The dispute between the governor and legislators over Santee Cooper is driven by differing views on how the utility should be run and whether it should be a moneymaker for the state. The recent Senate probe has not settled that, say those on both sides.

But at least the passage of a new law late in the legislative session will prevent any attempt to sell the state-owned utility without legislative participation and approval, said Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, who led a special Senate subcommittee probe into board activities at Santee Cooper.

The issue is significant because the state-owned utility serves most of Horry and Georgetown counties either directly or indirectly with rates that are lower than those charged by for-profit companies.

A 50-page report from the subcommittee compiling its 22 hours of hearings and hundreds of pages of documents released last week pointed fingers at several board members who it said damaged the utility's operations.

"There appeared to be an agenda advanced by a minority of the board that was not in the best interests of Santee Cooper," the Senate report concluded.

"Some actions were reckless and could have been costly to Santee Cooper and its customers and bondholders and the state. Other actions bordered on bullying."

Those members deny the accusation and say that they not only did nothing wrong but they were acting in the best interest of the utility and that it is the Senate subcommittee that is wrong.

"All of the board members on the committee's hit list asked hard questions, were engaged and were always respectful to management," said Guerry Green, the former chairman who was ousted during the dispute when the governor withdrew his nomination.

Gov. Mark Sanford, who appointed the board members whose actions were criticized, said the report had little merit and in turn attacked the motives of two of the senators on the subcommittee.

The dispute has been the most divisive of Sanford's term, with the most intense aspect of it centering around a finance company report on the value of Santee Cooper.

The governor's staff at first denied that the governor's office ordered the report. After copies of e-mails revealed that the company was in fact hired by the governor's office, his spokesman said it had nothing to do with selling Santee Cooper.

Sanford attended one of the subcommittee's hearings in Moncks Corner and told scores of residents that the report was not aimed at selling Santee Cooper.

Further e-mails revealed that the request to the finance company did include a review of what it would fetch in a sale. Sanford replied that you cannot get its proper value without considering what it would bring if it were sold.

Moreover, the dispute has left the board with four vacancies that probably cannot be filled until legislators convene in January, along with demands that the acting chairman and two other members resign.

How it started

The controversy started simmering a year and a half ago when Sanford asked the utility to provide an extra $13 million for the state budget.

Santee Cooper, though state-owned, has never received state money. It pays 1 percent of its revenue to the general fund each year.

Rankin and other legislators attempted to pass a bill forbidding such payments to the state on grounds the money would come from the pockets of ratepayers, who would be paying an unfair tax for the rest of the state.

The board agreed the $13 million was a one-time contribution from the sale of surplus property.

The temperature rose last fall when some members, at the behest of the governor, began questioning the utility's donations and sponsorships.

The simmer turned to a boil when Sanford fired board Chairman Graham Edwards, a former chief executive officer of Santee Cooper who Sanford had broadly praised in two previous nominations for the board post.

Sanford gave little reason for his action. Edwards said it was because he resisted the governor's demand for more money from the utility and to stop making contributions to local charities.

The Senate subcommittee report said the board members it describes as rogues turned against Edwards because he did not support the governor's demands and asked that he be removed.

Richard Coen, whose immediate resignation was demanded by the Senate subcommittee, said Edwards lost support because he did not comply with members' "repeated requests" for information on operations, contracts, legal matters and other issues they said they needed to know to fulfill their duties.

"The inconclusive and incomplete responses to requests for information resulted in the resignation of the prior president and the eventual removal of the last chairman," Coen said in a letter to Rankin that he released to news outlets last week.

Former President John Tiencken, an attorney, resigned last fall, saying he wanted to go into private practice.

Former staff attorney John West left at the end of the year, saying he wanted to go into private practice.

The turnover resulted in the first downgrade of Santee Cooper's financial outlook in more than a decade when Fitch Ratings posted a caution.

The new law that forbids discussion of a sale of Santee Cooper without legislative approval also adds another layer of approval for the governor's nominees to the board. Besides being confirmed by the Senate, they must be approved by a utility board's screening panel.

The law also prevents the utility from being forced to pay more than its current 1 percent of revenue without specific legislative approval.

Sanford vetoed the bill, but the veto was overwhelmingly overridden.

He said when he vetoed it that the bill would produce the opposite effect than what legislators desired because it would have "a chilling effect on accountability to the people of South Carolina and ultimately serves as a threat to ratepayers of Santee Cooper."

Sanford said there are ways the state can get more money from the utility without raising rates and he would not accept more money if it meant raising customers' rates.

In Sanford's view, the utility belongs to all the state's residents, not just its customers, and the state should get more from it. The utility's supporters say it provides value to the state by fostering economic growth and discouraging higher electric rates in the areas served by the private utilities.