More SC homeowners can get state aid to protect roofs from hurricane damage
Aerial view in worker hands installing bitumen roof shingles with air hammer and nail. (File photo by Getty Images)
COLUMBIA — The state is pumping millions into a program that allows coastal South Carolinians to strengthen their roofs against hurricanes and other high wind events.
The SC Safe Home grant program aims to protect homes against natural disasters, in turn lowering their insurance costs. The state Department of Insurance normally awards about $3.5 million annually to homeowners, spokesperson Diane Cooper told the SC Daily Gazette.
But the Legislature provided a big boost in the budget that takes effect July 1: An additional $5.5 million will more than double the grants to $8.9 million in the upcoming fiscal year.
The boost comes as federal forecasters predict above-normal activity this hurricane season, which started June 1 and extends through Nov. 30.
'One of the major complaints I hear from my constituents is the rise in insurance premiums for wind and hail, or hurricane floods,' Sen. Tom Davis told the Gazette. 'I'm always looking for ways that we can try to control the site and insurance premiums.'
The Beaufort Republican is one of the program's original backers, pushing for its creation during his tenure as Gov. Mark Sanford's chief of staff. Since its 2007 inception, the Safe Homes program has doled out more than 8,000 state-funded grants worth a total of $40.7 million to homeowners looking to reinforce their homes.
Homeowners can get SC grants to strengthen roofs, windows against hurricane damage
This fiscal year, 598 grants worth up to $7,500 were awarded.
The vast majority of homeowners use the money to retrofit their roof. Homeowners can also get up to $3,000 to install hurricane shutters. In all, they report saving 24% on their insurance premiums, according to the state Department of Insurance's 2024 annual report.
With the Legislature providing more money for the program, more houses can be retrofitted.
Of the additional $5.5 million, only $2.5 million is recurring, meaning it will continue in future budgets indefinitely. That's enough for roughly 250 grants annually.
The $3 million in one-time aid will boost the total additional grants to an estimated 650 in 2025-26, Cooper said.
The actual number of grants may be higher, depending on whether the agency needs to hire people — and if so, how many — to handle the additional workload, she said.
Regardless of the exact number of grants, it should be enough to prove the program lowers costs, Davis said.
He hopes legislators then turn the full $5.5 million into a recurring item in the budget.
'If our assumptions are correct and that retrofitting leads to a decrease in people's premiums, that one-time money could be made recurring,' said Davis, chairman of the Senate Finance subcommittee for natural resources and economic development.
According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, the nation saves $6 in future 'disaster costs' for every $1 spent on mitigation.
The program, started in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, awards grants based on the homeowner's income.
Following Katrina and other hurricanes that hit the Gulf in Texas, insurers started refusing to cover hurricane-related wind and hail damage along the coast.
The 2007 Coastal Property Insurance Reform Act was legislators' response.
Since 2012, the number of companies writing property insurance policies has increased by more than 100, according to the Department of Insurance's annual report.
In addition to the roof retrofits, the state also provides income tax credits to homeowners who fortify their property, worth a combined $2,500.
Since the grants don't cover the entire retrofitting costs, the tax credits further help make the projects affordable, Davis said.
The head of the insurance agency credits Davis for the budget boost.
He's 'been a tireless advocate for strengthening coastal resilience and protecting South Carolina families,' Michael Wise, the agency's director, said in a news release. 'His leadership was critical in making this additional funding a reality, and we are grateful for his commitment to mitigation and public safety.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
42 minutes ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
2 hours ago
As Musk's 'robotaxi' rollout approaches, Democratic lawmakers in Texas try to throw up a roadblock
NEW YORK -- A group of Democratic lawmakers in Texas is asking Elon Musk to delay the planned rollout of driverless 'robotaxis' in the state this weekend to assure that the vehicles are safe. In a letter, seven state legislators asked Tesla to wait until September when a new law takes effect that will require several checks before autonomous vehicles can be deployed without a human in the driver's seat. Tesla is slated to begin testing a dozen of what it calls robotaxis for paying customers on Sunday in a limited area of Austin, Texas. 'We are formally requesting that Tesla delay autonomous robotaxi operations until the new law takes effect on September 1, 2025,' the letter from Wednesday, June 18, reads. 'We believe this is in the best interest of both public safety and building public trust in Tesla's operations.' It's not clear if the letter will have much impact. Republicans have been a dominant majority in the Texas Legislature for more than 20 years. State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott have generally embraced Musk and the jobs and investment he has brought to Texas, from his SpaceX rocket program on the coast, to his Tesla factory in Austin. The company, which is headquartered in Austin, did not responded immediately to a request for comment from The Associated Press. The law will require companies to secure approval from the state motor vehicles department to operate autonomous cars with passengers. That approval, in turn, would depend on sufficient proof that the cars won't pose a high risk to others if the self-driving system breaks down, among other reassurances. Companies would also have to file detailed plans for how first responders should handle the cars if there is a problem, such as an accident. The letter asked Tesla to assure the legislators it has met all the requirements of the law even if it decides to go ahead with the test run this weekend. The letter was earlier reported by Reuters. Musk has made the robotaxi program a priority at Tesla and a failure would likely be highly damaging to the company's stock, which has already tumbled 20% this year. Musk's political views and his affiliation with the Trump administration have drastically reduced sales of Tesla, particularly in Europe, where Musk's endorsement of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany party in February's election drew broad condemnation. Tesla shares bottomed out in March and have rebounded somewhat in recent months. Much of the rise reflects optimism that robotaxis will not only be deployed without a hitch, but that the service will quickly expand to other cities and eventually dominate the self-driving cab business. Rival Waymo is already picking up passengers in Austin and several other cities, and recently boasted of surpassing 10 million paid rides. In afternoon trading Friday, Tesla shares were largely unchanged at $320.
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
