The Public Service Commission of South Carolina is considering Duke Energy’s proposal to build a 1,365-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle power plant in Anderson County. The proceeding, tracked as Docket No. 2025-250-E, involves three co-applicants and has drawn both regulatory support and pointed opposition over air quality and the state’s long-term energy trajectory.
What the Joint Application Requests
Duke Energy Carolinas filed the application in October 2025 alongside two cooperative partners: North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. and Central Electric Power Cooperative. Together, the three entities are seeking a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity, the state-level permit required before construction of a major generating facility can begin. The joint application specifies that Duke Energy Carolinas would hold approximately 1,170 MW of the plant’s total 1,365 MW capacity, with NCEMC taking 100 MW and Central receiving 95 MW.
Beyond the generating units themselves, the proposal calls for new transmission infrastructure, including a 230 kV switching station and the fold-in of existing transmission lines to connect the plant to the regional grid. Duke confirmed the October 2025 filing date in its annual 10-K disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, placing the project within its broader capital spending plans for the Carolinas service territory. Cost recovery and any associated rate impacts would ultimately flow through proceedings governed by the commission’s electric tariff system, adding another layer of regulatory review beyond the siting certificate.
Duke’s Case for More Gas Generation
The utility’s central argument is straightforward: demand for electricity in South Carolina is growing faster than existing supply can handle, and the state’s reserve margins are thinning. In an ex parte briefing delivered to commissioners in October 2025, Duke representatives tied the Anderson County project directly to reserve margin shortfalls identified in the company’s Integrated Resource Plan. The briefing also outlined project milestones, including the filing timeline and an interconnection agreement needed to bring the plant online.
In testimony submitted in March 2026, a Duke witness stated plainly that “South Carolina needs more electricity” and that the proposed facilities are the best available option to meet that need. That framing places the Anderson County Energy Center squarely within a national trend: utilities across the South are turning to gas-fired combined-cycle plants as the fastest path to reliable baseload power, even as federal regulators signal tighter carbon standards ahead.
The choice of gas over renewables or battery storage deserves scrutiny. Combined-cycle plants are efficient relative to older gas turbines, but they lock in decades of fossil fuel dependence. If emerging federal carbon reduction mandates tighten by the end of this decade, Duke and its ratepayers could face costly retrofits or early retirements on a plant that has not yet broken ground. The IRP reserve margin rationale is real, but it sidesteps the question of whether a diversified mix of solar, storage, and demand response could close the same gap with less long-term risk. Intervenors in the docket have seized on that tension, arguing that Duke’s modeling underestimates the potential of distributed resources and overstates the reliability contribution of a single large gas facility.
Environmental Review and Site Selection
The application package includes a detailed environmental report prepared by Pike Engineering, LLC for Duke Energy Carolinas. Labeled Exhibit B and titled “Anderson County Energy Center,” the environmental assessment covers site selection criteria and scoring, noise modeling, visibility and viewshed analysis, cultural resources surveys, aquatic resources delineation, protected species screening, and a permitting matrix that maps out the federal, state, and local approvals still required.
Pike Engineering’s report presents the Anderson County site as the preferred location after a comparative scoring process that evaluated multiple potential locations on factors such as proximity to gas supply, access to transmission, and land use compatibility. The study emphasizes that the chosen site can accommodate the plant’s footprint and ancillary facilities while minimizing direct impacts on wetlands and identified cultural resources. Noise contour modeling suggests that sound levels at the nearest residences would remain within regulatory thresholds, and the viewshed analysis concludes that visual impacts will be partially screened by existing topography and vegetation.
Even so, the document is an applicant-commissioned study, not an independent regulatory audit. The permitting matrix itself signals that additional approvals from agencies outside the PSC, particularly around air quality and water discharge, remain outstanding. Those permits will determine whether the project’s environmental footprint matches the favorable picture drawn in the application. Opponents have pointed to this gap, contending that the commission should weigh the risk that future air permits could be denied or constrained, potentially stranding ratepayer-backed investment.
Opposition and Jurisdictional Disputes
The proceeding has not moved forward without friction. The joint applicants filed a motion to strike portions of intervenor testimony, arguing that certain challenges, particularly those related to air permitting, fall outside the PSC’s jurisdiction. The motion maps the boundaries of what the commission can and cannot decide, drawing a line between the certificate proceeding and the separate air quality permitting process handled by the Department of Environmental Services.
That jurisdictional argument matters for anyone concerned about the plant’s emissions profile. If the PSC accepts that air quality questions belong exclusively to DES, intervenors lose their most direct forum to challenge the project before construction begins. Instead, they would have to participate in technical air permit hearings, which often attract less public attention than high-profile certificate cases. The motion also references the position of the Office of Regulatory Staff, noting that ORS did not object to issuance of the certificate. ORS serves as the state’s independent advocate for utility customers, and its lack of opposition carries weight with commissioners even though it does not bind them.
Several environmental and consumer advocates have countered that the commission cannot fully assess “public convenience and necessity” without at least considering the likely emissions and climate implications of locking in long-lived gas infrastructure. They argue that deferring those questions entirely to DES fragments oversight and understates cumulative impacts. How the commission resolves this dispute will shape not only the Anderson County case but also future large-scale generation proposals.
Public Hearings and the Road Ahead
The Public Service Commission announced a customer public hearing for the docket earlier this year, giving ratepayers and community members a formal opportunity to speak directly to commissioners about the proposed plant. Such hearings, which are distinct from the expert witness sessions held in Columbia, allow residents near the site and customers across Duke’s territory to raise concerns about bill impacts, local air quality, construction traffic, and long-term reliance on fossil fuels.
Public comment will feed into a broader evidentiary record that includes pre-filed testimony, discovery responses, and cross-examination of witnesses. After the record closes, commissioners will deliberate and issue a written order either granting, denying, or conditioning the certificate. Any party aggrieved by that decision can seek reconsideration or appeal through the state courts, extending the timeline before a final outcome is settled.
The commission’s decision will also sit within a wider policy context. As described on the agency’s own regulatory overview, the PSC is charged with balancing reliable service and just and reasonable rates while considering environmental and public interest factors embedded in state law. In the Anderson County case, that balance comes down to whether the near-term reliability benefits and perceived cost advantages of a large gas plant outweigh the long-term risks of carbon regulation, fuel price volatility, and potential technological obsolescence.
Whatever the outcome, the Anderson County Energy Center docket is likely to serve as a bellwether for how South Carolina will navigate its next wave of power plant investments. A full approval could signal openness to additional gas projects as the default answer to load growth, while a denial or heavily conditioned certificate might push utilities to accelerate portfolios built around renewables, storage, and demand-side measures. For communities in and around Anderson County, the stakes are immediate; for the state’s energy future, the case marks a pivotal test of how regulators interpret “necessity” in an era of rapid change.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
