A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING ARTICLE 29 TO CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS AND TO REQUIRE THE SC EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO ADD DETAILED PLANS REGARDING HARDENING ALL CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGAINST ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES OR GEOMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES, TO REQUIRE ELECTRICAL UTILITY DISTRIBUTORS IN THIS STATE TO OFFER PROGRAMS TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WHO CHOOSE TO RECEIVE ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE/GEOMAGNETIC DISTURBANCE PROTECTION FROM THE UTILITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT PLANS THROUGH THE CUSTOMERS' MONTHLY BILLS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR GRANTS; AND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL MAKE CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS.
H3968 would add a new article to the South Carolina Code focused on protecting the state from the effects of electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) and geomagnetic disturbances. The bill defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include systems and assets essential to public safety, economic security, and health, such as government facilities, utilities, healthcare, first responders, and public schools. It also defines “electromagnetic pulse” to include both human-made EMP events and solar-related geomagnetic disturbances.
The bill directs the South Carolina Emergency Management Division (SCEMD) to incorporate a detailed EMP-hardening plan into the state’s emergency preparedness planning. That plan must address how to harden critical infrastructure and identify alternative energy sources that could keep essential systems operating if the electrical grid were disabled for an extended period. The plan must be completed and distributed to municipalities by January 1, 2026.
H3968 also requires all electrical power distributors in South Carolina, including utilities outside Public Service Commission jurisdiction, to offer residential customers a program for EMP protection of personal assets. If a customer chooses to participate, the utility would install the protection and allow payment through monthly utility bills. In addition, municipalities and critical infrastructure entities that comply with the SCEMD plan within one year would be eligible for grants, and the General Assembly would be required to provide multiyear appropriations beginning in the 2025-2026 budget cycle to fund these grants through SCEMD.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to create a new state-level preparedness mandate for EMP resilience, impose new program obligations on electric utilities, and establish a grant-and-appropriations framework for infrastructure hardening and backup power. It would expand SCEMD’s responsibilities and potentially affect state, local, and private entities tied to critical infrastructure, while also creating a new consumer-facing utility option for residential EMP protection.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text itself, the measure appears strongly supportive of emergency preparedness and infrastructure resilience, but it may raise practical and fiscal concerns about implementation costs, utility compliance, technical feasibility, and the scope of state funding required. The main point of contention is likely to be whether the state should mandate and finance such broad EMP protection measures, and how much responsibility should fall on SCEMD, utilities, municipalities, and the General Assembly.
H3968 would add Article 29 to Chapter 1, Title 1 of the South Carolina Code, creating a new statutory framework for EMP and geomagnetic disturbance preparedness. It would require SCEMD to integrate hardening measures and alternative power planning into emergency preparedness, require utilities to offer optional EMP protection programs to residential customers, and establish eligibility for grants to municipalities and critical infrastructure entities that comply with the plan. It also directs the General Assembly to provide multiyear appropriations beginning in the 2025-2026 budget cycle to support these efforts.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. The bill’s text reflects a strong pro-preparedness and pro-resilience posture, emphasizing catastrophic-risk mitigation and state action to protect essential services. Any opposition or caution would likely center on cost, implementation burden, and the technical and regulatory complexity of requiring EMP protection programs and infrastructure upgrades.
The most likely points of contention are fiscal and administrative. The bill would require state funding, impose new duties on SCEMD, and require all electrical power distributors to offer a new customer program, which could draw concern from utilities and budget-minded legislators. There may also be disagreement over the breadth of the definition of critical infrastructure, the feasibility of hardening systems against EMP events, and whether the state should mandate protections for private residential assets through utility billing programs. Supporters would likely emphasize disaster preparedness and continuity of essential services, while skeptics may question cost-effectiveness and the likelihood of the threat scenarios described in the findings.