly on the hunt for companies that will locate in our state, but in this instance we have an existing company already in South Carolina that is looking to create hundreds of high-paying jobs.

It merely wants to be set free from the punishingly high power rates imposed on them by a state agency that is more interested in self-preservation than the well-being of South Carolinians.

We think that enough is enough from Santee Cooper.

And we hope that our state’s Supreme Court feels the same way.

State Sen. Paul Campbell represents District 44, which includes Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester counties. State Rep. Todd Rutherford represents District 74, which is in Richland County.

This story was originally published June 21, 2020 at 9:32 AM.