# State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Conservation Council

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · October 4, 1983 · 64 N.C. App. 266

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8905744

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION DUKE POWER COMPANY (Applicant) NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP NORTH CAROLINA TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PEOPLES ALLIANCE and PUBLIC STAFF, NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION v. CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION and KUDZU ALLIANCE
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 4, 1983
- **Citations:** 64 N.C. App. 266; 307 S.E.2d 375; 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Vaughn
- **Judges:** Becton, Braswell, Vaughn
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8905744

## Opinion text

Chief Judge VAUGHN
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in agreement with the majority’s ultimate decision on all of the questions discussed except the last.
I dissent from the part of the decision that remands the case to the Commission for findings on the reasonableness of Duke’s fuel costs. The Commission heard evidence, including testimony from an accountant for the Public Staff, that Duke’s fuel expenses *276 were reasonable. We have no reason to doubt that the Commission considered this evidence when it ascertained the utilities’ reasonable operating expenses as required by G.S. 62-133(b)(3). I would affirm the order of the Commission.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8905744. Public record. Not legal advice.