S1009 is a joint resolution directing the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services to investigate the origin of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) around Lake Wateree and the Catawba-Wateree River basin. The investigation is intended to determine how the contamination occurred, where the PCBs came from, and which party or parties may be responsible for the pollution.
The resolution specifically instructs the department to examine whether Duke Energy, or its predecessors in interest, bear any responsibility for the contamination. It also authorizes the department to work with the Office of Inspector General and its investigatory staff. A report of findings must be submitted to the Governor, the General Assembly, the Office of Regulatory Staff, and the Public Service Commission by December 31, 2026.
Impact
This resolution does not itself impose cleanup requirements, penalties, or regulatory standards; instead, it creates a formal state investigation into PCB contamination in Lake Wateree and the Catawba-Wateree River basin. It directs the Department of Environmental Services to use its authority to identify the source and responsible parties, potentially informing future enforcement, remediation, or litigation. The measure may affect Duke Energy and any predecessor entities if the investigation links them to the contamination, and it involves multiple state oversight bodies in receiving the results.
Sentiment
The bill appears to reflect concern about environmental contamination and a desire for accountability, with the General Assembly seeking a factual investigation into a long-standing pollution issue. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal opposition in the available materials. The overall tone of the measure is investigatory and remedial rather than partisan, suggesting broad interest in determining responsibility for PCB pollution.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the question of responsibility for the PCB contamination, especially whether Duke Energy or its predecessors contributed to the problem. That issue could carry legal, financial, and reputational consequences, making it the central disputed matter if the investigation leads to enforcement or claims. Another possible area of concern is the scope of the investigation and the use of state investigatory resources, though no specific objections are documented in the available record.