The Sierra Club South Carolina Chapter unequivocally opposes House Bill 3309
Chapter Communications Guidance on House Bill 3309
Last week, the South Carolina State Legislature introduced House Bill 3309, a prototype of last year's House Bill 5118, which did not become law due to tireless efforts from environmental advocates, including Sierrans. This bill, as written, continues to prioritize profits over people and gives the Public Service Commission unchecked power to rubberband concepts of plans, with ratepayers again on the line to foot the bill with zero accountability and oversight.
At this critical juncture in South Carolina's history, we must harness this moment and build energy resilience that creates jobs, protects the environment, and provides a good rate of return on investment for ratepayers across the Palmetto.
Lawmakers and regulatory agencies such as the PSC and the Nuclear Advisory Council should not be experimenting with South Carolina's future. Eight years ago, we first witnessed the devastating impact of the Baseload Review Act. The VC Summer Nuclear Reactor Construction fiasco was not only an embarrassment for the state but continues burdening ratepayers with footing the bill when the utilities should have been held accountable for paying for their failed experiment. Dominion ratepayers are being charged over 5% of the monthly bill for the failed project and will pay another 15 years.
The Nuclear Advisory Council's dogged backing of the VC Summer nuclear reactor construction project as it unraveled over many years demonstrated that it had inadequate and biased analytical abilities related to that project, resulting in over $11 billion wasted so far.
Once again, this legislation is terrible across the board. It is bad for democracy, the environment, and the pocketbooks and wallets of hardworking ratepayers across South Carolina. We are better than this, and the citizens of South Carolina deserve better. More than one thing can be true; we need to act now to build resilience. However, we can create that resilience with a mix of renewable and battery storage to increase grid stability and reduce costs.
Instead of advancing renewables and battery storage that will build Energy Resilience and energy efficiency, SC Lawmakers are fixated on more natural gas and financially risky concepts of plans that include pursuing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are still pending licensure by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
The Sierra Club strongly opposes this bill as written because it:
- Erodes Public Trust of the PSC—Reducing the size of the commission is a bad idea. It concentrates power in the legislature, which is subject to undue influence by regulated utilities. To make the process more democratic and ensure that Commissioners are held accountable to ratepayers, they should be elected by the people, as is done in Georgia.
- It gives the Nuclear Advisory Council Unchecked Power - Article 9 of Chapter 7, Title 13, relating to the Governor's Nuclear Advisory Council: This section provides the Nuclear Advisory Council with a formal role in energy planning and decision-making, which would be damaging to our energy future and the state's ratepayers and taxpayers. The Nuclear Advisory Council's dogged backing of the VC Summer nuclear reactor construction project as it unraveled over many years demonstrated that it had inadequate and biased analytical abilities related to that project, resulting in over $11 billion wasted.
- Put’s Ratepayers at Risk (once again) for Footing the Bill for Project Botches - Article 9, Chapter 7, Title 13: The development of advanced nuclear generation includes small modular reactors, molten salt reactors, and spent nuclear fuel recycling," all of which do not exist and are technologically risky and financially questionable. This section potentially charges the ratepayer with all SMR promotion, capital, and cancellation costs, making it more far-reaching and heinous than the hated and ill-conceived Baseload Review Act. Section 58-37-70 should be stricken in its entirety.
Additional Guidance:
- According to Stanford and the University of British Columbia research, SMRs generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.
- Nuclear energy is not risk-free. In the U.S. alone, commercial nuclear power plants have produced more than 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and substantial volumes of intermediate and low-level radioactive waste.
- SMRs need additional environmental impact assessments before being deemed "risk-free."
