Court Opinion

ID: 9588078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:29:43.543926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:06.533310
License: Public Domain

Judge Hedrick
dissenting in part.
It appears from the order that the Commission derived CP&L’s cost of fuel in this general rate case by using the fuel cost found reasonable by the Commission in a separate fuel clause proceeding. The Commission accomplished this result by consolidating the record in Docket No. E-2, Sub. 402, the fuel clause proceeding, into the record of this case. As we held in Utilities Comm. v. Power Co., 48 N.C. App. 453, 269 S.E. 2d 657 (1980), cert. denied, 301 N.C. 531, 273 S.E. 2d 462 (1980), a fuel clause proceeding is an expedited one where the Commission may consider only the actual cost of fuel used. In that same opinion, we emphasized that in a general rate case, it is not only appropriate but necessary for the Commission to consider overall system efficiency in deriving the reasonable cost of fuel during the test year. The Commission used the fuel clause short-cut record to find the reasonable cost of fuel in this general rate case. In doing so, the Commission erred. The Commission’s findings of fact as to *256the reasonable cost of fuel during the test year is not, therefore, supported by the evidence in this record, and I, therefore, am of the opinion that this matter must be remanded for further hearings to determine CP&L’s reasonable cost of fuel for the test year in this general rate case.