Increased transparency, accountability fails as SC House passes massive energy bill

Greater protections for South Carolina ratepayers and clarification of pipeline placement for a proposed gas plant were shot down as the Republican-led House cleared a major energy bill.

In a widely anticipated move, House lawmakers approved the ‘South Carolina Energy Security Act,’ mostly along party lines, by a vote of 88-21 Wednesday. Only six of 19 amendments proposed during the House debate were approved. Those quickly rejected included increasing protections for ratepayers by requiring disclosure upfront of construction costs for the proposed Canadys plant, keeping the number of Public Service Commissioners at seven and requiring utilities to show where natural gas pipelines would be installed for the newly proposed plant.

The bill, which largely mirrors the original version that sailed through House committee, is now on its way to the Senate for consideration.

“We are not going to allow our state’s energy energy security to be held hostage by radical left wing groups with, you know, woke green philosophy in terms of energy,” state Rep. Jay West, R-Anderson, who spearheaded support for the bill. “We’re going to protect the energy of this state, the energy that drives the economy of this state and the interest of the public and our ratepayers.”

But West was quick to attack several amendments offered by Democrats that would help alleviate critics’ concerns, namely, the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding infrastructure costs and environmental impacts.

Opponents of the bill argue there are too many unknown factors relating to the construction of the proposed major natural gas plant that’ll be jointed owned by Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper.

John Tynan, president of Conservation Voters of S.C., listed the bill’s unknowns before a House panel last month, including the cost of the plant, where pipelines will go and the environmental impact the project will have.

To assuage the public’s concern over these unknowns, state Rep. Seth Rose, D-Richland, offered an amendment to require utilities to pinpoint where pipelines for the proposed Canadys plant would go, along with their associated costs.

“In light of V.C. Summer, in which none of us obviously want to repeat, this (amendment) would require utilities to disclose within 100 days before they submit their certificate to the Public Service Commission the cost of the pipeline as well as the estimated location of the pipeline itself.”

West moved to kill Rose’s amendment, which the Republican majority supported.

West’s amendments to the bill “cleans up everything, changing some things, but I want to assure you, the one thing that we were not willing to do or one of the couple of things we were not willing to do was to put the state’s economy at risk over experimentation,” he said.

One approved change would create the South Carolina Energy Policy Institute, a research think tank tasked with proposing solutions to challenges related to energy generation and storage.

“This will allow us to pull together the existing minds and resources we have in this state to equip the state with the necessary expertise and resources to make well informed choices based on research and data,” West said.

Also citing the V.C. Summer debacle, state Rep. Annie McDaniel, D-Fairfield, sought to require utilities to spell out construction costs for the Canadys plant before they’re passed on to ratepayers.

“Project costs that lead to rate increases for ratepayers must be disclosed so we know exactly what they’re using the money for,” McDaniel said. “This will help to ensure the money is not being used for frivolous purposes, such as paying engineers or workers to pretend they’re working when they’re really not (as was the case during V.C. Summer).”

McDaniel’s amendment prompted state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, to challenge West.

“As we talk about transparency and accountability, can you think of any reason at all that Mr. West would want to table this amendment when it is simply requiring that there be transparency and accountability about how taxpayer dollars are being spent?” Cobb-Hunter asked.

“I think Mr. West is ready for us to vote on this (amendment) straight out, not table it and pass this amendment,” McDaniel said in response.

“I wouldn’t count on that, Ms. McDaniel,” Cobb-Hunter said.

Although one Republican, state Rep. April Cromer, R-Anderson, expressed excitement and support for McDaniel’s amendment. West, however, led the effort to kill it.

House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, proposed keeping the number of PSC commissioners at seven, as opposed to bill’s reduction to three.

“The only way that we have any independence in (the House) is if we do things by congressional district,” Rutherford said. “We agree by congressional districts who we want to put on the PSC. Raising the pay is going to get you better quality candidates, but reducing the number (of commissioners) is not going to do anything except allow people to tell you who you get to put on there.”

The PSC is a state agency that represents the public’s interest in utility regulation and currently is made up of seven commissioners from each congressional district in the state.

“Vote the way you want, but I’ve been up here a long time, and if we continue to give away our power as individual legislators then you are wasting your time coming up here,” Rutherford said. “If all of you follow what the group thinks, then we don’t need three (commissioners) make it one, and he or she will tell us all what we’re going to pay for electricity rates.”