State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MEYER, Justice.
The principal question raised by this appeal is whether the Commission erred as a matter of law in its order establishing Nantahala’s retail rates on a “stand-alone” basis by failing to accord more than minimal consideration to competent evidence suggesting the continued propriety of utilizing the “roll-in” rate making methodology applied by the Commission in two preceding *130general rate cases involving Nantahala, Tapoco, and Alcoa and affirmed by this Court in Utility Commission v. Nantahala Power and Light Co., 313 N.C. 614, 332 S.E. 2d 397 ("Nantahala I"), and Utilities…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Bird Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. General Telephone Co. of the SoutheastSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- Hanton v. GilbertCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
- Bunn v. . ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. SteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.