NEWS RELEASE CONCERNING SILFAB SOLAR
May 27, 2025
York County, SC: York County would like to address recent communications related to Silfab Solar’s plans in York County. Historically, the County has not commented upon matters in litigation. However, ongoing communications urging Council to issue a “cease-and-desist order” to stop the company from becoming operational have necessitated this statement, which is authorized and being issued by the County and Council.
- In 2022, Silfab Solar was issued a zoning verification letter by county staff for their facility.
- In September 2023, Council adopted a Fee In Lieu of Tax Agreement Ordinance and entered an economic development incentive-based contract.
- In February 2024, a separate request for a zoning interpretation was made by a resident related to solar manufacturing facilities. This resident then appealed the staff decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the BZA issued a decision on that appeal in May 2024.
- Immediately thereafter in the summer of 2024, two lawsuits were filed related to Silfab and are still pending in the S.C. Circuit Court. One lawsuit involves an appeal of the May 2024 BZA decision which is statutorily required to be brought before the Circuit Court, not County Council. The other lawsuit, filed by a group of individuals opposed to Silfab (referred to as “CAGI”), names York County (and others) and seeks to certify a class action for monetary damages and asks the court for an order declaring that Silfab is improperly zoned and that all construction and permitting of the facility be ordered to cease.
On January 29, 2025, the S.C. Circuit Court issued an order refusing CAGI’s request to issue an injunction or a temporary restraining order prohibiting construction or halting permitting on the Silfab project. Individuals are now urging County Council to do what the Court refused. County Council does not have the power to issue a cease-and-desist order or to revoke the permits held by Silfab. This is made clear by state statute and county ordinance. Asking the Council to act where it lacks authority and where the Court has declined to act is not viable.
The Council has also been asked to review and act upon recent reports that were commissioned and paid for by CAGI describing health/safety concerns associated with potential emissions at the Silfab site. It is important to reiterate that the regulation of emissions/environmental permitting rests solely with the state SCDES and the EPA, not the county. The technical experts and industry professionals with SCDES and the EPA have determined that the activities conducted on site are safe to the surrounding community and in compliance with the law. The new reports presented to Council contain data previously considered by these agencies with the sole authority to act on these matters. Notably, these reports fail to include all mitigation/failsafe measures integral to a full and complete analysis.
The County and the Council take their responsibilities very seriously. County emergency departments continue to actively engage with and consult all appropriate agencies, stakeholders and industry experts to ensure all safety and emergency response protocols within the County’s jurisdiction and scope are met. The County is focusing its efforts on these direct responsibilities and will update this statement should any pertinent changes occur.
