By James T. Hammond

South Carolina boasts one of the nation’s most vibrant industrial sectors, including being the largest exporter of cars and tires among the 50 states. A growing manufacturing economy provides tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the state.

But that strength and momentum could grind to a halt if the state’s supply of plentiful and cost-effective electricity were threatened, as it has been in recent weeks as South Carolina Electric and Gas and its partner, state-owned utility Santee Cooper, announced they would abandon construction of two new nuclear reactors in Fairfield County.

That thunderbolt has shaken the state’s leadership, cost the CEOs of Santee Cooper and SCANA their jobs. SCANA is the parent company of SCE&G. The shocking development also has sent Gov. Henry McMaster into crisis mode, seeking new investors to restart the V.C. Summer project, in hopes of finishing at least one of the two planned reactors; and possibly the sale of Santee Cooper to private investors.

It is easy to believe that McMaster is driven more by ideological free-market notions than by what is good for South Carolina in the long term. Santee Cooper has been and should continue to be the bedrock upon which the state’s network of electric cooperatives is built.

The electric energy industry has been in tumult in recent years, as federal regulations have forced the shutdown of coal-fired energy plants. SCE&G announced in 2012 that it would shut down six coal-fired plants by the end of 2018. Those have been replaced in the short-term relatively easily with natural gas units, as plentiful new sources have driven down the cost of that cleaner burning fuel. But it is unclear how long those supplies and low prices will continue.

Utilities including SCE&G have made major commitments to solar generated electricity. But solar and wind sources currently represent less than five percent of South Carolina’s supply of electricity. Barring major innovations in technology, renewable sources show scant potential to replace so-called “base load” energy generated by nuclear and coal. A traditional source of renewable energy supply, hydroelectric stations on our streams and rivers, is about maxed out in terms of potential for new supply. And a growing population will compete with the power companies for the water that drives turbines to generate electricity.

Many states will need to have this conversation in the years ahead, but South Carolina is uniquely dependent upon nuclear power. Today, some 57% of South Carolina’s electric supply comes from nuclear sources. There are:

• Three reactors at Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca;
• Two reactors at Catawba Nuclear Station in York County;
• One reactor at V.C. Summer Station in Fairfield County;
• And one reactor at the Robinson Station in Darlington County.

All are decades old and some likely will be shut down due to age in current residents’ lifetimes.

Duke Energy sought the cover of the angst focused upon the SCE&G/Santee Cooper decision to float out the news that it, too, would abandon plans for a new reactor near Gaffney, South Carolina. Duke is only out some $542 million in planning and pre-construction costs, but the decision does not bode well for power supplies in the Carolinas.

The two new reactors in Fairfield County were planned to replace aging facilities and maintain ample reserves of electricity for a growing economy and population in one of the fasting growing states in the nation. With billions of dollars already spent on the V.C. Summer project, it remains unclear whether a white knight will surface to resume construction of one or more of the unfinished nuclear reactors. Despite its great cost and uncertain health consequences, nuclear remains the best solution to prevent further spoiling of the atmosphere with noxious emissions.

Meanwhile, coal should remain off the table for future electricity production. Despite decades of work to reduce toxic emissions from the smokestacks of coal plants, the Clean Energy Task Force estimated that coal’s polluting impact was responsible for some 7,500 deaths nationwide annually in a 2014 report. The known health risks of burning coal are too high to justify its future use in the power industry.

So with coal continuing to diminish in electricity production and the region’s nuclear plants inevitably aging out, it is imperative that Gov. McMaster, the General Assembly and the state’s industrial leaders convene a task force to study the state’s future energy needs, coupled with the public health issues associated with every source. Current law has set a tiny goal of just 2% of total power generation from renewable sources by 2021.

South Carolina desperately needs a comprehensive policy that addresses the seismic shift in the energy landscape with the abandonment of the two nuclear plants. Let’s not wait for the lights to dim and the factories to close because the electricity supply has become too expensive and unreliable.

James T. Hammond is a retired journalist living in the Carolina foothills of Greenville County.