Should South Carolina Reboot V.C. Summer?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

From 2008-2017, South Carolina politicians and energy executives blew more than $10 billion of taxpayer and ratepayer money on a pair of next-generation nuclear reactors in Fairfield County.

The two reactors were never completed…

Units No. 2 and No. 3 at the V.C. Summer nuclear power generating facility in Jenkinsville, S.C. were supposed to usher in a new era of energy generation in the Palmetto State – producing a combined 2,300 megawatts of clean, carbon-free energy. Instead, the abandoned project generated nothing but lies, taxpayer debt and higher rates on South Carolina energy customers.

We christened the debacle NukeGate – and the name stuck.

Envisioned as a decades-long partnership between Santee Cooper – a chronically mismanaged, government-run utility – and SCANA, a former South Carolina energy utility, NukeGate was supposed to solve the Palmetto State’s long-term power demand problem. Instead, its failure has exacerbated South Carolina’s pressing need for additional power generation.

“The implosion of this project happened at the precise moment the Palmetto State desperately needed to add new generating capacity to handle a wave of fresh demand for industrial, commercial and residential power,” I noted back in October.

Is rebooting NukeGate feasible, though? Estimates of $16-20 billion in additional costs were floated back in 2017 when the plug was pulled on the project – a sum debt-addled Santee Cooper and cash-strapped SCANA had no ability to pay.

***

RELATED | REVIVING V.C. SUMMER

***

And so the site has sat abandoned ever since… with limited accountability for the debacle.

According to a presentation published two months ago by the governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council (NAC), the former construction site of Units 2 and 3 is “in excellent condition… other than some overgrowth.”

NAC leaders visited the site on September 14, 2024, concluding “no obvious conditions preclude undertaking completion” of the two reactors.

“The condition of the various buildings and facilities shows no degradation, corrosion or spalling of concrete,” the NAC presentation (.pdf) noted. “All of the installed components show no corrosion other than surface rust which would be expected under a construction project in progress. The exposed rebar material, which is coated, also shows no serious defects and with normal rust management techniques could be ready for additional concrete lifts.”

Warehouses on the construction site storing additional components were described as “well maintained and intact with sufficient systems of lighting and ventilation.” Furthermore, the components stored therein were also deemed to be “in excellent condition.”

The report further noted the presence of an “extensive inventory of materials, assemblies and electrical and instrumentation systems” – all of which was also “well-maintained.”

The NAC presentation is receiving a fresh look from policymakers this week after state senator Tom Davis announced his plan to reboot the reactors. Davis has filed a bill, S. 51, which would instruct Santee Cooper to “issue a request for proposal, as expeditiously as possible, to solicit proposals from entities interested in utilizing assets associated with V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3.”

***

Taking the oath of office at the South Carolina Senate’s reorganization session earlier this month. I am very optimistic about the things we will accomplish in the 2025 legislative session. pic.twitter.com/wilZT4SB5U

— Tom Davis (@SenTomDavisSC) December 18, 2024

***

Davis has been on this case from the very beginning. Back in 2018, he pointed out the state had a “fiduciary duty” to preserve these assets, arguing a “thorough and public assessment” ought to be undertaken with the goal of determining “whether and under what conditions a completion of the two partially completed reactors might be feasible.”

Simply scrapping the site and having its components “stripped and sold for pennies on the dollar” would not be in “the best interests of South Carolinians,” Davis said at the time.

In October, Davis first proposed rebooting the troubled project during an energy committee meeting in Columbia, S.C.

“Maybe it’s a hangover from 2017 and the fact we got screwed but we need to be clear-eyed about this,” Davis said. “Georgia’s already talking about doing another nuclear facility. We would be derelict if we did not at least explore (reviving the project).”

Davis’ idea was greeted with skepticism – including from this media outlet – but his proposed legislation makes a compelling case that circumstances which led to the abandonment of the project in 2017 have changed.

According to Davis’ legislation, “the AP1000 technology is capable of providing carbon-neutral baseload electricity on a large scale, and has effectuated proficiency in completing and operating a AP1000 unit and also established an experienced workforce with unique knowledge and skill set regarding this technology.”

Davis’ bill also noted that “lessons learned” from the successful constructive of AP1000 units in Georgia and China have “led to significant design improvements” which would minimize “the need for major changes.”

***

Furthermore, Davis drew attention to the limited availability of federal “tax credit and grants of up to forty percent and loan guarantees of up to eighty percent for construction of nuclear power plants whose availability is time limited,” along with other incentives offered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

“South Carolina is facing a crossroads in its electric generation future,” Davis’ bill noted. “Significant population growth and increased economic development in the state is increasing the demand for electricity at a time when the state’s electric utilities are planning to retire their traditional coal baseload generation plants to transition to other generation resources.”

While Davis makes a compelling case, trusting Santee Cooper in any form or fashion is always going to be a risky proposition.

As I pointed out often during NukeGate, Santee Cooper flat out lied to its investors on bond documents related to this project … and attempted to raise rates on its customers just a week before pulling the plug on this project. Since the project’s collapse, it has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers – and is on the precipice of a massive rate hike.

All of these are reasons why I have repeatedly called on lawmakers to offload the utility – getting state government out of the business of running a power company.

Count on FITSNews to keep close tabs on Davis’ proposal… and on the broader effort to efficiently and transparently meet the Palmetto State’s increasingly acute energy challenges.

South Carolina has already endured one costly energy catastrophe… (two if you count the failure to sell Santee Cooper). It cannot afford another.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.