State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Cooper Although the 10.5 percent return on equity (ROE) figure chosen by the Utilities Commission is within the range of figures recommended by the witnesses before it, none of the witnesses recommended that specific amount; however, it is the number set out in a nonunanimous stipulation.
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Water Service, Inc. of North Carolina Since 1994, the Utilities Commission has followed a policy of assigning 100 percent of the gain on sale to shareholders when a private utilities company sells its system to a municipality. In this case, the Commission reasonably chose to make an exception to that policy when a private utility, Carolina Water Service, Inc.
Lockerman v. South River Electric Membership Corp. Plaintiffs have failed to show that there is a fiduciary relationship between an electric membership corporation and its members. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove the defendant-electric membership corporation breached a fiduciary duty when it discounted deceased members’ capital credits before paying them.
Lockerman v. South River Electric Membership Corp. Plaintiffs have failed to show that there is a fiduciary relationship between an electric membership corporation and its members. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove the defendant-electric membership corporation breached a fiduciary duty when it discounted deceased members’ capital credits before paying them.
Lockerman v. South River Electric Membership Corp. Plaintiffs have failed to show that there is a fiduciary relationship between an electric membership corporation and its members. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove the defendant-electric membership corporation breached a fiduciary duty when it discounted deceased members’ capital credits before paying them.
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility v. Finley In this dispute between AT&T Mobility and local exchange carriers that provide telephone service in rural North Carolina, the 4th Circuit affirms a district court decision upholding the North Carolina Utilities Commission’s order governing the terms of the parties’ interconnection agreements.
dPi Teleconnect, L.L.C. v. Finley Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the N.C. Utilities Commission requires AT&T North Carolina to sell interconnections to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) – like plaintiff – for 21 percent less than AT&T North Carolina’s retail rate. When AT&T North Carolina offers its retail customers a promotional rate for more than 90 days, it is required to sell interconnections to CLECs at the promotional rate, less 21 percent.
CGM LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. The 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of a suit filed by a billing agent for local telecommunications carriers against BellSouth, the incumbent local exchange carrier, as plaintiff billing agent does not have statutory standing to bring this suit.
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Environmental Defense Fund G.S. § 62-133.8(a) defines “renewable energy resource” to include “a biomass resource, including agricultural waste, animal waste, wood waste, spent pulping liquors, combustible residues, combustible liquids, combustible gases, energy crops, or landfill methane.” This definition includes primary harvest trees.
We affirm the Utilities Commission’s approval of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s application to register two of its thermal electric generating stations - where a blend of wood chips and coal were used as fuel — as renewable energy facilities.
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis G.S. § 62-350 requires a town that owns utility poles to negotiate in good faith with utility providers who wish to attach their cables to the town’s utility poles; in this case, plaintiff has made no showing that the town failed to do so.
The town is entitled to partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that the town refused to negotiate. The town’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s claim that the town violated the nondiscrimination requirements of G.S. § 62-350.
