S. 275 amends South Carolina’s electric vehicle statutes to add formal definitions for “electric vehicle,” “electric vehicle charging provider,” and “direct-current-fast-charging station.” It also clarifies the legal treatment of entities that resell electricity through charging stations, specifying when such activity does not make the operator an electrical utility. The bill distinguishes between “make-ready” infrastructure and the charging station itself, and it expressly preserves the ability of utilities, municipalities, the Public Service Authority, and electric cooperatives to provide and charge for make-ready infrastructure and to use state or federal grant funding for that purpose.
The bill further regulates public-facing direct current fast charging stations owned or operated by public utilities or similar public entities. If those entities offer DC fast charging directly to the public, they must do so on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms, without giving their own stations an unreasonable advantage over private providers. The bill also restricts the use of revenue from other electric services to subsidize investments in publicly owned DC fast charging stations, while exempting existing stations built before the act’s effective date and non-public stations used only for the entity’s own vehicles or employee vehicles.
Impact
This bill would amend Sections 58-27-10 and 58-27-1060 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Its main legal effect is to create new statutory definitions and impose pricing and subsidy restrictions on public entities and utilities that own or operate public DC fast charging stations. It preserves existing make-ready infrastructure programs and certain preexisting or non-public charging facilities, while setting a nondiscrimination standard for public-facing fast charging services. The bill is effective upon gubernatorial approval.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The Senate passed the bill 44-0 on second reading, and the House passed it 108-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. The fiscal impact materials also describe the bill as largely neutral for state and local governments, which likely contributed to the positive reception.
Contention
The main policy tension is between encouraging EV infrastructure and preventing public utilities or local governments from using regulated revenues to gain an unfair competitive advantage over private charging providers. Supporters of the amended language appear to favor clarity for make-ready infrastructure, continued EV incentives, and protection of existing municipal programs, while private charging interests would likely be concerned about cross-subsidization and preferential treatment by public entities. The bill addresses those concerns by limiting subsidies and requiring nondiscriminatory access and pricing for public-facing DC fast charging stations.