Court Opinion

ID: 9591924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:08:48.695781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:39.354280
License: Public Domain

Justice KITTREDGE.
I respectfully dissent. I vote to affirm the order of the South Carolina Public Service Commission.
Pursuant to the Base Load Review Act, South Carolina favors the development and construction of new coal and nuclear fueled electrical generating facilities to meet our state’s increasing energy demands. S.C.Code Ann. § 58-33-210 et seq. (Supp.2009). I agree with the majority that the applicable “statute is ambiguous” and that it is “unclear as to whether the Base Load Review Act allows utilities to recover contingency costs.” Given this ambiguity juxtaposed to the clear purpose of the Act, I see no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that we should accord deference to the Commission’s construction of a statute it must administer. I would not reverse the Commission’s interpretation of the statute. The estimated capital cost of the proposed project is in excess of $4.5 billion, including contingency costs in the amount of $438,293,000. The Commission fully vetted all issues at the multi-week hearing, including the basis for determining the contingency costs. In my judgment, the inclusion of contingency costs for the construction of the proposed nuclear facility is amply supported by the record and survives the deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review.