|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two weeks ago, Palmetto State Watch published a report by Saluda County resident Regina Sanders, raising the alarm about Ordinance 15-25, a proposed 30-year Fee In Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreement with Orion US Land Holding Co LLC, publicly known as Project Octans. The piece exposed a deal that would slash the county’s solar tax revenue by as much as 85-90%, lock Saluda into reduced income for three decades, and deliver just three full-time jobs in return.
Even more troubling, the ordinance itself appeared to be copy and paste boilerplate document from a Fairfield County template, contained conflicting information about who actually owns the land, and at one point even identified the U.S. Department of Energy as the lessor despite county records listing a private landowner. Citizens were urged to make their voices heard at the March 9th public hearing.
This is a followup article to what happened at that meeting and how the council ignored the outcry of Saluda citizens. Now, with upcoming elections on the horizon, some council members may be finding their seats a lot less comfortable than they once seemed.
Related Post: Concern in Saluda County–Ordinance 15-25 and the Truth Behind Project Octans
The Public Showed Up. The Council Showed Their Hand.
On March 9th, 2026, Saluda County citizens filled the council chambers for the public hearing and third reading of Ordinance 1525 — the ordinance authorizing the Fee In Lieu of Tax (FILOT) agreement, Special Source Revenue Credits (SSRCs), MCIP expansion, and development agreement for Project Octans.
Residents arrived with documentation, research, and clear questions.
The council arrived with a vote that appeared already decided.
What Citizens Raised — On the Record
Transparency Failures
Citizens pointed out that Project Octans had been negotiated for nearly a year with no public briefing, no project overview, and no explanation of the April 2025 inducement resolution. The identity of the developer, Orion US Land Holding Co LLC, was never proactively disclosed.
Environmental & Infrastructure Risks
Speakers raised concerns about largescale land conversion, water impacts, wildlife disruption, and longterm infrastructure costs that would fall on taxpayers. No environmental summary was provided.
Financial Structure
Residents questioned why a lowjobcreation project was receiving deep tax incentives, including SSRCs and a FILOT, without any clear public benefit.
Procedural Irregularities
The public hearing and third reading were scheduled backtoback.
The ordinance summary read as if approval was expected.
The developer spoke as if the project was already secured.
And then came the most revealing moment of the night.
The Orion Statement That Changed Everything
During the meeting, the Orion representative stated the project would be “selling energy to Santee Cooper.”
This immediately raised red flags:
- Santee Cooper does not serve Saluda County.
- Santee Cooper has no infrastructure in Saluda County.
- Santee Cooper has no jurisdiction in Saluda County.
Even more concerning, Orion admitted they are waiting on Santee Cooper to agree to this arrangement.
Meaning:
- The county approved incentives for a project whose primary buyer has not committed.
- The project’s viability depends on a utility that has no presence here.
- The public was never told this before the vote.
This was not disclosed in the ordinance. It was not disclosed in prior meetings. It surfaced only because citizens pressed for clarity.
How the Council Responded
They didn’t.
After citizens raised concerns, including the Santee Cooper issue, the council:
- Asked no followup questions
- Requested no clarification
- Held no discussion
- Acknowledged none of the inconsistencies
- Ignored the fact that the project’s buyer does not serve the county
Instead, they moved directly to a vote.
The sequence was unmistakable: the public hearing was treated as a formality, not a safeguard. The vote appeared predetermined.
Ethical Concerns That Cannot Be Ignored
A council does not need to break the law to break trust.
Ethical concerns arise when:
- A vote is cast without deliberation
- A public hearing is symbolic rather than substantive
- Material facts are ignored
- A project is approved despite unresolved foundational issues
- A developer reveals critical information that the council does not question
On March 9th, every one of these conditions was present.
The public did its job.
The council did not.
What Comes Next
1. The Santee Cooper Factor
Because Orion stated the project depends on Santee Cooper, citizens now have a direct point of influence.
Residents may choose to contact Santee Cooper and urge them not to enter into an agreement with Orion, citing:
- Environmental concerns
- Landuse concerns
- Lack of local benefit
- Lack of transparency
- The absence of public need
Santee Cooper is a public utility.
They are accountable to the public, especially when their decisions affect other counties.
2. Monitoring the Development Agreement
Citizens can track:
- Environmental filings
- Infrastructure commitments
- Landuse decisions
- Amendments or extensions
- Additional incentives brought forward later
3. Elections Are Approaching
The March 9th vote provides a clear record of:
- How the council handled a major project
- How they responded to public concerns
- Whether they demonstrated transparency and stewardship
Saluda County residents have the perfect opportunity this year to replace elected officials who are working against the will of their constituents.
4. The Community Is Awake Now
The council may have expected a quiet meeting.
Instead, they awakened a county.
Residents are now:
- Reading ordinances
- Researching utilities
- Asking questions
- Watching votes
- Organizing
This is the real outcome of March 9th.
The Bottom Line
Citizens fulfilled their responsibility.
They showed up.
They spoke clearly.
They brought evidence.
They asked reasonable questions, including Santee Cooper.
The council chose not to engage. That choice—not the project itself—now defines Project Octans. This is why Saluda County must stay informed, stay organized, and stay involved in every step that follows.
The next step is clear: replace the council members who turned their backs on the people they were elected to serve. That opportunity is coming this year. According to the official Saluda County filing notice, the seats on the ballot are County Council Chairman at-large, District 1, and District 3. If you are not already familiar with the District 3 seat, we strongly encourage you to read this eye-opening piece from Palmetto State Watch Foundation which documents how the District 3 councilman has been largely inaccessible to constituents, failed to respond to repeated outreach from the author, and logged fewer than 15 hours per year in recent council sessions. That is the record of the man asking for your vote again.
South Carolina’s primary is June 9, 2026, with a runoff on June 23rd if needed, and the general election on November 3, 2026. Check your voter registration at scvotes.gov and research the candidates before that day comes. Support those who actually represent the will of the people and if you cannot find one who does, consider running yourself (filing deadline ends March 30th.) Saluda County does not need politicians who treat public hearings as a formality. It needs leaders who show up, listen, and answer to the citizens who put them in office. The council showed their hand on March 9th. Now it is your turn.
Amendment / Author’s Note
After the publication of this article, I obtained additional information regarding the source of wholesale power for Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative (MCEC). To ensure accuracy and maintain the integrity of this reporting, I am providing the following clarification.
MCEC does not generate its own electricity. Instead, like all electric cooperatives in South Carolina, MCEC purchases its wholesale power through Central Electric Power Cooperative (Central), the statewide generation and transmission cooperative. Central, in turn, secures electricity from two primary suppliers: Santee Cooper, the state-owned public utility, and Duke Energy, which provides additional generation under long-term contracts.
The power supply chain is as follows:
Santee Cooper + Duke Energy → Central Electric Power Cooperative → MCEC → Consumers
This amendment corrects my earlier statement, which was based on incomplete information available at the time of publication. I am committed to providing clear, factual, and fully verified reporting, and I appreciate the opportunity to update this article with the most accurate information.
— Regina Sanders
Regina Sanders – Sunday School Teacher, Concerned Saluda Citizen, Advocate