Could a South Carolina water utility charge extra for a shared fire-sprinkler tap?

Plain-English summary

In 2012, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that the statutory cap on fire-sprinkler water-line fees likely applied even when a tap supplied other water uses. The opinion read the statute as limiting utility charges for sprinkler installation and maintenance to actual associated costs, with documentation through an invoice or work order. It did not decide whether one business’s larger tap, installed for sprinkler capacity, justified a particular fee. That question depended on the actual line and utility costs, which the office could not find as facts. The opinion said the constituent could address the issue with the utility company and, if unresolved, a court; it mentioned the Public Service Commission for a qualifying public utility.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. 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

Q: Did the sprinkler line need its own dedicated tap to qualify for the fee limit? A: The AG said the law likely applied to any fire-sprinkler system, including a tap shared with other water uses.

Q: Could a utility charge more than actual sprinkler-line costs? A: The opinion read the statute as barring installation and maintenance fees above the actual costs associated with the water line.

Q: Did the AG decide the fee for a larger tap used by one business? A: No. It said the proper charge for that tap was a factual question for the utility or a court.

Q: What proof of costs did the 2012 law require?
A: The opinion said direct costs had to be documented by an invoice or work order assigning them to the separate sprinkler line.

Background and statutory framework

A legislator asked about shared taps and a larger tap installed for sprinkler service. The AG read the fee statute broadly for the first question and declined the second because it required facts about the particular installation and charge.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes South Carolina Code § 58-5-390 and discusses actual cost documentation.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-20-2012/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/moss-d-c-os-9506-11-20-12-water-company-fee-fire-sprinkler-system.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

November 20, 201 2

The Honorable Dennis C. Moss
Member, House of Representatives
306 Silver Circle
Gaffney, South Carolina 29340
Dear Representative Moss:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letters of October 19, 2012 & November 9, 2012 to the Opinions section for a response. The following is this Office' s understanding of your questions presented and the opinion of this Office concerning the issues based on that understanding.

Issue:
1) In order for South Carolina Code § 58-5-390 to apply, does a tap have to be dedicated solely to a fire sprinkler or may the tap also supply other water uses and have separate meters? 2) If a business has a larger tap only for the purpose of the fire sprinkler system, would the business be required to pay a fee based on the larger tap or for the size of tap that would be required for the normal day-to-day water use? Short Answer: 1) South Carolina Code § 58-5-390 would most likely apply to any fire sprinkler system, regardless of whether the tap supplies only the fire sprinkler or not. 2) This office does not answer factual questions, but if your constituent is not able to resolve these issues with the utility company, the other possible venue would be for a court to answer these factual questions. LawI Analysis: 1) This Office previously addressed a similar question for you in 2011 concerning fire sprinklers. In that opinion, this Office reiterated the law in stating that a minimum monthly fee for a fire sprinkler may not exceed the actual costs of the water line. Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., 2011 WL 2214071 (May 18, 2011). As a background on statutory interpretation, the cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and to accomplish that intent. Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31, 39, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003). The true aim and intention of the legislature controls the literal meaning of a statute. The historical background and circumstances at the time a statute was passed can be used to assist in interpreting a statute. An entire statute's interpretation must be "practical, reasonable, and fair" and consistent with the purpose, plan and reasoning behind its making. Greenville Baseball v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813, 816 ( 1942). Statutes are to be interpreted with a "sensible construction," and a " literal application of language which leads to absurd consequences should be avoided whenever a reasonable application can be given consistent with the legislative purpose." U.S. v. Rippetoe, 178 F.2d 735, 737 (4th Cir. 1950). This Office looks at the plain meaning of the words, rather than analyzing

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING • POST 0FACE Box ll549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Dennis C. Moss
Page2
November 20, 2012

statutes within the same subject matter when the meaning of the statute appears to be clear and unambiguous. Sloan v. SC Board of Physical Therapy Exam., 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (2006). South Carolina Code § 58-5-390 says: (A) 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. In analyzing the statute, the plain meaning of the words is clear. There is no ambiguity as to what utilities may charge fees for fire sprinkler systems because it applies to all utility companies. There are no exceptions for charging more than the installation and maintenance charges. The next place to look is at the legislative intent. The legislative intent is unambiguous. It reads " ... it is the purpose of this act to create meaningful incentives for the installation of fire sprinkler systems." 2008 South Carolina Laws Act 357 (H.B. No. 4470). The legislative intent would support a finding that the statute applies to all fire sprinkler systems without exception, even if the tap supplies other water uses. South Carolina Code § 58-5-390(A) provides that fees for the installation and maintenance of a fire sprinkler system may not exceed the "actual costs associated with the water line to the system." The "actual costs" include the following: 1) 2) 3) 4)

direct labor;
direct material;
the necessity of increased capacity; and
other direct charges associated with the separate fire sprinkler line.

The statute also requires the direct costs to be "documented by either an invoice or work order that specifically assigns the costs to the separate fire sprinkler line." S.C. Code § 58-5-390(8). The language in this part of the statute is also clear and would imply the burden of showing the cost of the installation and maintenance of the sprinkler line would be with the utility company to provide the documentation supporting the charges. 2) The size of a tap needed and whether or not an individual would be required to pay a larger fee based on a larger tap needed for a sprinkler system is a factual question. The issue would need to be resolved with the utility company. If your constituent is not satisfied with the answer from the utility company, a court may be able to resolve these factual issues and answer the underlying questions. As you may well be aware, this Office does not issue factual opinions. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1996 WL 599391 (September 6, 1996) (citing Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1983 WL 182076 (December 12, 1983)). Please note if the water company is a public utility, as defined in South Carolina Code§ 58-5-10(4), then then any issues should be addressed with the public service commission. Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1978 WL 34948 (June 19, 1978).

The Honorable Dennis C. Moss
Page 3
November 20, 2012

Conclusion:
Based on the conclusion that South Carolina Code § 58-5-390 applies to any fire sprinkler taps, a utility company may not charge more than the actual costs of the installation and maintenance of the fire sprinkler system. The other factual issues should be addressed with the utility company or by a court. However, this office is only issuing a legal opinion. Until a court or the legislature specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter. If it is later determined otherwise or if you have any additional questions or issues, please let me know. Sincerely,

Anita Smith Fair
Assistant Attorney General

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General