“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Superseded by statute, as recognized in State Ex Rel.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 v. Telephone Co., 281 N.C. 318, 189 S.E. 2d 705 (1972), superseded by statute, Utilities Comm.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 Sharp,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s decision that “the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the deduction by the Commission of $978,000 from General’s ‘net investment in plant’ (orginal cost less depreciation) by reason of profits earned by Automatic upon its sales to General.”
In all other respects I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals upon the grounds so succinctly stated by Judge Parker in the opinion of that Court. Thus, I dissent from the majority’s decision that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Commission’s finding that General’s investment in its North Carolina telephone plant should be reduced in the amount of $690,340 as “excess margin in central office equipment in re *375 lation to the test period.” In my judgment the Commission erred in making this deduction and this Court errs in affirming it.
In my view, the extended discussions and pronouncements in the majority opinion go far beyond the questions presented for decision on this appeal. The opinion is a dissertation upon the theory of rate making which clearly manifests the scholarship and indefatigability of the author. Yet, with all deference, I do not deem it the proper function of this Court, in any case, to attempt to encompass the law of future cases. Those will present facts and problems we cannot now anticipate, and the arguments which they engender may open avenues heretofore unexplored.