Legal Opinion
Hamm v. South Carolina Public Service Commission
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided August 31, 1992No. 23705PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Toal, Justice:
This consolidated appeal arises from several rate orders of the South Carolina Public Service Commission (“Commission”) granting certain relief to South Carolina Electric and Gas (“SCE&G”). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
1987 CASE
Rerating Issue
In 1983, SCE&G applied for a change in its rate structure to add the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, into its rate base. The Commission excluded 400 megawatts (“MW”) or $114,770,512 of the investment in the V.C. Summer Plant from SCE&G’s rate base. The Commission did not find that the capacity represented by the 400 MW was not…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
- People Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Illinois Commerce CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
- Able Communications, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Porter v. South Carolina Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Kiawah Property Owners Group v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Heater of Seabrook, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Porter v. SC PUBLIC SERVICE COM'NSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Utilities Services of South Carolina, Inc. v. South Carolina Office of Regulatory StaffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.