This blog was written by SACE Decarbonization Director Eddy Moore.
South Carolina Legislature Proposes to Roll Back Rate-Payer Protections
Five years ago, after utility companies spent $9 billion on a nuclear plant that was never finished, the South Carolina legislature reformed the law to increase scrutiny of utility plans and support renewable energy produced by independent developers. Now, a new Speaker of the House is leading a utility-supported effort to roll back those reforms and expand gas-fired power. If passed, the bill would increase costs for residents, undermine the state’s utility planning process, threaten continued buildout of new utility-scale solar, and drive up climate pollution across the state.
Major Fossil Fuel Expansion
The Speaker’s bill indicates legislative support for approximately 9,000 megawatts (MW) of new power plants that would burn fracked gas, plus new gas pipelines. The roughly $9 billion capital cost for the power plants alone would equal almost $2,000 each for every man, woman, and child in the state. The fuel for the power plants will likely exceed the cost of the plants themselves. This bill is a multi-decade deadweight on the future economy of the state.
Just one of the new gas plants—a joint venture of Dominion Energy and state-owned Santee Cooper—could be as large as 2,000 MW and would take seven or more years to build because it first requires expanded interstate gas pipelines across sensitive wetlands and more than 100 miles of electric transmission upgrades. The legislative endorsement of the project, which is working its way through state approvals even without specific legislation, adds extra insurance for the utility companies that ratepayers will be required to foot the full bill if the complex project has major cost overruns. The project also would increase reliance on gas in Dominion Energy territory from the current 40% of all energy generated to almost 60%, tying its customers to international gas price spikes for decades to come instead of signing fixed-price renewable energy contracts.
Eroding Consumer & Environmental Protections
In a state in which the legislature directly chooses the members Commission that regulates utility rates, the legislative endorsements would override the regulatory process. The regulatory process is further undermined by numerous other provisions of the bill. For instance, it requires the Commission to give special consideration to evidence provided by utility company witnesses. It also restores a pre-reform mandate for the Public Service Commission to support the financial integrity of the utility (which is already ensured elsewhere in the law), rather than having regulators focus more on the needs of ratepayers. And it eliminates the authorization for the state’s Office of Consumer Affairs to intervene on behalf of utility ratepayers, which was enacted as a direct result of the nuclear fiasco. These moves to short circuit regulatory review processes are a blow to South Carolina residents since the Public Service Commission and the review processes they oversee stand as the only significant check on monopoly utilities’ profit motive at ratepayers’ expense.
The bill also threatens the number one method of renewable energy development in South Carolina by shortening the length of standard contracts for new utility-scale solar facilities from ten years to five. Under current law, these contracts set the terms under which utilities buy energy from renewable energy providers, and thus are the basis of bank financing for the projects. Cutting the financing period in half will either drastically cut the revenue for solar or drive up the necessary unit cost of energy so that solar is priced out of the market. Either way, this provision would likely kill an otherwise growing solar and battery storage market. And it is patently unfair: for comparison, coal-fired power plants in South Carolina are currently financed by ratepayers for over 70 years.
Remarkably, given the recent history of nuclear project abandonment in South Carolina, the bill also authorizes up to three new “small modular” nuclear reactors. This novel technology is untested and the only project in the United States was recently abandoned for cost overruns. If the South Carolina reactors are abandoned like the last one, utility companies would be required to give a “fulsome accounting,” but still could be allowed to charge ratepayers for the plants.
While the legislation obviously fails to heed the lessons learned after the $9 billion nuclear fiasco in South Carolina, its greater significance is a complete embrace of gas-fired power for decades to come. Out-of-state gas producers and pipeline companies see the electric power business as their only real growth opportunity in the domestic US market. The gas industry is fighting for market share, trying across the southeast to beat renewable energy to the punch as solar prices decline and utilities nationally increasingly turn to battery storage for dispatchable capacity.
Take Action to Fight Back
Hopefully, as legislators hear from constituents shocked by the bill’s backward emphasis on fossil fuel expansion and monopoly profit rather than competitive clean energy, they will pause and reconsider. South Carolina is home to a diverse and growing clean energy economy, and new technology and regulatory approaches can meet our electricity needs at lower cost and risk. For instance, South Carolina should require its utilities to participate in a regional wholesale market to improve reliability, cost, and transparency. The state legislature spent almost a million dollars studying this option and found that it would save over $300 million per year, but shelved the study when utilities complained. Also, competitive renewable energy procurement processes have been demonstrated to lower cost and speed integration of clean energy resources. And binding energy efficiency program targets would speed adoption of the cheapest energy of all—the energy not generated in the first place. But the first step for South Carolina to reliably meet its energy needs should be to rethink the backward legislative approach represented by the recently introduced bill.
The post South Carolina Legislature Unlearns Lessons, Promotes Major Gas Industry Push appeared first on SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
South Carolina Legislature Unlearns Lessons, Promotes Major Gas Industry Push
Renewable Energy
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
There’s a theory that most people underestimate the positive effects they’ve had on other people.
Yes, that’s the theme of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” but it’s also the core of the 1995 film “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” in which a music teacher who deemed that his life had been a failure because he never completed writing a great symphony, is gently and beautifully corrected. Please see below.
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
In the early days of 2GreenEnergy, my people and I were vigorously engaged in finding solid ideas in cleantech that needed funding in order to move forward.
I vividly remember a conversation with a guy in Maryland who was trying to explain the (ostensible) breakthrough that he and his team had made in hydrokinetics. When I was having trouble visualizing what we was talking about, he asked me to “think of it as a river in a box.”
“Oh!” I exclaimed. “You mean you take a box full of standing water, add energy to it get it moving, then extract that energy, leaving you with more energy that you added to it.”
“Exactly.”
I politely explained that the laws of physics, specifically the first and second laws of thermodynamics, make this impossible.
He wasn’t through, however, and insisted that, in his office, his people had constructed a “working model.”
Here’s where my tone descended into something less than 100% polite. I told him that he may think he has a working model, but he’s wrong; if he believes this, he’s ignorant; if he doesn’t, but is conducting this conversation anyway, he’s a fraud.
“But don’t you want to come see it?” he implored.
“No. Not only would not fly across the country to see whatever it is you claim to have built, I wouldn’t walk across the street to a “working model” of something that is theoretically impossible.”
—
I tell this story because the claim made at the upper left is essentially identical. You’re pumping water up out of a stream, and then claiming to extract more energy when the water flows back into the stream.
Of course, social media today is rife with complete crap like this. We’ve devolved to a point where defrauding money out of idiots is rapidly replacing baseball as our national pastime.
Renewable Energy
What Canada Has that the U.S. Doesn’t
Until recently, I would have moose, maple syrup, and frozen tundra.
Now I would say: decency, honesty, and class.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits


