“The Commission, however, does not have the full power of the Legislature but only that portion conferred upon it in G.S. Chapter 62. In fixing the rates to be charged by a public utility for its service, the Commission must, therefore, comply with the requirements of that chapter, more specifically, G.S. 62-133.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Commission, however, does not have the full power of the Legislature but only that portion conferred upon it in G.S. Chapter 62. In fixing the rates to be charged by a public utility for its service, the Commission must, therefore, comply with the requirements of that chapter, more specifically, G.S. 62-133.”
- “It is . . . the prerogative of the [Utilities] Commission to determine the credibility of evidence . . . .”
- noting that patents are intangible assets of corporations
- ‘“North Carolina users of telephones are not to be required to furnish revenue to maintain applicant’s financial condition which other states refuse to provide’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co.
See Utilities Comm. v. Telephone Co., 281 N.C. 318, 189 S.E. 2d 705 (1972), superseded by statute, Utilities Comm. v. Power Co., 305 N.C. 1, 287 S.E. 2d 786 (1982).
The opinion
Justice Higgins,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
In my view the Court of Appeals committed error in confirming the Commission’s deduction of $978,000 from the rate base on account of equipment purchased from a separate though affiliated corporate dealer. In my opinion, the evidence in the record neither justifies nor supports the deduction.
I vote to remand to the Utilities Commission for reconsideration and correction of this error. Otherwise I think the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and should be affirmed.