A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RATEPAYER PROTECTION AND LARGE LOAD CUSTOMER INFRASTRUCTURE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT" BY ADDING CHAPTER 44 TO TITLE 58 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS, PROHIBIT INCREMENTAL COSTS RESULTING FROM LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS TO BE RECOVERED FROM CUSTOMERS IN ANOTHER CUSTOMER CLASS; TO ESTABLISH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES; TO ESTABLISH REVIEW STANDARDS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; AND TO REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTS FROM LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS; BY ADDING SECTION 13-1-80 SO AS TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING INCENTIVES THAT MAY BE OFFERED TO POTENTIAL LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS; BY ADDING SECTION 6-29-550 SO AS TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS CONCERNING PLANNING AND ZONING PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN PERMITS OR INCENTIVES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 49-1-100 SO AS TO REQUIRE POTENTIAL LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS TO PROVIDE PLANS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO VERIFY WATER USAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN ADHERENCE IN THE EVENT OF A DROUGHT.
H5215 would create the “South Carolina Ratepayer Protection and Large Load Customer Infrastructure Accountability Act” and add a new chapter to Title 58 governing very large electric customers, especially data centers and other projects with projected peak demand of at least 50 MW. The bill is designed to prevent costs associated with serving these customers from being shifted to other ratepayers, and it bars utilities from recovering incremental costs from other customer classes. It also requires large load customers to sign commission-approved contracts before receiving service, with terms addressing new facilities and upgrades, demand response or higher firm-service charges, minimum service commitments of at least 20 years, and repayment of unrecovered costs if the customer reduces load or leaves early.
The bill gives the Public Service Commission broad review authority over large-load service arrangements and allows it to impose tiered conditions based on project characteristics such as employment, load volatility, backup generation, water use, infrastructure needs, and proximity to overburdened or environmentally sensitive communities. The commission must find that a project provides a public net benefit and protects existing ratepayers from cost-shifting and stranded costs before approving service terms. Large load customers must also file annual reports with the commission on electricity use, demand response events, operating time, and, for data centers, water withdrawals for cooling; those reports must be posted publicly.
Beyond utility regulation, the bill adds new restrictions on state and local incentives. State agencies may not offer incentives to a potential large load customer unless the customer proves compliance with the new utility requirements and mitigation of community impacts, and any employment, wage, or training commitments tied to incentives must be written and measurable. If incentive conditions are not met, the customer must repay the value of the incentive, and the relevant department must audit compliance at least every two years. Local governments would also have to hold a public hearing with advance notice, disclose key project information, and certify that the project is consistent with local planning and zoning before issuing permits or incentives.
The bill also adds environmental review and reporting requirements through the Department of Environmental Services. Potential large load customers must submit water-resource plans, including monthly water consumption, mitigation measures, chemicals used in water or wastewater treatment, and drought contingency plans, all of which are made public. The department must hold a public hearing before issuing permits, require annual water-use reports, verify water-use compliance at least every three years, and specifically check drought contingency adherence when the county is in drought status. The act applies prospectively to applications and permit requests made on or after enactment.
Overall, the bill’s stated purpose is to welcome large industrial investment while ensuring it is self-supporting, transparent, and not subsidized by existing customers. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s own findings. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the cost-recovery limits, the long-term contract and financial security requirements, the public disclosure obligations, and the added state and local approval hurdles for data centers and other large-load projects.
The bill would add a new regulatory framework to Title 58 governing large electric loads, especially data centers, and would also amend Titles 13, 6, and 49 to tie incentives, local permitting, and water permitting to compliance with the new standards. It would constrain utility rate design and cost recovery, require PSC approval of large-load contracts, impose reporting and security obligations on customers, and create new public notice, zoning, and environmental review requirements for qualifying projects. It would directly affect electrical utilities, large industrial and data center developers, state incentive programs, local governments, and the Department of Environmental Services.
The bill’s stated policy direction is strongly protective of ratepayers and communities, emphasizing neutrality, accountability, and transparency for large-load development. In the materials provided, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no observable legislative debate or formal vote sentiment to summarize. Based on the text alone, the bill appears intended to support economic development while imposing substantial safeguards and oversight.
The most likely areas of contention are whether the bill goes too far in regulating large-load projects and potentially discouraging investment, versus whether it is necessary to prevent utilities and existing customers from subsidizing expensive new loads. Developers and utilities may object to the 20-year minimum service commitments, financial security requirements, public reporting, and restrictions on discounted rates, while local governments, environmental interests, and ratepayer advocates may support the added transparency, water planning, and community-impact review. The requirement that projects demonstrate a public net benefit and avoid cost-shifting is likely to be a central point of dispute.