Download the 2019 – 2020 Scorecard

2019 – 2020 Legislative Scorecard Visit our interactive Scorecard at cvsc.org/scorecard Introduction Welcome to the 2019-2020 Conservation Scorecard, your window into the South Carolina State General Assembly and the actions taken – or not taken – to protect the South Carolina you love. We know that the State General Assembly can be complicated and confusing. That’s why we create this Scorecard – to show you who is working for or against the protection of our air, land, and water. In the Scorecard, CVSC identifies how House and Senate members voted on bills important to the conservation community. In most cases, there is broad consensus among the conservation community on priority legislation, which is clearly communicated to lawmakers. Therefore, if there is confusion about an issue or a lack of consensus from the conservation community, we do not include those votes in the scorecard. Statistical scores, however, are an incomplete report on the legislative record. Who sponsored the good and bad bills? Who fought in Committee? Who worked behind the scenes or spoke on the floor? To add some additional context, we are including a bump (plus or minus) for bill sponsorships. Not only does this show who doesn’t have your interests at heart, it highlights who is going the extra mile for conservation. The descriptions below describe the content of the bills, the process they went through, and the votes tallied in the following spreadsheets. Those votes are then averaged to produce the Legislator’s score. The Legislator's lifetime score is a comprehensive score that incorporates every vote that a legislator has taken on priority conservation legislation during the time that they have served in that chamber. 2019-2020 Highlights The 2019-2020 session was historic in many respects. In 2019, we passed landmark energy legislation with the unanimous passage of the Energy Freedom Act. We started out the 2020 legislative year excited about the breadth of pro-conservation, proactive legislation in both chambers filed by bipartisan champions like Senators Sheheen and Davis and Representatives Newton and Cogswell. Unfortunately, the 2020 legislative year was cut short because of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a fairly lean scorecard. However, we anticipate, and hope, much of the same pro-conservation legislation to be introduced again next legislative session. Despite having less progress on our legislation and fewer votes than we wanted in 2020, you can still see that we overwhelmingly have a bipartisan conservation majority in the House and Senate. Legislators care about our South Carolina’s natural resources, and they want to protect their constituents from pollution. Legislators want to stop offshore drilling. They want to protect land for future generations. They want to work with us to secure a clean energy future. Vote Descriptions Senate Votes H.4000 Amendment 29A – Stopping Offshore Drilling 4/17/19 Senate Vote: 40-4 Pro-conservation Amendment After offshore drilling bills stalled in 2019, Senator Campsen wanted to make sure we at least had a way to temporarily block offshore drilling from occurring off the SC coast. South Carolina Senators overwhelmingly approved (with a vote of 40-4) a budget amendment to the budget bill, H.4000, that would block the permitting of onshore infrastructure needed for offshore drilling and seismic testing to occur. The measure aimed to prohibit the industrialization of our coastline with onshore infrastructure needed to process, store, and transport oil pulled out of the ocean. We thank Senator Campsen for introducing the amendment with a long list of supporters - including Senators Bright Matthews, Malloy, Senn, Harpootlian, Setzler, and Davis, as well as Governor McMaster and Attorney General Wilson. H.4000 Tabling of Amendment 84 – Attempting to Ban Local Ordinances Controlling Consumer Goods 4/18/19 Senate Vote: 27-15 Anti-conservation Amendment During the Senate debate of the budget bill (H.4000) in 2019, Senator Massey proposed a budget amendment that would have prohibited local communities from adopting ordinances from banning consumer goods – including plastic bags. Senator Massey’s amendment was an attempt to circumvent the normal process for a bill to be approved by inserting it into the budget. Senator Massey had shepherded a bill (S.394) through committee that would have stripped communities of their ability to ban plastic bags, and he was frustrated that its passage was being stalled on the floor of the Senate. Thankfully, Senators recognized this attempt to circumvent the normal process and defeated the budget amendment. Passionate speeches and debate were waged by Senators Senn, Davis, Johnson, and Campsen. Ultimately, the amendment was stopped by a vote to “table” it, thus killing it 27-15. This vote serves as a useful indicator of which Senators support home rule and the right of communities to pass ordinances controlling plastic pollution. H.3659 South Carolina Energy Freedom Act (Third Reading) 5/8/19 Senate Vote: 46-0 Pro-conservation Bill Introduced by a bipartisan group of House members in 2019, led by Rep. Peter McCoy, the Energy Freedom Act (H.3659) lifted the cap on solar energy development in South Carolina and opened up the clean energy marketplace. The Act addressed large-scale, commercial, and residential solar and renewable energy needs, as well as consumer protections. It established a policy of the State of South Carolina to promote solar energy and to ensure solar is accessible to all - regardless of income and home ownership. In addition, the Act deferred a number of long-term solar policy issues to the Public Service Commission. With a lot of negotiating and time spent crafting the bill in the House Labor, Commerce, and Industry (LCI) Committee, the bill unanimously passed the House 110-0 and was sent to the Senate in early April of 2019 Senator Tom Davis had introduced the Senate companion bill (S.332) early in the 2019 session. Conversations surrounding S.332 had laid the foundation for quick consideration of the House version of the Energy Freedom Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After further negotiations and debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed H.3659 with a unanimous vote 46-0, and the House concurred with changes. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster in May of 2019. House Votes H.3659 South Carolina Energy Freedom Act (Second Reading) 2/21/19 House Vote: 110-0 Pro-conservation Bill Introduced by a bipartisan group of House members in 2019, led by Rep. Peter McCoy, the Energy Freedom Act (H.3659) lifted the cap on solar energy development in South Carolina and opened up the clean energy marketplace. The Act addressed large-scale, commercial, and residential solar and renewable energy needs, as well as consumer protections. It established a policy of the State of South Carolina to promote solar energy and to ensure solar is accessible to all - regardless of income and home ownership. In addition, the Act deferred a number of long-term solar policy issues to the Public Service Commission. With a lot of negotiating and time spent crafting the bill in the House Labor, Commerce, and Industry (LCI) Committee, the bill unanimously passed the House 110-0 and was sent to the Senate in early April of 2019 Senator Tom Davis had introduced the Senate companion bill (S.332) early in the 2019 session. Conversations surrounding S.332 had laid the foundation for quick consideration of the House version of the Energy Freedom Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After further negotiations and debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed H.3659 with a unanimous vote 46-0, and the House concurred with changes. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster in May of 2019. H.4152 Pyrolysis (Second Reading) 4/25/19 House Vote: 63-27 Anti-conservation Vote Introduced by Representatives Hixon and other members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee, this bill sought to exempt pyrolysis facilities from existing Solid Waste Management laws. Pyrolysis is the melting and gasification of plastics into other petroleum products, like jet fuel. While this process is already permitted in South Carolina under existing law, the bill sought to exempt these facilities from Solid Waste oversight. The conservation community opposed the bill because of the lack of appropriate oversight of an unproven process, the lack of financial assurances to protect taxpayers if a facility contaminated the state or went bankrupt, and the potential to increase the import of out of state waste to satisfy the processing needs of the facilities. This bill had potentially significant and far-reaching impacts, but was complicated by plastic industry talking points that claimed that the process was “environmentally friendly” because it would keep plastic out of landfills. This bill passed out of the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee in the House. There were significant concerns expressed on the House floor, with Representatives Will Wheeler and Mandy Powers Norrell leading efforts to amend and improve the bill. Despite their work, the bill passed out of the House 63-27. The bill was then sent to the Senate. The bill received a hearing in the Senate Medical Affairs Committee, but did not progress to the Senate floor because of Senators’ concerns over the premise of a blanket exemption H.3700 Seawalls (Sustaining of the Governor’s Veto) 5/20/19 House Vote: 43-60 Pro-conservation Vote Introduced by Representatives Bailey and Hewitt, H.3700 sought to allow the placement of wingwalls at the ends of existing erosion control structures, like seawalls. This bill was referred to the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee. The Conservation Community had no position on the bill as drafted because it did not allow for the construction of new seawalls or erosion control structures on our coast.

Load more