Jocelyn G. Boyd

The hearing concerned Docket Number 2025-276E, specifically the application by SR Cordova LLC for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of a 100 megawatt solar facility in Orangeburg County, South Carolina. Key discussions involved the introduction of exhibits detailing the application, proof of service, public notice, site map, and environmental permit matrix. The applicant, represented by Silicon Ranch Corporation, provided an opening statement highlighting that the project meets all statutory criteria, including public convenience, necessity, and need, favorable comparison to other generation options, minimal environmental impact, and compliance with laws. The testimony noted the project is uncontested, with the Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) having no objection. The process for community engagement, which includes early outreach to local officials and neighbors due to the company's long-term ownership model, was discussed in detail in response to commissioner inquiry.

The proceeding reconvened regarding Docket Number 2025-300-E, which concerns the application by the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of the King's Tree to Hemingway transmission lines in Williamsburg County. The session included instructions for a public hearing portion where interested parties, including witnesses such as Dr. Lethonia Bennett, were allowed to provide testimony under oath. Key discussion points raised during testimony focused on the project's scope, arguing that expanding transmission capacity enables high-density load growth, potentially leading to industrial intensification not disclosed in the initial application. Concerns were raised regarding due process, the lack of local land use review mechanisms, and the potential for environmental impacts such as soil erosion and flooding. The testimony urged the Commission to narrowly tailor the certification to reliability and resilience purposes, or deny certification until load growth projections and capacity implications are clearly documented.

The hearing concerned Docket Number 2025-247-E, specifically the oral argument regarding the request by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Duke Energy Progress for approval of their 2024 Competitive Procurement of Solar and Collocated Storage Programs. The proposer provided extensive background on the dual-track RFP design used in previous 2022 and 2023 proceedings, which sought a reasonable balance of utility-owned and third-party PPA resources. The discussion highlighted that the Energy Security Act codified the 'reasonable balance' policy. Key discussion points involved the economic viability of the current portfolio (noting the LCOE was 1% lower than the IRP reference price) and ensuring the portfolio enabled reliable and safe grid operation, contrasting this with the risks associated with third-party projects. A point of contention involved the Office of Regulatory Staff's (ORS) opposition and focus on North Carolina law, which the proposer argued should be disregarded in favor of South Carolina law and policy.

The Public Service Commission continued case number 2025-247E, reaching the stage for rebuttal testimony and possibly a closed session. Utility representatives (Duke Energy Corporation) presented rebuttal testimony defending their 2024 Competitive Procurement of Solar and Solar Paired with Storage program, arguing that the results are in the public interest. A primary point of contention involved the Office of Regulatory Staff's (OS) recommendation to reject all utility-owned solar projects, resulting in 100% third-party ownership. The utility witnesses countered that OS's evaluation was flawed because it only focused on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) by comparing dissimilar resource types ('apples to oranges') and ignored statutory considerations like achieving a reasonable balance of ownership, consistency with the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), system reliability, and safety risks associated with relying solely on third-party ownership. The discussion also touched upon the risks of third-party project attrition, exemplified by the bankruptcy of Pinegate.

The proceedings resumed after a closed session where confidential information was received. The discussion focused on the case designated as 2025-247-E, Part 4 of 4. A commissioner commended the high level of professionalism and expertise demonstrated by both OS and Duke representatives regarding the complex matter, noting they were far apart on methods and processes. The procedural steps involved pre-marking exhibits 19 and 20 to avoid reopening the record for submission.