A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING ARTICLE 24 TO CHAPTER 27, TITLE 58 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PROCEDURE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF RATES AND CHARGES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDING RETAIL ELECTRIC SERVICES TO REFLECT CHANGES IN EXPENSES, REVENUES, INVESTMENTS, DEPRECIATION, AND OTHER CHANGES IN REVENUES AND EXPENSES; TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO CHALLENGE THESE ADJUSTMENTS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED PROCEDURAL MATTERS INCLUDING A PROVISION TO AUTHORIZE ADDITONAL STAFFING FOR THE OFFICE OF REGULATORY STAFF TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES UNDER THIS ARTICLE TO BE FUNDED BY ASSESSMENTS ON EACH ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATED UNDER THE ARTICLE.
H3928 creates the “Electric Rate Stabilization Act” and adds a new Article 24 to Chapter 27 of Title 58 governing retail electric utilities in South Carolina. The bill allows a retail electric utility, at its option, to elect a new rate-adjustment process based on the utility’s most recent general rate case. Once elected, the utility must file quarterly monitoring reports showing actual earnings, expenses, rate base components, and related financial data, and the Public Service Commission (PSC) and Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) use those reports to determine whether rates should be adjusted up or down to keep the utility’s return on equity within a specified range.
The bill establishes a detailed annual review cycle for the December 31 reporting period. Interested parties may comment, ORS may audit the filing, the PSC issues an initial order by July 15, and any approved rate changes take effect with August bills. If the initial order is challenged, the PSC must hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a final order by April 15 of the following year, including any refund credit or surcharge needed to reconcile overcollections or undercollections. The bill also limits the review of these proceedings to compliance with the article’s terms and preserves the utility’s ability to seek a traditional general rate case.
In practical terms, the bill would change South Carolina utility ratemaking by creating a more formula-driven, interim adjustment mechanism for electric rates between full rate cases. It would also restrict how certain large new generating facilities over 250 megawatts may be included in plant-in-service for rate purposes, generally requiring treatment of those costs through a full rate proceeding or a prudence review. In addition, the bill authorizes extra ORS staffing to administer the new process, with those costs assessed against the regulated electric utilities rather than funded from general state revenues.
Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to provide utilities with a predictable mechanism to adjust rates while also preserving oversight through ORS review, PSC orders, public comment, and appeal rights. The structure suggests an attempt to balance utility revenue stability with consumer and intervenor protections, but the absence of discussion records means specific sentiment cannot be directly assessed from the available materials.
Potential points of contention include the bill’s allowance for automatic or near-automatic rate adjustments if the PSC does not issue an initial order on time, the use of a utility-selected election into the new framework, and the cost recovery mechanism that shifts ORS staffing expenses onto electric utilities and ultimately ratepayers. The restriction on including costs for new large generating facilities outside a full rate case may also be controversial, as it could affect how utilities finance major generation investments and how quickly those costs can be recovered.
The bill would add a new statutory article to South Carolina’s utility code, creating a separate ratemaking framework for retail electric utilities that elect to use it. It would affect the Public Service Commission, the Office of Regulatory Staff, the Department of Revenue, electric utilities, and intervening parties by establishing new reporting, audit, hearing, and rate-adjustment procedures, while also authorizing utility-funded ORS positions and assessments. It would not replace existing general rate case law, but would operate alongside Sections 58-27-860 and 58-27-870 and limit review of certain orders to compliance issues under the new article.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support, opposition, or amendments. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears generally pro-stability for utilities and pro-oversight for regulators, suggesting a technocratic approach intended to reduce rate volatility while preserving review and refund/surcharge reconciliation. The available record does not show any formal sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and caption.
The main likely points of contention are the optional election mechanism for utilities, the possibility that rates could be adjusted with limited PSC action if deadlines are missed, and the extent to which the process reduces the need for full contested rate cases. Consumer advocates or intervenors may object to the speed and automatic nature of the adjustments, while utilities may support the predictability and reduced regulatory lag. The treatment of large generating facilities over 250 megawatts and the utility-funded assessment for ORS staffing are also likely to draw scrutiny because they affect cost recovery and who ultimately bears administrative expenses.