Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 3, 1982No. Nos. 8110UC812, 8110UC865PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

Whether purchased power or interchange power is properly to be considered in a fuel adjustment clause proceeding appears to be a question of first impression in North Carolina.

In the CP&L application, counsel for the Public Staff argued that as a matter of law CP&L should not be permitted to recover its purchase power expenses in this proceeding and that an increase in the base fuel cost of only 0.134 cents per KWH, including gross receipt taxes, should be approved. Counsel for CP&L argued that purchased power is a properly includable expense in a N.C.G.S. 62434(e)…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Faizan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. Motsinger v. PerrymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Motsinger v. . PerrymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Walls & Marshall Fuel Co. v. N.C. Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. SteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2020
  4. State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. SteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API