STATE of North Carolina ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION, Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission, Attorney General, Roy Cooper, Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc., Carolina Industrial Groups for Fair Utility Rates I and Ii, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a North Carolina Power, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, Inc., Appellees,
v.
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Duke Power Company, and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, Appellants.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 6, 2005.
December 6, 2005.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Public Staff Executive Director Robert P. Gruber and Chief Counsel Antoinette R. Wike, by Gisele L. Rankin, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for appellee North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Leonard G. Green, for the Attorney General.
West Law Offices, P.C., by James P. West, Raleigh, for appellee Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc.
Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P., by Ralph McDonald, Raleigh, for appellee Carolina Industrial Groups for Fair Utility Rates II.
Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Michael S. Colo, Thomas R. West, and Pamela A. Scott, Raleigh, for appellees North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, Inc.
Hunton & Williams, by Edward S. Finley, Jr., Raleigh, for appellants.
Len S. Anthony, Raleigh, for appellants Carolina Power & Light and Progress Energy.
William Larry Porter and Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, Charlotte, for appellant Duke Power Company.
Robert B. Schwentker and Thomas K. Austin, Raleigh, for appellant North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
WYNN, Judge.
Non-discriminatory state regulations that "effectuate a legitimate local public interest" and incidentally burden interstate commerce "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.,397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174, 178 (1970). Appellants argue that the...
Let's get started
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.
