Public Utilities – Real Property – Easement Placement – Utility’s Discretion

Even though the plaintiff-landowner’s members now say they would prefer to have the defendant-utility’s power transmission line installed along the southern boundary of their property, they equivocated in the past. In choosing the easement placement that bisects plaintiff’s land, the utility considered environmental impact, land use, impact to individual landowners, costs for the route, and visual impact. It does not appear that the utility abused its discretion in choosing a route through the middle of plaintiff’s land.

We affirm in part and vacate in part the circuit court’s judgment in favor of the utility.

It is true that S.C. Code Ann. § 28-2-70 granted the utility the ex parte right to access plaintiff’s property to perform studies; Nevertheless, it was not error for the circuit court to find plaintiff restricted access to its land.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, we do not read Southern Development v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 311 S.C. 29, 426 S.E.2d 748 (1993), as overruling Bookhart v. Cent. Elec. Power Co-op., 219 S.C. 414, 65 S.E.2d 781 (1951).

The trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s challenge was not brought in bad faith is contradicted by its other findings. Therefore, we vacate the finding of no bad faith.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part.

Oien Family Investments, LLC v. Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-067-18, 17 pp.) (Stephanie McDonald, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Newberry County (R. Lawton McIntosh, J.) Thomas Pope III and Kyle Parker for Appellant; Oscar Bannister, Bruce Wyche Bannister and Luke Anthony Burke for Respondent. S.C. App.