Opinion ID: 1217164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Municipally-Franchised Supplier

Text: We reject Co-op's claim that, while a municipality may, itself , provide electric service within corporate limits, it may not designate a supplier through a franchise agreement. Our holdings in City of Abbeville v. Aiken Elec. Co-op., Inc. [5] and Blue Ridge Elec. Co-op v. Combined Utility System of City of Easley [6] are dispositive of this issue. In Abbeville , we rejected a municipality's claim that it had the right to oust an existing electric supplier upon annexation. We stated: [A] franchisee possessing a valid PSC territorial assignment to serve an area which is subsequently annexed: 1. Is permitted to continue service in that area to those premises being served at the time of annexation; 2. Is prohibited , without prior consent of the municipality, from extending or expanding service in that area by the use of any streets, alleys, public property or ways after the date of annexation. 287 S.C. at 370-371, 338 S.E. (2d) at 836. (Emphasis supplied.) In Blue Ridge , we addressed an assigned supplier's challenge to a municipal utility which provided electricity in a newly annexed area. There, we held that a municipality may either consent to expanded service by the assigned supplier or itself serve new premises and customers within the assigned, annexed area. 297 S.C. at 289, 376 S.E. (2d) at 517. The basic premise upon which Abbeville and Blue Ridge rest is a municipality's right of consent under S.C. Const. Art. VIII, § 15. [7] In Blue Ridge , we declined to interpret the Territorial Assignments Act, as amended by Act 431 of 1984, in a way violative of this right. We stated: Absent the option of municipal service to new premises and customers in assigned, annexed areas, the assigned supplier would possess, for all practical purposes, an exclusive territorial service right. Municipalities could not realistically deny consent to expanded service by these assigned suppliers; denying consent would be tantamount to denying property owners in the annexed area any electric service at all. 297 S.C. at 289, 376 S.E. (2d) at 517-518. Here, Co-op's contention that a municipally franchised utility should be distinguished from a municipally- owned utility effectually denies Summerville's right of consent, leaving Summerville with the sole alternative of permitting Co-op to provide the service. This would clearly violate Abbeville and Blue Ridge, supra . Summerville has granted SCE&G its consent to serve the annexed area by virtue of the franchise agreement. Accordingly, Circuit Court correctly held that SCE&G may continue providing electric service to Hardee's.