logo
House vote could keep public in the dark about SC pipeline projects

House vote could keep public in the dark about SC pipeline projects

Yahoo03-05-2025

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.''
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament

time18 minutes ago

World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament

NEW YORK -- Philadelphia's host city executive for the 2026 World Cup says organizers accept that an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump's administration may be among the outside events that impact next year's tournament. "There are certainly things that are happening at the national level, the international level, there are going to be geopolitical issues that we don't even know right now that are going affect the tournament next year, so we recognize that we're planning within uncertainty,' Meg Kane said Monday at a gathering of the 11 U.S. host city leaders, one year and two days ahead of the tournament opener. The World Cup will be played at 16 stadiums in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19 next year, a tournament expanded to 48 nations and 104 games. All matches from the quarterfinals on will be in the U.S., with the final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. 'Whether it's the Olympics, whether it's a World Cup, whether it's a Super Bowl, you name it, anytime you've got a major international sporting event, geopolitics is going to have a role,' said Alex Vasry, CEO of the New York/New Jersey host committee. Kane said the host committees must adapt to decisions made by others. 'One of the things that I think we all recognize is that we have to be really good at operating within that uncertainty,' Kane said. 'I think for each of our cities, we want to be prepared to make any person that is coming and makes the decision to come to the United States or come to this World Cup feel that they are welcome. We do not play a role necessarily in what is happening in terms of the decisions that are made.' Trump's travel ban on citizens from 12 countries exempted athletes, coaches, staff and relatives while not mentioning fans. 'We allow for FIFA to continue having constructive conversations with the administrations around visas, around workforce, around tourism,' Kane said. FIFA is running the World Cup for the first time without a local organizing committee in the host nation. Asked in late April whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino was available to discuss the tournament, FIFA director of media relations Bryan Swanson forwarded the request to a member of the media relations staff, who did not make Infantino available. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting action in the Senate would appropriate $625 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'for security, planning, and other costs related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.' The 11 U.S. host committees have been consulting with each other on issues such as transportation for teams and VIPs, and for arranging fan fests. At the last major soccer tournament in the U.S., the 2024 Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, started 82 minutes late after fans breached security gates. 'Certainly we were not involved in the planning or the logistics for that particular match,' said Alina Hudak, CEO of the Miami World Cup host committee. She said local police 'have done an extensive review of the after-action reports related to that in collaboration with the stadium and so all of the things that happened are in fact being reviewed and addressed and I can assure you that everything is being done within our power to make sure that the appropriate measures are being placed, the appropriate perimeters.'

Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally

time35 minutes ago

Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Adults living in the U.S. illegally will be excluded from a state-run health care program under an overall budget deal that the closely divided Minnesota Legislature convened to pass in a special session Monday. Repealing a 2023 state law that made those immigrants eligible for the MinnesotaCare program for the working poor was a priority for Republicans in the negotiations that produced the budget agreement. The Legislature is split 101-100, with the House tied and Democrats holding just a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the health care compromise was a bitter pill for Democrats to accept. The change is expected to affect about 17,000 residents. After an emotional near four-hour debate, the House aroved the bill 68-65. Under the agreement, the top House Democratic leader, Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, was the only member of her caucus to vote yes. The bill then went to the Senate, where it passed 37-30. Democratic Majority Leader Erin Murphy, of St. Paul, called it 'a wound on the soul of Minnesota,' but kept her promise to vote yes as part of the deal, calling it "among the most painful votes I've ever taken." Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, has promised to sign the legislation, and all 13 other bills scheduled for action in the special session, to complete a $66 billion, two-year budget that will take effect July 1. 'This is 100% about the GOP campaign against immigrants,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Jamie Long, of Minneapolis, who voted no. 'From Trump's renewed travel ban announced this week, to his effort to expel those with protected status, to harassing students here to study, to disproportionate military and law enforcement responses that we've seen from Minneapolis to L.A., this all comes back to attacking immigrants and the name of dividing us.' But GOP Rep. Jeff Backer, of Browns Valley, the lead author of the bill, said taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize health care for people who aren't in the country legally. Backer said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed freezing enrollment for immigrants without legal status in a similar state-funded program and that Illinois' Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, has proposed cutting a similar program. He said residents can still buy health insurance on the private market regardless of their immigration status. 'This is about being fiscally responsible,' Backer said. Enrollment by people who entered the country illegally in MinnesotaCare has run triple the initial projections, which Republicans said could have pushed the costs over $600 million over the next four years. Critics said the change won't save any money because those affected will forego preventive care and need much more expensive care later. 'People don't suddenly stop getting sick when they don't have insurance, but they do put off seeking care until a condition gets bad enough to require a visit to the emergency room, increasing overall health care costs for everyone,' Bernie Burnham, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, told reporters at a news conference organized by the critics. Walz and legislative leaders agreed on the broad framework for the budget over four weeks ago, contrasting the bipartisan cooperation that produced it with the deep divisions at the federal level in Washington. But with the tie in the House and the razor-thin Senate Democratic majority, few major policy initiatives got off the ground before the regular session ended May 19. Leaders announced Friday that the details were settled and that they had enough votes to pass everything in the budget package.

113 House Democrats vote against GOP resolution denouncing the antisemitic terrorist attack in Colorado
113 House Democrats vote against GOP resolution denouncing the antisemitic terrorist attack in Colorado

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

113 House Democrats vote against GOP resolution denouncing the antisemitic terrorist attack in Colorado

More than 100 House Democrats voted against a Republican-led resolution condemning the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder and Colorado's sanctuary state laws on Monday. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the lower chamber in a 280-113 vote, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to pass the measure. Democrats fumed over language in the resolution expressing 'gratitude to law enforcement, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.' 3 House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters about the spending and tax bill embraced by President Donald Trump and Republicans, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, June 6, 2025. AP The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's campaign arm, charged that Democrats voting against the bill 'sided with terrorists over police officers and flat-out refused to condemn antisemitism.' 'Democrats have become the pro-terrorist, anti-cop, antisemitic caucus. And they're proud of it,' the NRCC wrote on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) slammed Evans as a 'joke' ahead of the vote. 'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America. This is not a serious effort,' Jeffries told reporters. 'Antisemitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn't be weaponized politically.' Evans shot back that the 'wildly offensive sentiment' expressed by Jeffries is 'why antisemitism persists.' 3 This image provided by the Boulder Police Dept. shows Mohamed Sabry Soliman. AP 'The Left is unserious about finding real solutions,' the congressman argued on X. 'Condemning terrorism is not a joking matter.' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who is Jewish and voted no on the resolution, argued on the House floor that the measure was being put forward to simply 'score political points.' 'You weren't here, Mr. Evans, last term, but there were about 10 antisemitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing solely to score political points,' Goldman said. 'We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns.' 3 Gabe Evans, R-Fort Lupton, speaks to reporters during a news conference on the steps of the Colorado Capitol in Denver on Thursday, May 29, 2025. In his floor speech, Evans stated: 'As a former police officer and Army veteran of the Global War on Terror, I know how Colorado's radical leftists leaders and laws prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety — allowing antisemitic terrorists like Mohammed Sabry Soliman to strike.' Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, allegedly used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower during the June 1 attack targeting peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza. Fifteen people were injured in the firebombing, during which Soliman allegedly shouted, 'Free Palestine.' 'The passing of my resolution ensures we condemn all acts of antisemitism and affirms that the free and open collaboration between state and local law enforcement with their federal counterparts is key in preventing future attacks like this,' the congressman continued. A separate resolution introduced by Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who more generally denounced the uptick in antisemitic attacks in the US, passed in a 400-0 vote.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store