{ "id": 8520916, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION; PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. (Applicant); PUBLIC STAFF-NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION; and LACY H. THORNBURG, Attorney General v. CAROLINA UTILITY CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATION, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n", "decision_date": "1991-10-01", "docket_number": "No. 9010UC1294", "first_page": "216", "last_page": "219", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 N.C. App. 216" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "132 S.E.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "347" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573658 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "376" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169685 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E.2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561548 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 809", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525861 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0809-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62-90", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 414, "char_count": 6767, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.448535052564218e-07, "percentile": 0.9213676164131577 }, "sha256": "7584e97a88333f4624866c426f789cb1fea24d3c0863982da12be5d36bc4a338", "simhash": "1:e3a10c6dc7741a72", "word_count": 1064 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:04.224888+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION; PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. (Applicant); PUBLIC STAFF-NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION; and LACY H. THORNBURG, Attorney General v. CAROLINA UTILITY CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATION, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nCUCA argues that the Commission\u2019s 13 February 1990 order should be reversed inter alia because there were insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law and because the order was issued outside a general rate making proceeding. However, we do not reach the issues CUCA raises because we hold that CUCA is not a party aggrieved by the order currently before us and as such has no standing to appeal from this order.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62-90 provides in pertinent part:\n(a) Any party to a proceeding before the Commission may appeal from any final order or decision of the Commission within 30 days after the entry of such final order or decision, ..., if the party aggrieved by such decision or order shall file with the Commission notice of appeal and exceptions which shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the aggrieved party considers said decisions or order to be unlawful, unjust, unreasonable or unwarranted, and including errors alleged to have been committed by the Commission.\nIn order to have standing to appeal, a party must not only file notice of appeal within 30 days, but must also be aggrieved.\nThis court recently addressed the meaning of \u201caggrieved\u201d in State ex rel. Comm\u2019r of Ins. v. N.C. Rate Bureau, 102 N.C. App. 809, 403 S.E.2d 597 (1991). There we stated:\nUnder the Administrative Procedure Act, a \u201cperson aggrieved\u201d is defined as \u201cany person or group of persons of common interest directly or indirectly affected substantially in his \u00f3r its person, property, or employment by an administrative decision.\u201d G.S. 150B-2(6). Under the Judicial Review Act, the predecessor to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Supreme Court said: \u201cThe expression \u2018person aggrieved\u2019 has no technical meaning. What it means depends on the circumstances involved.\u201d In re Halifax Paper Co., 259 N.C. 589, 595, 131 S.E.2d 441, 446 (1963).\nId. at 812, 403 S.E.2d at 599. \u201cOur Supreme Court has held that \u2018person aggrieved\u2019 means [one] \u2018adversely affected in respect of legal rights, or suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights.\u2019 \u201d (Citation omitted.) In re Wheeler, 85 N.C. App. 150, 153, 354 S.E.2d 374, 376 (1987). Where a party is not aggrieved by an order his appeal will be dismissed. Compare Gaskins v. Blount, 260 N.C. 191, 195, 132 S.E.2d 345, 347 (1963).\nHere, CUCA has not shown that its interest in person, property, or employment has been substantially adversely affected, directly or indirectly. As Piedmont\u2019s brief correctly points out, Piedmont did not increase its rates under the 13 February 1990 order of the Commission. On the contrary, Piedmont reduced its rates by a total of $1.2659 per dekatherm.\nCUCA contends, however, that they are an aggrieved party because the order would allow Piedmont to increase its rates in the future to the extent necessary to offset previous reductions under this order. We disagree. While under this order Piedmont may file, and in fact has filed to make subsequent increases, those proposed increases are not before us. The subsequent proposed increases were effected through later filings in separate dockets which are subject to appellate review at an appropriate time. Those orders are not before us in this appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Johnson and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Byrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant, McMahon & Ervin, P.A., by Sam J. Ervin, IV, for intervenor-appellant.", "Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Jerry W. Amos, for applicant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION; PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. (Applicant); PUBLIC STAFF-NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION; and LACY H. THORNBURG, Attorney General v. CAROLINA UTILITY CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATION, INC.\nNo. 9010UC1294\n(Filed 1 October 1991)\nGas \u00a7 1 (NCI3d| \u2014 order amending ratemaking formula \u2014 rates lowered \u2014 CUCA not aggrieved party\nThe Carolina Utility Customers Association was not an \u201caggrieved\u201d party which could appeal an order of the Utilities Commission amending a ratemaking formula providing for an adjustment of natural gas rates to pass cost savings to the utility\u2019s customers when the utility purchases gas from nontraditional sources, reducing the utility\u2019s rates, and permitting the utility to file for subsequent increases to the extent necessary to offset previous reductions under the order.\nAm Jur 2d, Public Utilities \u00a7 287.\niNTERVENOR-appellant appeals from 13 February 1990 order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 1991.\nOn 29 October 1985 Docket No. G-9, Sub 257, the Utilities Commission adopted a ratemaking formula which authorized Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) to adjust its rates to pass gas cost savings on to its customers when Piedmont purchased gas from non-traditional sources. The formula was amended in 1986, 1987, and 1988. On 8 February 1989 the Utilities Commission reconsidered and reapproved the formula in a general rate case brought by Piedmont (Docket No. G-9, Sub 278). The Commission\u2019s 8 February 1989 order approving the formula was not appealed.\nOn 20 April 1989 Piedmont made a filing before the Utilities Commission to amend the formula because of a Stipulation and Agreement (Agreement) entered on 3 April 1989 between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Transcontinental Pipeline Corporation (Transco), Piedmont\u2019s supplier. That Agreement provided that Transco\u2019s customers, including Piedmont, would discontinue purchasing gas under Transco\u2019s CD-2 Rate Schedule. The CD-2 rate schedule had previously been used to determine gas cost savings. Gas cost savings were computed by subtracting Piedmont\u2019s actual cost of gas when purchased from non-traditional sources from the CD-2 rate schedule cost of gas. Because the CD-2 rate was no longer an appropriate measure to determine gas cost savings, Piedmont filed to amend the formula. In the same filing, Piedmont proposed to reduce its rates by $1.0159 per dekatherm, provided, that Piedmont could remove the cost reduction if and when its gas costs later increased.\nThe Utilities Commission entered an interim order on 3 May 1989 authorizing Piedmont to reduce its rates as requested. The Commission held a hearing on 12 December 1989, at which the intervenor-appellant, Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc. (CUCA), cross-examined witnesses for Piedmont and the Public Staff. On 13 February 1990 the Commission entered an order amending the formula. The amendment allowed Piedmont to replace more expensive gas suppliers and to provide additional supplies of gas through increased pipeline capacity. It also required Piedmont to reduce its rates by $.25 per dekatherm in addition to the $1.0159 per dekatherm reduction placed into effect by the 3 May 1989 order.\nCUCA appeals.\nByrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant, McMahon & Ervin, P.A., by Sam J. Ervin, IV, for intervenor-appellant.\nBrooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Jerry W. Amos, for applicant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0216-01", "first_page_order": 244, "last_page_order": 247 }