State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Conservation Council
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
COPELAND, Justice.
I
Appellants argue that the Commission erred in including the sum of $144,841,000 in Duke’s retail rate base for construction work in progress (hereinafter CWIP) because its findings on this matter were inadequate as a matter of law. Appellants base their argument on both G.S. § 62-79(a) and G.S. § 62-133(b)(l) (1977) (amended 1981). Each statute will be considered separately.
G.S. § 62-79(a) provides that:
All final orders and decisions of the Commission shall be sufficient in detail to enable the court on appeal to determine the controverted questions presented in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Intervenor Residents of Bent Creek/Mt. Carmel SubdivisionsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission & Duke Power Co. v. EddlemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
- Fellowes v. . DurfeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Alsup v. PitmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.