South Carolina PSC Finalizes Canadys Gas Plant Approval — With No Cost Caps for Ratepayers
The South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) has issued its final order approving the proposed Canadys Gas Plant, cementing a decision that consumer advocates and clean energy supporters say places an unchecked financial burden on South Carolina utility customers. The finalized approval, which follows the Commission's initial May 15th vote, grants the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity — but notably, it does so without placing any cap on the total costs that can ultimately be passed on to ratepayers.
As cost estimates for the project have already shown signs of ballooning, critics argue the absence of a spending ceiling leaves South Carolina residents financially exposed for years to come. The decision raises serious questions about energy affordability, regulatory accountability, and the state's long-term energy strategy at a time when renewable alternatives are becoming increasingly cost-competitive.
What Is the Canadys Gas Plant?
The Canadys Gas Plant is a proposed natural gas-fired power generation facility intended to serve the energy needs of South Carolina utility customers. The plant takes its name from the Canadys area in Colleton County, South Carolina, a region with a long history tied to energy infrastructure. The project is being developed to address projected electricity demand growth in the state, with proponents arguing it is necessary to maintain grid reliability.
Supporters of the plant, including the utility seeking its approval, have framed the project as a critical piece of infrastructure that will ensure South Carolinians have access to reliable electricity as older power plants are retired and demand increases. However, opponents counter that the project locks ratepayers into decades of fossil fuel dependency precisely when cleaner, cheaper alternatives are available and rapidly scaling.
The Problem With No Cost Caps
One of the most significant and controversial elements of the PSC's final order is what it does not include: a firm cap on construction and operational costs. In utility regulation, cost caps serve as a critical consumer protection mechanism. Without them, utilities can — and often do — pass cost overruns directly to customers through rate increases, with limited regulatory recourse once a project is already underway.
This concern is not hypothetical. The history of large-scale energy infrastructure projects in South Carolina is already marked by one of the most painful examples of uncapped utility spending in U.S. history. The failed V.C. Summer nuclear expansion project, abandoned in 2017 after years of construction delays and cost overruns, ultimately cost South Carolina ratepayers billions of dollars for a plant that was never completed. Many observers worry the Canadys approval, structured similarly without hard cost controls, risks repeating that pattern.
With the project's price estimates already reported to be rising, the absence of a cost ceiling means ratepayers have little guaranteed protection if construction expenses continue to grow. Critics of the final order argue the PSC had both the authority and the responsibility to impose such protections and chose not to.
Implications for South Carolina Energy Ratepayers
For everyday South Carolinians, the Canadys Gas Plant approval could mean higher utility bills for years to come. When utilities build new generation infrastructure, the costs are typically recovered through rates — meaning customers pay for the plant whether they want it or not, and regardless of whether it turns out to be the most cost-effective option available.
Consumer advocates have raised concerns about several key financial risks associated with the project:
- Escalating construction costs that could push the final price tag well beyond initial estimates, all of which would be eligible for recovery through customer rates.
- Fuel price volatility inherent to natural gas, which can cause operational costs to swing unpredictably over the plant's multi-decade lifespan.
- Stranded asset risk, meaning if demand forecasts prove overstated or clean energy alternatives become dominant, ratepayers could be left paying off a plant that is no longer economically viable or environmentally appropriate.
- Opportunity cost from capital that could have been invested in demand-side management, energy efficiency, or utility-scale renewable energy, which increasingly carry lower long-term price tags.
Clean Energy Alternatives and the Missed Opportunity Argument
A central argument made by clean energy advocates throughout the Canadys proceeding is that South Carolina has viable, scalable alternatives to new gas generation that the PSC failed to adequately weigh. Solar energy costs have fallen dramatically over the past decade, and paired with battery storage technology, solar can increasingly provide the kind of firm, dispatchable power that was once the exclusive domain of fossil fuel plants.
South Carolina has significant untapped solar potential, favorable sunlight conditions, and a growing number of developers willing to invest in the state. Critics argue that a rigorous, technology-neutral resource planning process would have placed these alternatives on equal footing with the gas plant — and that the PSC's approval suggests the Commission did not fully apply that standard.
Energy efficiency programs and demand response, which pay customers to reduce electricity use during peak periods, also represent lower-cost tools that can defer or reduce the need for new generating capacity. Opponents of the Canadys approval contend these resources were undervalued in the utility's integrated resource planning process.
What Comes Next?
The finalization of the PSC order does not necessarily end the debate over the Canadys Gas Plant. Consumer and environmental groups may pursue legal or regulatory challenges to the decision, and ongoing legislative scrutiny of utility oversight in South Carolina remains a factor. The state's broader energy policy conversation — including debates over renewable portfolio standards, utility regulation reform, and ratepayer protections — will likely continue to shape the context in which this project moves forward.
For South Carolina residents, staying informed about utility rate proceedings and engaging with their elected representatives remains one of the most direct ways to influence how the state's energy future unfolds. The Canadys decision is a reminder that energy infrastructure choices made today carry financial and environmental consequences measured in decades — and that the frameworks governing those choices matter enormously for everyone who pays a utility bill.
The Bottom Line
The South Carolina Public Service Commission's final order approving the Canadys Gas Plant marks a pivotal moment in the state's energy trajectory. By greenlighting the project without meaningful cost protections for ratepayers, the PSC has drawn sharp criticism from advocates who say the decision prioritizes utility interests over the financial wellbeing of South Carolina customers. As cost estimates continue to evolve and the clean energy transition accelerates nationally, the long-term wisdom of this approval will be tested — and it is South Carolina ratepayers who will bear the consequences either way.