A new study gives Gov. Mark Sanford more ammunition for his contention that Santee Cooper, the public water and power utility, should provide the state with a greater return to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, the Legislature clearly isn't in the mood to listen to the governor on that score. It's too busy trying to unbalance the board with members who have ties to its major customers and restrict the governor's power over the utility.

The bill that the governor charges would tie his hands on Santee Cooper reforms has passed the Senate and is in a House subcommittee. To generate support for the legislation, his opponents have made much of the study his office asked be commissioned to determine Santee Cooper's value.

Unfortunately, the "privatization" word came out of the governor's office in connection with the study, fueling his enemies' fire. But the governor isn't a fool. He knows full well that he has zero chance of convincing the Legislature to sell the utility. That power, by the way, resides strictly with the General Assembly. The privatization of Santee Cooper simply isn't a part of the governor's reform agenda.

What has been on his mind is whether the utility should provide more of a return to the state taxpayer, not only in terms of the annual payment required by state law but by the sale of excess property. Further, the governor has argued that some Santee Cooper dollars have been spent unwisely, particularly millions in contributions to various charities and civic endeavors, generous retirement benefits to top executives, not to mention holding on to excess property.

After the governor made some changes on the board, the utility did agree to sell some excess land to the tune of $13 million. It also began what is expected to be a total phase-out of charitable contributions. The Senate responded with the bill that would halt the governor's power to remove members at will. In fact, the legislation prohibits the governor from even asking a member to resign unless he has cause. Further, the legislation would prohibit the 11-member board from even considering the sale of excess property without approval of the Legislature. More indefensible is a provision that would increase from one to four the number of members with ties to the electric cooperatives that contract with Santee Cooper.

The controversial study released this week says, not surprisingly, that the public utility would put more in the state coffers if it were a private utility than if it were a state agency. Since the 1980s, Santee Cooper has been giving the state 1 percent of its annual revenues, which last year amounted to $24 million. According to our report, the study showed that Santee Cooper would be liable for between $66 and $103 million if it were a private utility. But far more to the point is the comparison to other public utilities. According to our report, the study said the utility's annual payment to the state is one-third that of comparable public utilities.

Charleston Rep. Ben A. Hagood, a supporter of the governor's effort to restructure government, says he is convinced the governor has no genuine interest in selling Santee Cooper. The governor is, however, according to Rep. Hagood, "taking a businessman's approach to getting a fair return for the state." Further, the lawmaker contends that the Santee Cooper legislation now in the House appears retaliatory and "goes in the opposite direction of strengthening executive authority."

Indeed it does. The governor finally has Santee Cooper moving in the right direction with the sale of excess property and a major cutback in questionable expenditures. The Legislature should let the state's chief executive do his job.