Cases

497 F.3d 1303 (2007) William J. SOUDERS, Phyllis W. Souders, C. Barry Marsh, Justin Marsh, Frank M. O'Brien, III, Teresa Marsh Foxworth, Lewis Drew Marsh, Sarah Over, Allen D. Fore, Bettye S. Marsh, Joe Easley (Personal Representative of the Estate of Alice V. Lucas), McLeod Lumber Company, Inc., Dorothy McLeod Rhodes, Helen M. Bradham, Darlington Veneer Company, Inc., Bubendorf Brothers, Inc., Susan Sheppard, James M. Simons, Michael Tappert, Elizabeth

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. ¶ 286. (concurring). It is not our function to determine this state's energy policy or to decide whether the construction of the power plants here is in the public interest. Majority op., ¶ 35. These are legislative determinations assigned to the PSC. Id.; see also Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(d)3. (2001-02). We cannot substitute our judgment for that of an administrative agency determining a legis

357 S.C. 232 (2004) 593 S.E.2d 148 KIAWAH PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP, Appellant, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent, and Kiawah Island Utility, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. No. 25782. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard October 7, 2003. Decided February 9, 2004. *235

359 S.C. 105 (2004) 597 S.E.2d 145 KIAWAH PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP, Appellant, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA; and Kiawah Island Utility Company, Inc., Respondents. No. 25827. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard January 21, 2004. Decided May 24, 2004. *107 Stephen L. Br

374 S.C. 46 (2007) 647 S.E.2d 223 OFFICE OF REGULATORY STAFF, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, South Carolina Telephone Association, and Verizon South, Inc., Respondents. South Carolina Cable Television Association and Southeastern Competitive Carriers Association, Appellants, v. South Carolina Public Service Commission, South Carolina Telephone Association, and Verizon South, Inc., Respo

343 S.C. 554 (2001) 541 S.E.2d 250 DUKE POWER COMPANY, n/k/a Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation, Appellant, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, and Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc., Respondents. No. 25241. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard October 3, 2000. Decided January 24, 2001.

MOORE, Justice: This is a telephone rate case. The Consumer Advocate appeals on the ground rate increases were ordered without adequate notice to the public. We reverse and remand. FACTS In May 1996, the legislature enacted S.C.Code Ann. § 58-9-280(L) and (M) (Supp.1998) to facilitate the change to a competitive market for local telephone services. This legislation would enable incumbent

MOORE, Justice: This appeal is from a circuit court order reversing a decision of appellant Public Service Commission (PSC) that assigned an area already served by respondent (City) to appellant Black River Electric Cooperative (Coop). We affirm. FACTS In October 1996, several residents of the Red Hill area of Lee County filed a complaint with the PSC alleging inadequate and un

MOORE, Acting Chief Justice: This is a rate case. Respondent BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (Company) applied for approval of a proposed Consumer Price Protection Plan (the Plan) as an alternative means of regulation pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 58-9-575 (Supp.1997). Respondent South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the Plan with some modifications. Appellants, the Consumer Advocate and South Carolina Cab

WALLER, Justice: This is a utility rate case. We affirm in part and reverse in part. PROCEDURAL POSTURE The South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) reviewed BellSouth Telecommunication’s (BellSouth’s) earnings in 1994, a test year used to determine future rates. Based on that review, PSC adjusted certain revenues and expenses of BellSouth and ordered the company to reduce its

FINNEY, Chief Justice: The Consumer Advocate appeals the circuit court order affirming the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) order in this utility rate case. We reverse in part and affirm in part. ISSUE I Did the circuit court err in upholding the PSC’s inclusion of Demand Side Management (DSM) costs in Piedmont’s expenses? ANALYSIS Piedmont Natural

MOORE, Justice: This is a water and sewer rate case. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further findings. FACTS In December 1993, respondent/appellant Carolina Water Service (Company) commenced this action seeking an increase in various fees. The total requested revenue increase was $804,492. By order dated May 31, 1994, respondent Public Service Commission (Commission) gra

WALLER, Justice: This appeal involves an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) which removed price caps for certain business services provided by AT & T. We affirm. FACTS Subsequent to AT & T’s divestiture in 1983, the PSC issued Order # 84-622 regulating interexchange telephone carriers (IXCs) and setting forth price caps. In 1995, AT & T filed a petition pursu

338 S.C. 92 (1999) 525 S.E.2d 863 KIAWAH PROPERTY OWNERS GROUP, Appellant, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA and Kiawah Island Utility, Inc., Respondents. No. 24997. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 22, 1999. Decided September 7, 1999. *93 Stephen P. Groves, Sr.

332 S.C. 20 (1998) 503 S.E.2d 739 HEATER OF SEABROOK INC., Appellant, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. No. 24821. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 3, 1998. Decided July 21, 1998. *22 Darra W. Cothran, of Woodward, Cothran & Herndon, Columbia, f

351 S.C. 175 (2002) 568 S.E.2d 365 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Foxwood Hills Property Owners Association, Steven W. Hamm, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, and Ernest Campbell, of whom South Carolina Public Service Commission is Respondent, and Foxwood Hills Property Owners Association, Inc. is Appellant. Total Environmental Solution

338 S.C. 164 (2000) 525 S.E.2d 866 Philip S. PORTER, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Alltel South Carolina, Inc., Bluffton Telephone Company, Inc., Chester Telephone Company, Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Fort Mill Telephone Company, GTE South, Inc., Hargray Telephone Company, Inc., Home Telephone Company, Inc., Horry Telephone Cooperative, I

333 S.C. 12 (1998) 507 S.E.2d 328 Philip S. PORTER, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Respondent/Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., of which South Carolina Public Service Commission is Respondent, and BellSouth Telecommunications is Appellant/Respondent. South Carolina Public Communications Association, Petitioner, v. South Carolin

FINNEY, Chief Justice: This is an appeal1 from a circuit court order upholding an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) which approved a rate increase for respondent SCE&G. Appellant contends the evidence does not support the rate of return on equity awarded in the order, and that the PSC exceeded its authority in authorizing a Storm Damage Reserve Fund. We affirm. App

324 S.C. 56 (1996) 478 S.E.2d 826 HEATER OF SEABROOK, INC., Appellant, v. The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAOLINA, Town of Seabrook Island, and South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, Respondents. No. 24473. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 5, 1996. Decided August 12, 1996. Rehearing Denied Septe