Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Public Service Commission

8 Citing cases

  1. Md. Office of People's Counsel v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    226 Md. App. 483 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that the relevant factors in deciding the weight given to an agency's interpretation of a statute include "whether the interpretation ‘has been applied consistently and for a long period of time’ "

    In a conventional proceeding to set rates, the Commission will " calculate the test year's rate base, i.e., ‘the fair value of the company's property used and useful’ in rendering the service." Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 194 Md.App. 601, 620, 5 A.3d 713 (2010) (quoting PUA § 4–101(3)). A public service company ordinarily is not entitled to recover costs simply because the costs were incurred prudently; instead, the Commission normally requires the company to show that the costs relate to an asset "used and useful" in providing service.

  2. NRG Energy Inc. v. The Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    No. 1181-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 30, 2021)

    Before addressing the specifics of this case, we address the background and statutory scheme regarding deregulation of electric utilities in Maryland. In Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 194 Md.App. 601, 604 (2010), this Court explained that the electric utility industry in Maryland is comprised of two components: supply and distribution. Supply (electricity) is a commodity, whereas distribution (power lines) is a service.

  3. NRG Energy Inc. v. The Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    252 Md. App. 680 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021)

    Before addressing the specifics of this case, we address the background and statutory scheme regarding deregulation of electric utilities in Maryland. In Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland , 194 Md. App. 601, 604, 5 A.3d 713 (2010), this Court explained that the electric utility industry in Maryland is comprised of two components: supply and distribution. Supply (electricity) is a commodity, whereas distribution (power lines) is a service.

  4. Md. Office of People's Counsel v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    246 Md. App. 388 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    This is consistent with the standard of review applicable to administrative agencies generally.Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Public Service Commission of Maryland , 194 Md. App. 601, 610-611, 5 A.3d 713 (2010) (quoting Town of Easton v. Public Service Commission of Maryland , 379 Md. 21, 31-32, 838 A.2d 1225 (2003) (internal citations omitted)). On pure questions of law, our review is de novo.

  5. Md. Office of People's Counsel v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    No. 1366 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 27, 2020)

    I. Deregulation of electric utilities in Maryland In Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Public Service Com'n of Maryland, 194 Md. App. 601, 604-05 (2010), this Court described the changes in the electric utility industry that eventually gave rise to the dispute in this case: In 1999, the General Assembly enacted the Electric Customer Choice Act ("1999 Act"), codified at Md. Code (2008 Repl.Vol., 2009 Supp.), section 7-501 et seq., of the Public Utility Companies Article ("PUC"), with, among its goals, those of establishing "customer choice of electricity supply" and creating "competitive retail electricity supply and electricity supply services markets."

  6. Md. Office of People's Counsel v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    226 Md. App. 176 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    Id.Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 194 Md.App. 601, 604, 5 A.3d 713 (2010).The Court of Appeals similarly has explained the ratemaking process as follows:

  7. Wash. Gas Light Co. v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

    234 Md. App. 367 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    In a conventional proceeding to set rates, the Commission will "calculate the test year's rate base, i.e.,‘the fair value of the company's property used and useful’ in rendering the service." Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 194 Md.App. 601, 620 (2010) (quoting PUA § 4–101(3)). A public service company ordinarily is not entitled to recover costs simply because the costs were incurred prudently; instead, the Commission normally requires the company to show that the costs relate to an asset "used and useful" in providing service.

  8. Gilroy v. SVF Riva Annapolis LLC

    234 Md. App. 104 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    "); In re Adoption of K'Amora K., 218 Md.App. 287, 304, 97 A.3d 169 (2014) ("[T]he disjunctive wording in [Family Law Article] § 5–323(b)... authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights even absent a specific finding that a parent is unfit to care for her child" so long as exceptional circumstances are present.); Mills v. Godlove, 200 Md.App. 213, 226, 26 A.3d 1034 (2011) ("[W]here the terms undue hardship or practical difficulty ‘are framed in the disjunctive ("or"), Maryland courts generally have applied ... the less restrictive practical difficulties standard to area variances because use variances are viewed as more drastic departures from zoning requirements.’ " (Citations omitted)); Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 194 Md.App. 601, 624–25, 5 A.3d 713 (2010) (Public Utilities Article "Section 7–505(b)(8) is phrased in the disjunctive. Thus, it must be read to mean that either Title 4 or, ‘as applicable,’ Section 7–510(c)(4) governs the ‘terms, conditions, and rates' for SOS.").