State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Judge.
Nantahala and Tapoco first attack the methodology used by the Utilities Commission in establishing the charge to Nantahala’s retail customers. They argue that the Commission is required by law to recognize the NFA and the 1971 Apportionment Agreement in setting rates for Nantahala’s retail customers. They say this is so because both of these agreements have been filed with and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Utilities Commission is preempted by federal law from ignoring them. The Utilities Commission in setting retail rates has to give effect to…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Morgan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- New England Power Co. v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Federal Power Commission v. Southern California Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Farlow v. North Carolina State Board of Chiropractic ExaminersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984