Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County:
When Admiral David Farragut shouted, “Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead!” at the Battle of Mobile Bay in August 1864, it was viewed as a bold, reckless statement in the face of overwhelming odds. Fast forward to today, and with slight editing, the statement very much applies to the Silfab Solar production facility in Fort Mill, SC, specifically the reckless part. Silfab Solar plans to manufacture solar cells and solar modules, which involve the use of extremely hazardous chemicals.
It started out as “bold”. The Biden administration introduced the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did nothing of the sort. What it did was earmark billions of dollars in incentives and tax credits to boost solar production within the US. It’s been referred to as reshoring solar production because 50 years ago, the US was the leading solar energy producer in the world. Not so today.
It was “overwhelming odds” because we’ve been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Solar energy could not compete in the marketplace then. It still cannot compete today without massive subsidies and grants, and that’s where the “reckless” part comes into the story.
Prior to the IRA being introduced, Governor Henry McMaster had decreed that SC will be a business-friendly environment to attract as much investment and profit as possible for our State. Sounds like a good idea, and it could be when and if done properly (1). To help create this environment, the Governor oversees the disbanding of the SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) (2). It is then reformed into two separate agencies: the Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Dept. of Environmental Services (DES) under the leadership of Director Myra Reese. The DES then abolishes the Citizen Review Board that existed under DHEC, thereby removing any citizen overview and clearing the path for a business-friendly environment (3). Damn the Citizens!
US Representative for SC Ralph Norman (Fort Mill is part of his district) also sees an opportunity to direct business to his area, and as co-chair of the Congressional Solar Caucus helps direct Silfab Solar to Fort Mill. Unfortunately, Mr. Norman is apparently familiar with the concept of Solar Energy but not the dirty and dangerous details of how solar cells are made. As this seedy side of solar production becomes increasingly apparent, it becomes obvious that this business has no business in the Light Industrial zoned area Silfab has chosen as the facility to convert for their use. As the citizens attempt to “Move Silfab” to a more appropriate Heavy Industrial site, Mr. Norman chooses to ignore the facts regarding the dangers of solar production and attempts to convince his constituents that it is safe and approved by the SCDES described in the previous paragraph. In August 2024, Mr. Norman hosts a “Congressional Informational Forum” at Catawba Ridge High School to address questions and concerns regarding the Silfab development. This Forum very much boils down to two hours of Mr. Norman telling his constituents to direct specific questions to the appropriate agency, and if they don’t respond, let him know. Two very interesting things also occurred during this session: (1) During his introduction at the opening of this meeting, Mr. Norman says, “I had nothing to do with Silfab being recruited here…” (4a). As you continue reading, you will find that the previous statement directly conflicts with a statement referenced in paragraph 7 and attributed to York County Councilperson Watts Huckabee; and (2) Mr. Norman responds to a constituent saying “Be specific, tell me what chemical, tell me what condition. That’s what I need you to do” (4b). Subsequently, Mr. Norman was sent a copy of a Health Risk Assessment performed by The University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health (4c). The report was commissioned by the Citizens’ Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI). This report clearly defines the chemicals analyzed, which were: Silane, Anhydrous Ammonia, Hydrofluoric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, and the risks associated with each. To date, there has been no acknowledgement or response received from Mr. Norman or his office. Damn the Citizens!
So, the plot continues. As Silfab searches for a location, they provide three considerations that must be met: (1) speed to market; (2) a low regulatory environment; and (3) additional local financial/tax incentives (over and above those provided by the Federal government). Other jurisdictions, such as Gastonia, NC, turn them down but the York County, SC government welcomes them with open arms, and Fee In Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) negotiations are underway. Silfab decides to lease a building originally built as a Warehouse for distribution located in a Light Industrial zone in Fort Mill, SC. Note that this building was purchased by the Rockefeller Group for $9,000,000, unoccupied at the time of purchase. Silfab signs a lease, and the building is subsequently sold to Exeter, Inc. for $106,000,000, a profit of $97,000,000 or over 10 times the purchase price. Now we’re talking some serious money.
The FILOT negotiations proceed to the York County Council for presentation and approval. The specific location in a Light Industrial zoned area built and designated for Warehouse/Distribution is discussed. York County Council Chairwoman Christi Cox is on record as touting that the Council should support this location for Manufacturing because, as a Manufacturing facility, the site would provide 5.5 times the tax revenue versus its original planned use as Warehouse/Distribution (5). During the same FILOT discussions, when challenged about safety concerns by Councilperson Tom Audette, York County Councilperson William “Bump” Roddey responded, “It’s not the Council’s job…we can only consider what’s in the investment, the jobs, the money…” (6). Also, during the FILOT discussions, Councilperson Watts Huckabee states the following: “Our job is to vote to approve a FILOT…we didn’t get into anything about the company, the background of the company, the integrity of the company…this is a recommendation from the Economic Development Committee and from Economic Development of York County. It does come with a 4% reduction in tax. Additionally, this project is supported by Congressman Ralph Norman, members of the local delegation of the SC Dept. of Commerce, York County Economic Development, County Mgmt. and the York County Regional Chamber of Commerce…” (7). Prior to and during the FILOT discussions, York County Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Buono continues in his support that the proposed use, Solar Cell Manufacturing, fits in Light Industrial. Mr. Buono assures Councilperson Debi Cloninger via email that this is the case when, in fact, it is not (8). The FILOT is approved by a narrow 4 – 3 vote (Cox, Adkins, Huckabee, Roddey voting Yes; Cloninger, Audette, Love voting No), showing just how contentious this issue is with the public. Damn the Citizens!
The citizens are learning more and more about the proposed use and the dangers associated with it, and begin to ask more questions given that the location is within 1,300 feet of two schools. An adjacent property owner requests a review by Planning staff, and staff provides an opinion that Solar Cell manufacture is allowed in Light Industrial because it fits the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as computer/electronics parts. The property owner then files an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals to challenge that interpretation. In May 2024, the BZA rules unanimously that Solar Cell manufacture is prohibited in Light Industrial and provides a written ruling that states they are overturning staff’s recommendation because staff failed to provide any justification at all beyond a NCAIS code assignment. Since zoning laws exist to protect the public from errant and incompatible development, there are other significant considerations beyond assigning a NCAIS code. The BZA recognized this fact in their ruling. Yeah BZA! Yeah Citizens! But wait…
In June 2024, an unsigned Statement on Silfab Solar is issued to the public by York County Management. In this document, York County says that the BZA ruling does not apply to Silfab and provides some spurious reasons. Given that this letter is unsigned, it can only be attributed to York County Manager Josh Edwards since it was released during his tenure as County Manager (9). Damn the Citizens!
At the same time, York County begins issuing permits allowing Silfab to begin construction. Apparently, to avoid the messy appearance that permits were issued following, and despite, the lawful BZA ruling, York County Development Services Manager, Josh Reinhardt, instructs a subordinate via email to backdate Silfab plan approval to April 2024, to provide the appearance that the approval occurred prior to the BZA ruling (10). Damn the Citizens!
During this time, SC State Senator Michael Johnson states his position on Silfab Solar as being that he does not believe the scope of work meets Light Industrial zoning requirements, but he also believes that Silfab may have a vested right (11). How is it possible that a vested right can be granted for an unlawful use? You guessed it…Damn the Citizens!
Having exhausted any appeal opportunities to the Executive and Legislative branches, the citizens are forced to pursue a legal remedy. On behalf of the citizens, CAGI files a lawsuit against York County, Silfab, and Exeter (the owner of the property) in September 2024. At about the same time, Silfab files an appeal of the BZA ruling. That’s right, the same BZA ruling that the County said doesn’t apply to them. An interesting development given that Silfab has not been aggrieved by the BZA ruling because they are actively under construction with the permits issued by York County. CAGI and the adjacent property owner learn of Silfab’s appeal and apply to the Court for Intervenor status as an interested party. The Court grants Intervenor status to CAGI. Given that both the lawsuit and the appeal were filed at about the same time and within the same 16th Circuit Court, the Court decides to hear both together and assigns a Dec. 2024 hearing date. Judge Martha Rivers presides at this hearing. In Feb 2025, Judge Rivers releases her rulings: (1) The Silfab appeal will be heard through Mediation; and (2) the CAGI lawsuit is Stayed until the Silfab appeal is resolved. Judge Rivers provides a rationale that the resolution of Silfab’s appeal will provide the answer to the CAGI lawsuit (12). CAGI submits a motion to reconsider the Stay of the lawsuit, which is denied by Judge Rivers (13).
Mediation occurs in April 2025 and is declared an Impasse. CAGI submits a Motion to Dismiss Silfab’s appeal because 12 months have gone by and Silfab has still not articulated a reason stating how they were aggrieved by the BZA ruling. A hearing is scheduled for August 2025 with Judge Keith Kelly. After 58 days of deliberation, Judge Kelly denies the motion to dismiss and announces that the Silfab appeal will be heard (14). It’s difficult to imagine that this will be scheduled before year’s end, so effectively, the Judicial system has now provided Silfab with an unobstructed additional 10 months of construction (since Dec. 2024) and an undetermined additional time of several months before the case will be heard. Given the above, CAGI’s attorney files a motion to reconsider and lift the Stay of the CAGI lawsuit, which included an Injunction of construction permits. The motion was immediately denied by Judge Rivers (15). Damn the Citizens!
The strategy is clear at this time…delay the legal proceedings to allow Silfab to open for business before the case can be settled in court. Is that even possible? Even though this issue is under litigation, SC law allows Silfab to proceed with construction at their own risk, given that Silfab was issued permits by York County. Does that same law allow for Silfab to commence production while this case remains in litigation? The answer should be an emphatic NO because while construction may be at their own risk, production would be at the citizens’ risk given the Heavy Industrial and hazardous nature of the development. To date, Silfab has not been issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) from York County, which is required before they can occupy and operate the facility. The issuance of a CO will require York County staff to visit the facility and confirm that it is compatible with the zoning law, compatible with the surrounding uses, and meets the requirements of the issued permits. It would be the height of injustice to the citizens if this were to occur. While York County staff may have erred in their initial recommendation that this use met Light Industrial due to a lack of information at submittal, it would be complete negligence to certify that what has been built is anything other than a Heavy Industrial manufacturing facility. Are the Citizens doomed to be Damned in this way?
How can this happen in the United States of America that Citizens’ Rights be damned in the reckless pursuit of profit, whether it be individual profit, corporate profit, and/or tax revenue?
Respectfully,
Timothy J. Hegarty
Fort Mill, York County, SC resident
Proud American
SCPIF is not directly affiliated with the litigation of this issue
Footnotes:
- SC Exec Order 2017-09
- S. 399, Act 60, May 16, 2023
- Item 17, Page 12, Docket No. 24-RFR-51. Before the Board of Health and Environmental Control Staff Response to Request for Review.
- (a)YouTube video Ralph Norman Congressional Informational Forum beginning at approx. 6:10:00 mark; (b) same video beginning at approx. 1:21:24 mark; (c) via email to Mr. Norman’s work email address on 05/25/25 from Move Silfab supporter (prefers to remain anonymous), sent receipt provided.
- Sept. 18, 2023, York County Council meeting video beginning at approx. 2:26:12.
- August 21, 2023, York County Council meeting video beginning at approx. 2:48:25.
- Sept. 18, 2023, York County Council meeting video beginning at approx. 1:35:06
- Email dated August 28, 2023 from Jonathan Edwards to Debi Cloninger and David Hudspeth, obtained via FOIA.
- June 25, 2024, York County Management Statement on Silfab Solar
- Email dated July 16, 2024, from Josh Reinhardt to Jeff Kirchner, obtained via FOIA
- Email dated July 18, 2024, at 9:49 PM from Michael Johnson to Tim Hegarty. Mr. Johnson also made this statement to the public at numerous other times.
- Jan. 29, 2025, 3:52 PM – York – Common Pleas – Case #2024CP4603532, Form 4
- March 29, 2025, 3:43 PM – York – Common Pleas – Case 2024CP4603532, Form 4
- Email dated Oct. 1, 2025, 2:38 PM from Judge Kelly law clerk Anthony Sita re: Civil Action No.: 2024–CP–46-02641
- Sept. 30, 2025, 1:30 PM – York – Common Pleas – Case #2024CP4603532, Form 4