South Carolina
Grade distribution
Overview
South Carolina has 46 counties tracked in the SitePath solar permitting index. 5 (11%) are graded A or B, meaning they present low to moderate permitting risk for utility-scale solar projects. 23 counties sit in the C range — moderate risk with meaningful process uncertainty. 18 counties are rated D or F (39%) — high to very high risk, often due to active moratoria, restrictive setback ordinances, or strong local opposition.
The most favorable jurisdictions in South Carolina include Kershaw County (grade B), Georgetown County (grade B), Union County (grade B). The most challenging include Richland County (grade D), Beaufort County (grade F), Lexington County (grade F).
The state's policy environment — No binding RPS — presents headwinds for renewable development, making county-level permitting conditions especially important to evaluate project by project. No South Carolina counties currently have an active utility-scale solar moratorium.
All counties — sorted by risk score (best first)
| County | Grade | Score | Trajectory | Moratorium |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kershaw County | B | 39 | ↑ | |
| Georgetown County | B | 39 | — | |
| Union County | B | 39 | — | |
| Williamsburg County | B | 40 | ↓ | |
| Marlboro County | B | 41 | ↓ | |
| Bamberg County | C | 42 | ↓ | |
| Allendale County | C | 43 | — | |
| Chesterfield County | C | 43 | ↓ | |
| Marion County | C | 43 | ↓ | |
| Abbeville County | C | 43 | ↓ | |
| Dillon County | C | 45 | ↓ | |
| Berkeley County | C | 45 | ↓ | |
| Laurens County | C | 45 | — | |
| Darlington County | C | 45 | ↓ | |
| Saluda County | C | 46 | ↓ | |
| Lee County | C | 46 | ↓ | |
| McCormick County | C | 46 | ↓ | |
| Aiken County | C | 46 | ↓ | |
| Chester County | C | 47 | — | |
| Fairfield County | C | 47 | — | |
| Cherokee County | C | 47 | ↓ | |
| Newberry County | C | 47 | ↓ | |
| Edgefield County | C | 47 | ↓ | |
| Sumter County | C | 48 | ↓ | |
| Barnwell County | C | 49 | ↓ | |
| Oconee County | C | 51 | ↑ | |
| Colleton County | C | 51 | ↓ | |
| Jasper County | C | 51 | ↓ | |
| Greenwood County | D | 52 | ↓ | |
| Hampton County | D | 52 | ↓ | |
| Anderson County | D | 53 | ↓ | |
| Florence County | D | 53 | ↓ | |
| Calhoun County | D | 54 | ↓ | |
| Orangeburg County | D | 55 | ↓ | |
| Clarendon County | D | 55 | ↓ | |
| Dorchester County | D | 58 | ↓ | |
| Charleston County | D | 58 | — | |
| Lancaster County | D | 58 | — | |
| Spartanburg County | D | 59 | ↓ | |
| Pickens County | D | 59 | ↓ | |
| Greenville County | D | 60 | — | |
| Horry County | D | 61 | — | |
| York County | D | 61 | ↓ | |
| Richland County | D | 61 | — | |
| Beaufort County | F | 67 | ↓ | |
| Lexington County | F | 69 | ↓ |
See the full interactive map
County grades, scores, and ordinance data are also available on the interactive county map with filtering by grade, state, and risk factor.
Open the county map →About SitePath scoring
Every U.S. county is scored 0–100 on solar permitting risk (lower is friendlier to development). The grade is a weighted composite of compliance stringency, market saturation, regulatory trajectory, and data uncertainty. Every figure traces back to a primary government document. Read the full methodology →
SitePath Intelligence is a research platform. Data verified as of 2026-05-02. Scores update on a quarterly review cycle.