Could a water utility charge a monthly minimum fee for a fire sprinkler line?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a water company could charge a monthly minimum fee for a water line connected to a fire sprinkler system. The statute then covered tap fees, other fees, and recurring maintenance fees for the installation and maintenance of such systems. It limited any such fee to the actual costs associated with the water line to the system.

The AG pointed to the statute's separate description of which costs counted as actual costs. It also noted a provision about regulatory authority over publicly owned utilities. The opinion answered the fee question on the assumptions stated in the request and did not calculate a particular customer's actual costs.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Was a monthly minimum fee for a sprinkler line prohibited? A: No. The AG read the statute as permitting a monthly minimum fee associated with the line.

Could the utility set that fee higher than the line's actual costs? A: No. The opinion said the statutory ceiling was the actual costs associated with the water line to the system.

Did the AG determine the proper amount of any particular bill? A: No. It interpreted the statutory limit without calculating the actual costs for a specified utility or customer.

Background and statutory framework

A representative asked whether a water company could impose a monthly minimum fee for a fire sprinkler line and whether that fee could exceed its cost. The AG read S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-5-390 according to its plain text. The opinion referred to the statute's list of actual costs and its limitation on regulatory authority over certain publicly owned utilities.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-5-390 and cites Wortman v. Spartanburg for the ordinary-meaning approach to statutory text.

Official title

Regarding an interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 58-5-390. Specifically, asking (1) whether a water company may charge a monthly minimum fee for a water line associated with a fire sprinkler and (2) if so, whether the monthly minimum fee may exceed the actual costs associated with the water line to the system.

Requester

The Honorable Dennis Moss, SC House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-18-2011/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/moss-d-os-9240-5-18-11-water-company-fees.pdf

Original opinion text

ALANWD..SON
ATI'ORNEY G ENERAL

May 18, 2011

The Honorable Dennis Moss
South Carolina House of Representatives, District 29
418A Blatt Building
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Representative Moss:
We are in receipt of your letter requesting an opinion of this Office regarding an interpretation of S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-5-390. Specifically, you ask: (1) whether a water company may charge a monthly minimum fee for a water line associated with a fire sprinkler and (2) if so, whether the monthly minimum fee may exceed the actual costs associated with the water line to the system. This opinion addresses the relevant statutory law.

Law/Analysis
S.C. CODE ANN. §58-5-390(A) provides: "A publicly or privately owned utility may not impose a tap fee, other fee, or a recurring maintenance fee of any nature or however described for the installation and maintenance of a fire sprinkler system that exceeds the actual costs associated with the water line to the system." The words used in [a] statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation." Wortman v. Spartanburg, 310 S.C. 1, 3, 425 S.E.2d 18, 19 (1992). The plain language ofS.C. CODE ANN ..§58-5390(A) clearly contemplates fees associated with the installation and maintenance of fire sprinkler systems and specifically references "tap fee [s]," "other fee[ s]," and "recurring maintenance fee[s] of any nature or however described." Accordingly, based on the language ofthe statute, it appears that a water company may charge a monthly minimum fee for a water line associated with a fire sprinkler. Moreover, the statute clearly states that such a fee may not exceed the actual costs associated with the water line to the system. Further, section B of S.C. CODE ANN. §58-5-390 describes specifically which costs may be included in the "actual costs" associated with the water line to the fire sprinkler system and section C of the statute provides the caveat that "[n]othing in this section shall give the commission or the regulatory staffany power to regulate or interfere with public utilities owned or operated by or on behalf of any municipality, county, or regional transportation authority as defined in Chapter 25 of this title
[Regional Transportation Authorities) or their agencies."

REMBEKr c. Dmoos BUII.DING • Posr 0 Pf1CE Box 11549 • COLUMBLA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Dennis Moss
Page2
May 18, 2011

Conclusion
Based on the language of the statute, and assuming your constituent is not inquiring as to a public utility governed by Chapter 25 of Title 58 [Regional Transportation Authorities] or their agencies, it is the opinion of this Office that a water company may charge a monthly minimum fee for a water line associated with a fire sprinkler; however, that fee may not exceed the actual costs, as defined by S.C. CODE ANN. § 58-5-390(8), associated with the water line to the system. Sincerely,

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~z/;), q4_

Rooert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General