1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 309 S.E.2d
  5. 309 S.E.2d 473 (1983)
 

STATE EX REL. UTIL. COM'N v. NANTAHALA POWER AND LIGHT CO.

No. 8210UC1034.

309 S.E.2d 473 (1983)

65 N.C. App. 198

STATE of North Carolina, ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION; Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General; Public Staff; Henry J. Truett; Town of Bryson City; Swain County Board of County Commissioners; Cherokee, Graham and Jackson Counties, the Towns of Andrews, Dillsboro, Robbinsville, and Sylva; the Tribal Council of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Muriel Maney and Derol Crisp v. NANTAHALA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY; Aluminum Company of America; and Tapoco, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

December 6, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alcoa, Nantahala and Tapoco appealed. Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard L. Griffin, Raleigh, for the State.

Crisp, Davis, Schwentker & Page by William T. Crisp and Robert B. Schwentker, Raleigh, for Henry J. Truett, the Counties of Cherokee, Graham, Swain, and Jackson; the Towns of Andrews, Dillsboro, Robbinsville, Bryson City and Sylva; and the Tribal Council of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

Robert Fischbach, Executive Director of The Public Staff by Staff Atty. Thomas K. Austin, Raleigh, for the Using and Consuming Public.

Joseph A. Pachnowski, Murphy, for the Town of Bryson City.

Western North Carolina Legal Services, Indian Law Unit by Larry Nestler, Cherokee, for Muriel Maney and Derol Crisp.

Fred H. Moody, Jr., Bryson City, for the County of Swain.

Hunton & Williams by Robert C. Howison, Jr., James E. Tucker, Edward S. Finley, Jr., and William C. Matthews, Jr., Raleigh, for Nantahala Power and Light Company.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae by Ronald D. Jones and David R. Poe, New York City, for Aluminum Company of America and Tapoco, Inc.

WEBB, Judge.

Nantahala and Tapoco first attack the methodology used by the Utilities Commission in establishing the charge to Nantahala's retail customers. They argue that the Commission is required by law to recognize the NFA and the 1971 Apportionment Agreement in setting rates for Nantahala's retail customers. They say this is so because both of these agreements have been filed with and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Utilities...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases