Latest news with #ShaneMassey
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SC legislature passes massive energy bill paving way for new gas-fired power plant
A 35-11 vote in the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, sent a massive energy bill to the governor's desk. (File photo by) COLUMBIA — A sweeping energy package billed as necessary to meeting South Carolina's power needs amid rapid industrial and population growth is headed to the governor's desk. The legislation faced more pushback in the Senate on Wednesday, a week after the House removed — with little discussion — measures meant to safeguard consumers and landowners. The bill ultimately passed, however, after senators spent roughly four hours venting their frustrations over the changes. Senate President Thomas Alexander, left, and Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, right, pictured in the Senate on May 6, 2025. (Photo by Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette) By a 35-11 vote, the Senate agreed to let the legislation go forward without provisions requiring energy-intensive data centers to cover their share of costs for new power plants built to power them or disclose how much water they plan to use. The vote means data centers also will continue receiving sales tax credits for the computer equipment they purchase. Utilities' efficiency programs won't be held to a set standard in terms of energy savings. And power companies won't be required to give landowners an earlier notice when construction of power plants, power lines, substations and pipelines impact their property. The vote was not along party lines. The 'no' votes came from three Democrats and eight Republicans. 'I just want everybody to understand what the consequence is going to be of not having some of those things in there,' said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who authored the data center provisions in the version the Senate passed last month. 'Your constituents are going to be paying more for energy. They're going to be paying more for energy because of the cost of generation, and that generation requirement is born largely because of data centers.' 'I'm going to tell you this: You're going to regret this,' the Edgefield Republican added. At the heart of the bill, sponsored by GOP House Speaker Murrell Smith of Sumter, is permission for Dominion Energy and state-owned utility Santee Cooper to partner on a possible 2,000-megawatt natural gas plant on the site of a former coal-fired power plant along the Edisto River in Colleton County. Furthermore, utility executives told legislators they needed guarantees that state regulators would review power-related permits in a timely manner as they seek to make updates to the state's power grid. They asked for measures to prevent years-long delays of new pipelines and power plants in the court system. And they sought a section to make it easier to raise power bills on an annual basis, arguing smaller but more frequent increases would be easier for those on a fixed income to adjust to. 'South Carolina is growing, and with that growth comes additional demand for accessible, affordable and reliable energy. We thank the General Assembly for recognizing this and passing critical energy reform legislation,' the South Carolina Manufacturers Association wrote in support of the bill passed after two years of hearings and debate. Dominion Energy, in a statement, also applauded passage of the bill it said would result in 'the ability to provide critically needed electricity and natural gas to power homes and businesses in the Palmetto State efficiently and cost effectively.' Massey said he's not opposed to a new natural gas plant-fired power plant. Sen. Davis, R-Beaufort, speaks on the Senate floor on Wednesday, May 7, 2025 in favor of a sweeping energy bill aimed at meeting South Carolina's growing power needs. (Photo by Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette) 'What I'm opposed to is making people pay for more than they should have to pay for, and we're sanctioning it,' he said. 'There is nothing in this bill that the utilities don't like. They're getting everything they want.' In its original form, the legislation saw significant pushback on its sweeping regulatory changes and rollback of consumer protections passed in the wake of South Carolina's failed nuclear expansion. The final legislation ultimately left those existing protections in place. Sen. Tom Davis, the author of efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce power use in the state, lamented the removal of the other Senate-added safeguards. 'But what I have to weigh is taking what I think is a substantial step forward and accepting it or rejecting it,' the Beaufort Republican said in explaining his 'yes' vote. 'The bottom line for me is I don't want to take that risk.' Davis also reminded legislators that artificial intelligence, powered by data centers, is on track to impact all aspects of the global economy, from energy to health care. 'That's the way industry is moving. The good jobs, the high paying jobs, the jobs we want in the future, are going to be added to those components,' he said. 'It would be a very big mistake, in my opinion, to send a message that we don't want data centers.' On the other hand, Davis expressed confidence that data center developers and utility companies now understand their deals are going to be more heavily scrutinized.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senators push debate on strengthening SC's DUI laws to 2026
Senators have postponed debate on a bill to strengthen South Carolina's drunken driving laws until the 2026 session. (File photo by Getty Images) COLUMBIA — Despite the Senate's seemingly renewed focus earlier this year on curtailing drunken driving deaths, the effort is again being pushed to next year. Bi-partisan legislation that aims to close the loopholes allowing people to escape convictions for driving under the influence won't even reach the Senate floor before the 2025 session ends next month. After postponing debate on the bill at multiple meetings, the Senate Judiciary Committee decided last week to carry it over until 2026. 'It may be something that we have to make a big push for in January of '26 as opposed to May of '25,' said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, who sits on the full Judiciary Committee but wasn't on the panel that advanced the bill in March. 'I'm frustrated by that, but I think that's where we are.' In 2022, 474 people died in South Carolina as a result of drunken driving, ranking the state fifth highest nationwide in total numbers and the worst rate by population. The tally represents a 72% increase since 2019, according to a July 2024 report by South Carolina's chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 'The designation of worst state in the nation for drunk driving is clear,' the report reads. Part of the problem is the state's video requirements. By law, officers must start recording as soon as they turn on their blue lights. And recordings must include the entirety of field sobriety tests, arrests, breath tests, and suspects being advised of their Miranda rights, which start with the right to remain silent. Any technicality — such as faulty audio that causes the Miranda rights not being heard, video that's too dark, or somebody's feet not being captured on camera — can lead to a case being tossed, according to proponents for changing the law, who include solicitors, sheriffs and victims' advocates. The proposal — lawmakers' latest attempt at making the roads safer — would, among other things, change state law so that the video can be less than perfect. Under the bill, evidence could be suppressed if the officer fails to 'substantially comply' with video recording requirements, to include 'reasonably' documenting officers advising suspects of their rights. Solicitors have been pushing for legislation de-emphasizing video in DUI cases for a decade. 'There are so many loopholes in our drunk driving laws that it's very difficult for solicitors to successfully prosecute those cases,' said Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, the bill's lead sponsor. Tougher DUI law meant to curb drunk driving in SC takes effect Sunday His bill could bring the biggest changes to South Carolina's DUI laws since 2008, when the Legislature passed legislation escalating penalties for higher alcohol concentrations and for multiple convictions. Passage came after then-Gov. Mark Sanford publicly accused senators of blocking the bill in a YouTube video featuring a South Carolina mom whose 5-year-old son was killed by a drunken driver. A 2014 law required repeat offenders or first-time offenders who had a blood alcohol level of more than 0.15 to install ignition interlock devices, which prevent someone who has been drinking alcohol from starting the vehicle. A 2023 law that took effect last May expanded the requirement to anyone convicted of a DUI, no matter how high their blood alcohol level. But, according to those pushing for change, getting a conviction is tough. In the past, defense attorneys have argued DUI cases aren't pleaded down or dismissed due to video technicalities nearly as often as advocates for change suggest. And no agency kept track to prove it either way. Between January 2019 and March 2024, MADD monitored the courts in seven large South Carolina counties: Berkeley, Charleston, Greenville, Horry, Lexington, Richland, and Spartanburg. In those seven counties, the conviction rate on first-offense misdemeanor DUI cases ranged from a low of 18% in Richland County to a high of 65% in Spartanburg County. Whether cases were dropped altogether or pleaded down to something else, often reckless driving, varied by county. 'Clearly, South Carolina falls behind most of the nation,' MADD concluded. 'We have got to address it and make sure we address it right,' Sen. Brian Adams, a co-sponsor of the bill, told the SC Daily Gazette. The bill would also create enhanced penalties for DUI wrecks that cause 'moderate bodily injury,' such as a bone fracture or dislocation. Under existing law, people can be charged with felony DUI only if they cause 'great bodily injury' or death. The proposal would also increase penalties for convictions and for refusing to take a breath test. 'I thought we had a good bill,' said Laura Hudson, the executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victims Council. Hudson, who has been advocating at the Statehouse for crime victims for more than four decades, said she was disappointed the bill didn't get traction this year. 'It's not like they didn't have the time,' she said, noting the Senate bill was pre-filed in December for this year's session. She's hopeful senators will keep their pledge to make it a top priority for 2026. Since this is the first of a two-year session, the bill does not need to be reintroduced. Steven Burritt, the state director for MADD, said it's a letdown that the bill he considers a game changer for DUI in South Carolina won't pass this year. If more people are held accountable, South Carolina will be a safer place to drive, he said. 'I think all these things are connected,' Burritt told the SC Daily Gazette. 'If we make the law easier to prosecute and enforce, I think we'll hold people accountable for their actions. They'll get more of the penalties that actually reduce the likelihood that it'll happen again, and I think that is a very reasonable cause and effect that should lead to safer roads.' If the Legislature truly passes a bill next year, the wait will have been worth it, he said. 'If the right bill gets passed for DUI reform, I'll gladly wait until 2026,' he said. However, he added, he's concerned the motivation will dissipate by January.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SC Senate sends hate crime enhancement bill to floor
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – South Carolina is one of two states without a hate crime law. This bill, if passed, would add extra punishment for certain crimes if motivated by hate or bias. The bill would increase the penalty for someone who commits a violent crime and or assault by a mob in the second degree. If you target someone because of their race, color, religion, sex, gender, national orientation, or disability, the penalty could also go up to $10,000 in additional fees and up to five extra years in prison. 'Not one person is safer because of this bill. Not one. Nobody is helped by this. A lot of people are harmed by it,' said Senate Majority Leader, Senator Shane Massey (R – Edgefield). Massey said a crime against one person should have the same penalty as the same crime against another. He also stated that, even though 48 states have passed a hate crime bill, no one has gotten rid of hate. 'When the penalty against some people is less than the penalty against someone else for the exact same offense, it says that some people are less important than others. There is no win here other than a political win. Nobody is made safer,' he added. 'Nothing is done to improve the environment.' Sponsor, Senator Deon Tedder (D – Charleston) said this bill is not about picking one person over another. 'I don't see anywhere where it refers to hate, and so, I'm confused as to where that keeps coming from. This is simply an enhancement of penalties,' Tedder said. Tedder added that this bill would protect everyone, and that it has similarities to other bills. 'Essentially we just passed something-or are in the process of signing one-to enhance penalties for people who work in hospitals if they are assaulted; and so, I'm confused as to how this is picking one person over another. ' There is another Hate Crime Bill in the house that is named after a Reverend who died from a hate crime in Charleston. That bill is still in the committee process. The Senate bill will head to the floor with bi-partisan support and a vote of 12-8. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate passes sweeping energy bill aimed at meeting SC's growing power needs
GOP Sens. Chip Campsen, Majority Leader Shane Massey and Stephen Goldfinch chat in the Senate chamber. The Senate passed legislation Thursday, April 3, 2025, clearing the path for a new power plant and addressing the future of energy in the rapidly growing state. (File/Mary Ann Chastain/SC Daily Gazette) COLUMBIA — The Senate passed a long-anticipated bill clearing the path for a new power plant in South Carolina and fulfilling its pledge to address future energy needs in the rapidly growing Palmetto State. The legislation, approved 41-3, saw major changes to the sweeping energy bill halted last session over criticism that proponents had fast-tracked it through the General Assembly. Backers say it strikes a balance, empowering utilities charged with meeting the state's energy needs but in a way that's more palatable to consumer and environmental advocates. The three Republicans voting 'no' included Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey. 'We still have concerns but it's nothing like what it would have been,' said Frank Knapp, president of the state's Small Business Chamber of Commerce, who advocates on behalf of small business owners in the state. The bill, sponsored by GOP House Speaker Murrell Smith of Sumter gives permission for Dominion Energy and state-owned utility company Santee Cooper to partner on a possible 2,000-megawatt natural gas plant on the site of a former coal-fired power plant along the Edisto River in Colleton County. Santee Cooper customers should expect a double cost hike in 2025 after years of frozen rates In its original form, the legislation saw significant pushback on its sweeping regulatory changes and rollback of consumer protections passed in the wake of South Carolina's failed nuclear expansion. Santee Cooper and Dominion's predecessor, South Carolina Electric & Gas, abandoned an expansion of the V.C. Summer nuclear plant in Fairfield County in 2017, but not before they'd already jointly spent $9 billion. The debacle left power customers on the hook for much of that cost on a power plant that never produced a single kilowatt. Angered by the failure, which was fraught with fraud and cost overruns, legislators cracked down. They fired and replaced the state's utility regulators, loosened the leash on the state's utility watchdog and put an extra set of eyes looking out for power customers in the state's consumer protection agency. As originally proposed, the House bill would have undone some of that work, consumer groups warned. In response to those concerns, new committee-level leadership in the House made its own changes: keeping the consumer advocate in place and doing away with a proposal that would have reduced the size of the panel regulating power companies in the state. Here's how much SC power customers are still paying for a failed nuclear project The Senate, in a debate that stretched nearly until midnight Wednesday, tweaked the House legislation further after leadership cautioned against changes that could swing the law too far in power companies' favor following the nuclear fiasco. 'Those who are Santee Cooper or Dominion customers, you are paying for V.C. Summer. You're going to be paying for V.C. Summer for the next 14 years even though you're not getting anything from it. And now the proposal is that we pay to build a new gas plant at Canadys,' said Massey, R-Edgefield. 'That is my biggest heartburn on this.' 'They're essentially going to be asking, if not forcing, customers to pay for two power plants when they only needed one,' he added. The companies will still need the OK of state regulators to begin construction, as well as state and federal permits to connect to an interstate natural gas line needed to fuel the plant. The other two Republicans voting 'no' were Sens. Shane Martin of Spartanburg County and Tom Corbin of Greenville County. Massey, who co-led a Senate investigation into the V.C. Summer debacle, voted against it over his continued disgust over the nuclear fallout, but not before pushing for major changes. Among those Senate changes are limitations on power-related incentives the state allows for data centers. Massey said the amendment mirrors efforts by utility regulators in Georgia to say the cost of providing electricity to these centers, full of power-gobbling computer servers that run technologies ranging from artificial intelligence and 5G streaming of videos on mobile devices to high-speed financial trades, is borne by those companies. Utility executives have testified that the largest of these centers can use upwards of 200 megawatts each and are a driving force, over and above residential and manufacturing growth, behind the state's need for more power. Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, told the Senate that power usage by data centers in South Carolina is equivalent to 65% of demand from residential customers. Data centers gobble up energy. Should SC block them from getting special deals? At the same time, Dominion brokered a discount electricity deal for a $510 million Google data center proposed near Summerville. The deal, approved by utility regulators last year, allowed the Virginia-headquartered utility to grant Google a special 'economic development rider' rate — 6 cents for every kilowatt hour, compared to 14 cents that residential customers were paying at the time. Utilities have said, even if data centers don't come, South Carolina will need more power to meet federal regulations requiring them to eventually shut down coal-fired plants in favor of more carbon-friendly options. But if more of these center for come to the state after May 30, 2025, Massey said he wants them to pay an equivalent share of the costs for power plants built to serve them. Still, the bill contains some wins for utility companies, too. It starts by setting time limits on the environmental permitting process, as well as lawsuits that power executives testified are often used to drag out the building of new power plants and natural gas pipelines for decades, to the point that theconstruction projects are no longer financially feasible. The House took steps to limit the permitting timeline to six months. SC nuclear reboot sees interest from big tech, large utilities To appease environmental concerns, the Senate passed an amendment to say the clock doesn't start until regulators deem an environmental application is completely filled out. The change came after the Conservation Voters of South Carolina said it's not uncommon for companies to submit these applications while they're still missing all of the information needed to evaluate them. The Senate also added a provision urging South Carolina's court system to handle legal appeals of permitting decisions within a year's time. And the bill pulls the state Appeals Court from the series of courts that hear these cases. 'I do think that the appellate process has been abused and and that's why I think we ought to shorten that process,' Massey said. Finally, the Senate added a section to the bill that would make it easier for utilities to raise power bills on an annual basis. In their pitch, utility executives testified about comments from customers made during the company's recent rate hike. Dominion's South Carolina President Keller Kissam said customers asked why the utility didn't raise rates on a smaller but more frequent basis, making it easier for those on a fixed income to adjust. Kissam said the state uses a similar process for natural gas rates. Utilities would go before regulators annually for up to five years to seek permission to raise prices. Rate payers can still protest and regulators still have the final say so over whether expenses meet the necessary requirements for an increase. But the process is less in depth because it doesn't call into question a utility company's allowed profit margin. The process includes a cap. So, unlike the legislation that paved the way for the V.C. Summer debacle, it can't be used to pay for a major project, such as the proposed Canadys gas plant, while it's still under construction. Consumer advocates, environmental groups and businesses organizations, large and small, opposed the measure. They argued, while gradual annual increases might ease the burden for customers, power companies also would be less incentivized to hold down costs. The state would review the process after five years to determine if its working the way utilities claim. A 38-3 vote Thursday sent the roughly 70-page bill back to the House, which can choose to accept the Senate changes or vote to negotiate the matter further in conference committee.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill overhauling lawsuit and insurance rules passes SC Senate
Sen. Mike Johnson, R-Tega Cay, outlines a compromise in a lawsuit overhaul bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday, March 26, 2025. (Screenshot courtesy of SCETV) COLUMBIA — Senators passed legislation late Wednesday that changes the rules on personal injury lawsuits in South Carolina in hopes of driving down insurance rates that business owners say they simply can't afford. The agreement that senators passed after 10 p.m. wrapped up four weeks of floor debate that pitted Republicans against Republicans in the supermajority GOP chamber and resulted in a barrage of campaigning by advocates and opponents. The 35-7 vote followed a 2½-hour recess as senators hammered out the details of what the majority could accept. Three Democrats joined Republicans in passing it. All seven 'no' votes came from Democrats. 'I'm not sure compromise is the word. This is an understanding,' said Sen. Mike Johnson, R-Tega Cay, who characterized the deal as 'the best result.' Under existing law, a business that plays any role in someone's injury or death can be forced to pay the entirety of court-awarded damages. Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, the lead sponsor, sought to change that to businesses paying for their part. Backing his effort have been various business associations as well as the state Chamber of Commerce, which argued that possibility put businesses at perpetual risk of bankruptcy. 'I think I should pay what I cause, not what somebody else causes,' the Edgefield Republican said repeatedly during debate. Under the compromise, all damages would be doled out proportionally — unless the business is mostly at fault. In other words, if a business is deemed 15% responsible, it would have to pay 15% of the verdict's total award. However, if a business is found more than 50% responsible, it can be held fully liable for economic damages, such as medical expenses, lost wages and property damage. It would still pay proportionally for emotional and punitive damages — essentially, the jury's award for punishing those at fault. 'The goal is to make a plaintiff whole,' Johnson, who led the subcommittee that handled the bill, said on the floor while explaining the agreement. The wide-ranging bill also cuts in half the mandated insurance coverage for bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Restaurant owners and advocates say their insurance bills have skyrocketed since legislators passed a law in 2017 requiring businesses serving alcohol after 5 p.m. to carry so-called liquor liability policies with at least $1 million in coverage. That law increased the insurance payout if a claim is filed after someone gets drunk and winds up injuring or killing someone, and the business is at all to blame for whatever happened. Insurance crisis is stopping new restaurants from opening, restaurateurs say As a result, premiums in South Carolina have continually increased as insurers stopped writing those policies. The compromise would lower the minimum coverage to $500,000. 'It's a win for restaurants and bars. I think this absolutely will have an effect of reducing their liability insurance cost,' Massey said. The final hurdle to the deal involved how to handle lawsuits for asbestos or so-called 'forever chemicals' in water supplies. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency put a cap on the amount of potentially cancer-causing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, allowed in drinking water. Environmentalists called it a win for clean water, but the cost to utilities could be staggering — creating the possibility that water bills could soar. To pay for the upgrades, utilities could sue the businesses responsible for putting the chemicals in the water. They may want to move quickly if they want a big payout. SC water bills could rise under 'long overdue' federal regulations for 'forever chemicals' Under the compromise, lawsuits involving asbestos or PFAS wouldn't be subject to the new rules if they're filed before the bill becomes law. 'It was a big issue. We knew that was going to be one of the big issues. That was the reason we held it 'til last,' Massey said. Whether it becomes law is up to the House. Senators are expected Thursday to give the perfunctory vote needed to send the bill across the lobby. The House unanimously passed legislation earlier this month aimed specifically at reducing insurance costs for restaurants and bars. House GOP leaders said the other issues needed further study. But Massey said he's optimistic the House will take up the Senate bill. 'Hopefully they'll take a look at what we did and recognize the work that we put into it, and also appreciate that there are there litigation issues beyond alcohol that need to be addressed,' he said.
