S. 867, the “Data Center Development Act,” creates a new statewide framework for siting, permitting, operating, and decommissioning data centers in South Carolina. It establishes a Data Center Development Office within the Department of Environmental Services to serve as the main permitting and coordination point for data center projects, and it creates an advisory committee with representatives from industry, utilities, ratepayer advocates, environmental advocates, local government, and state agencies. The bill defines data centers by electrical load and divides them into three tiers, with different permitting timelines and review requirements based on size.
The bill requires data centers to obtain a state siting permit before beginning operations, while still complying with other local and state approvals. It sets expedited review for smaller facilities, more detailed environmental and infrastructure review for larger ones, and requires annual reporting on water use and operational changes. It also establishes performance-based operational standards, water efficiency benchmarks, buffer requirements near sensitive areas, decommissioning plans and financial assurances for larger facilities, confidentiality protections for proprietary information, and civil penalties for violations. The bill further directs the Public Service Commission to oversee utility rates, cost allocation, and service agreements so that data center-related infrastructure costs are not shifted to other ratepayers.
The bill would add a new Chapter 35 to Title 49 of the South Carolina Code and significantly expand state oversight of data center development, especially through the Department of Environmental Services and the Public Service Commission. It would create new permitting, reporting, environmental review, water-efficiency, noise/light/vibration, decommissioning, and enforcement requirements for data centers, while also authorizing tax credits for projects located on brownfield or remediated sites. It would also constrain how utilities recover costs from data centers and require rate structures and financial assurances designed to protect existing customers from subsidizing data center infrastructure. Local governments would retain zoning and land-use authority, but the bill limits their ability to impose requirements more restrictive than the chapter on certain state-level determinations.
The bill’s general tone is strongly pro-development but paired with regulatory guardrails. Its findings emphasize economic competitiveness, capital investment, job creation, and the need for predictable permitting, while also acknowledging concerns about electricity demand, water use, and ratepayer protection. The committee report recommended passage, and no recorded votes or committee debate transcripts were provided, so the available record shows support at the committee level but does not reflect broader floor sentiment.
Based on the bill text and committee report, the overall sentiment appears favorable toward data center development, with an emphasis on making South Carolina more competitive for investment. The measure is framed as a way to streamline permitting and provide certainty to industry while also addressing environmental and utility-cost concerns. The committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources recommended that the bill do pass, and there is no contrary vote or transcript evidence in the provided materials.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between economic development and regulatory protection. Potentially disputed issues include the bill’s limits on local government restrictions, the extent of state preemption versus local land-use control, and whether the permitting process is sufficiently strict for water use, environmental impacts, and community effects such as noise, vibration, and light. Another likely area of concern is utility cost allocation, since the bill explicitly addresses cross-subsidization and ratepayer protection while allowing flexible rate structures and minimum contract obligations. Environmental advocates may focus on site impacts, buffer requirements, and cumulative water and air-quality effects, while industry stakeholders may be concerned about permitting timelines, compliance costs, and confidentiality of operational data.