More news: Big energy bill dies as session ends

A controversial, 70-page energy bill designed to increase Palmetto State power production effectively died on the floor of the S.C.a Senate this week. Members voted to replace the measure's legally binding provisions with new language recognizing the need for future reform efforts instead.

In other words, they gutted the immediate impact of the bill, opting instead to simply say more power production was important. As a result, legislators are unlikely to debate the issue again until they reconvene for a new legislative session next January.

While there's broad agreement that South Carolina, currently the nation's fastest-growing state, will need to bring significant new power generation capacity online over the next decade, the House energy bill engineered by Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, has faced tough criticism from the start. Of particular concern have been provisions to weaken utility regulators at the Public Service Commission (PSC), fast-track large new natural gas plants and pipelines, and erect barriers to solar energy projects.

Critics of the legislation this week praised the Senate's decision to delay further action until all energy alternatives had been considered and fully vetted.

"The Senate was wise to slow down," said Eddy Moore, a greenhouse gas emissions expert with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "Now, we need to streamline clean energy additions for the benefit of everyone in the state."

Despite the controversy, Beaufort Republican Sen. Tom Davis, who authored the new non-binding language, says the House's work was critical in setting the stage for future progress.

In particular, he notes, the new Senate language endorses the House bill's basic framework by emphasizing the need for new power generation and transmission capacity, and acknowledging the importance of natural gas as a bridge to the future.

Bill critics like S.C. League of Women Voters Vice President Teague warned that the process next year will have to be more inclusive and sensitive to public concerns to win their support.

"The best thing about this Senate bill is that it doesn't actually do any of the inadequately vetted things it talks about," she said. "Going forward, we hope that legislators will understand that stakeholders participating in these discussions must include those of us concerned about protecting ratepayers and the public."