A new solar cell manufacturing facility opened in South Carolina this year with no fuss and much fanfare.
That company is not Silfab Solar, the beleaguered Canadian manufacturer that’s fought opposition left and right as it prepares to open a Fort Mill plant.
Locals in Fort Mill staged protests. They inspired two bills at the Statehouse. They commissioned billboards lambasting the company.
They even took Silfab to court — a case that’s pending and could determine whether the company gets booted after sinking tens of millions of dollars into the property.
About two hours southwest lies a much different story.
When ES Foundry opened its solar cell manufacturing facility in unincorporated Greenwood County, situated roughly between Columbia and Greenville, residents flooded the company with interest and support. It’s already snagged a national award celebrating its positive impact.
Trentsie Williams, the CEO of the Greenwood Chamber of Commerce, said the area has been nothing but receptive. The company created hundreds of jobs and brought new life to a facility that’s been vacant for several years, she said.
“Usually when they’re creating jobs, unless there’s some huge environmental issue, most people are OK with new employers coming to town,” Williams said. “Typically you don’t get a lot of pushback from a large fraction of your community not welcoming a company.”
So, why have two South Carolina facilities in the same line of business received such different reactions?
History and demographics offer a partial explanation.
Both communities relied on manufacturing to prop up their local economies before diverging near the turn of the century.
An influx of transplants caused Fort Mill’s population to swell by more than 126 percentage points since 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Greenwood County’s population increased by less than one percentage point over the same time period.
Many Fort Mill residents today arrived long after its textile mills closed and the town transitioned to other sectors. But manufacturing is still the number one employment sector in Greenwood and accounts for one quarter of its labor force, according to James Bateman, the county’s economic development director.
“It’s a heavily industrialized community in some areas,” Bateman said. “There is a strong textile heritage in Greenwood. As the textile industry faded, modern technologies led to investments in advanced materials firms we have today.”
ES Foundry opened just as another long-time factory closed. Hundreds lost their jobs, Bateman said, including 200 direct employees and 100 contractors.
The companies worked together to facilitate new roles for displaced employees so they could walk straight into ES Foundry without ever missing a paycheck, Bateman said.
About 100 of their current employees came from the closed factory, ES Foundry CEO Alex Zhu said. The company will employ 500 people once fully staffed.
“Greenwood is not a big city,” Zhu said. “Every job in that location (is) important, and any of the factories (closing) will have significant impact on the local community … We helped to reduce the impact.”
Trade & Industry Development magazine honored ES Foundry with a Corporate Investment and Community Impact award in May. That same month, Fort Mill residents protested outside of a York County Council meeting to demand officials revoke Silfab’s permits.
Silfab will create an estimated 800 jobs.
Zhu traveled across the country to find the right location, he said. That included the Silfab site in Fort Mill, which was a vacant distribution warehouse at the time.
It wasn’t ideal.
The building was an empty shell that would take a full year to connect to utilities, he said. ES Foundry would have to work from scratch to upfit the facility to handle wastewater treatment, gas and chemicals.
By contrast, the Greenwood site had most infrastructure already in place because it housed a heavy industrial company for decades, Zhu said.
“A good site means less investments, more ready to go,” Zhu said.
Only eight months passed from the day ES Foundry signed a lease to the day it opened, Bateman said. ES Foundry did not receive any tax breaks or economic incentive deals from the county.
To date, Silfab has spent more than $100 million to upfit the facility, according to the company. Silfab is still working to open after more than a year of preparations.
County officials actively recruited Silfab to Fort Mill. York County Council approved a 30-year tax rate incentive at about half the typical manufacturing rate, and Silfab also received a $2 million state economic development grant.
Silfab leaders saw “strong potential” in the local workforce. And unlike ES Foundry, Silfab considered the emptiness of the site a plus.
“The size and layout of the facility were key factors—it offered the square footage needed for our planned production capacity, sufficient loading docks, and a clean shell that gave us flexibility during construction,” the company said in a statement.
The crux of the Silfab controversy is zoning.
Silfab sits near homes and restaurants and next door to two future schools, one of which will open this fall to more than 800 students. York County zoning staff determined in 2022 that solar cell manufacturing was allowed in light industrial areas such as the site of Silfab’s 7149 Logistics Lane facility. Silfab obtained permits and began construction with that understanding.
But in May 2024, the York County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously determined solar cell manufacturing was not allowed in light industrial areas. The county soon issued a statement saying that ruling only applied to future construction — not to Silfab. County planners don’t have to answer questions about why they approved Silfab for the area.
The company has sustained a community pressure campaign ever since trying to force it out of town.
“Silfab has worked closely with all local, regional and federal government agencies and authorities to ensure that the Fort Mill facility met or exceeded all requirements and provided a benefit to the community as well as economic prosperity and growth of the region,” Silfab said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that a small group initiated a deliberate misinformation campaign that has generated fear and misunderstanding among some members of the community trying to overshadow the significant benefits associated with this investment and endorsement in the region.”
Fort Mill residents organized into the “Move Silfab” movement and targeted several chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid and silane, they said were inappropriate to use so close to schools.
They consulted a group of pediatric environmental health specialists, who agreed the types and quantities of chemicals Silfab will use warrant a closer look, and commissioned the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health to study potential health risks.
Silfab maintains the building’s light industrial zoning aligns with its operational needs, and no schools were in the immediate area at the time the company was approved.
Zoning was never an issue for ES Foundry, Zhu said. His company operates in an area with a different zoning designation.
ES Foundry inherited a facility zoned for heavy industrial operations and surrounded by other factories. ES Foundry is miles away from the nearest school and sits in a relatively rural pocket of Greenwood County.
“It’s nothing new to have a factory there versus a newly proposed facility being constructed that is in a nonindustrial area, in a part of town where residents aren’t accustomed to it,” Bateman said.