Case ID: nc-app_16/html/0069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BROCK, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION and PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CITY OF DURHAM, SANFORD BRICK & TILE COMPANY, TRIANGLE BRICK COMPANY, BORDEN BRICK COMPANY, CHEROKEE BRICK COMPANY, LEE BRICK & TILE COMPANY, and CHATHAM BRICK & TILE COMPANY
    No. 7210UC45
    (Filed 30 August 1972)
    Appeal by defendants (protestants) from an order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission entered 27 May 1971, and as amended by order entered 1 June 1971.
    This proceeding was declared by the Utilities Commission to be a general rate case governed by G.S. 62-1S3.
    The applicant, Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc., a distributor of natural gas in North Carolina, applied to the Utilities Commission for authority to adjust its rates and charges for natural gas services.
    The Commission’s orders grant rate increases to applicant which afford it an opportunity to realize additional annual gross revenues of approximately $8,097,171.00 ($1,652,003.00 of which is for purchased gas increases, and $1,445,168.00 of which is for additional general rate increases).
    The protestants appealed.
    
      Boyce, Mitchell, Burns and Smith, by F. Kent Burns, for Public Service Company, Inc.
    
    
      Edward B. Hipp and Maurice W. Horne, for the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
    
    
      Claude V. Jones for the City of Durham.
    
    
      Broughton, Broughton, McConnell and Boxley, by J. Melville Broughton, Jr., for Sanford Brick and Tile Company, Triangle Brick Company, Borden Brick Company, Cherokee Brick Company, Lee Brick and Tile Company, and Chatham Brick and Tile Company.
    
   BROCK, Judge.

This appeal calls for a review of a decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission in a general rate-making case. See G.S. 7A-30(3).

Appellants’ assignments of error numbers 1, 2, and 5 are sustained. The order appealed from is

Reversed.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.