{ "id": 8522600, "name": "SOUTH RIVER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION and NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and MAIDENFORM, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "South River Electric Membership Corp. v. City of Fayetteville", "decision_date": "1994-01-18", "docket_number": "No. 9212SC1172", "first_page": "401", "last_page": "405", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 N.C. App. 401" } ], "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": "115 S.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 816", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626058 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0816-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" }, { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 726", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4764743 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "735" }, { "page": "738" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0726-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "843" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "844" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562562 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143" }, { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 S.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 721", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574855 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62410.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 437, "char_count": 9434, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7505777363854031 }, "sha256": "dbbdd823a12d0603b9d16646fff5ff4eb9d534228bfb4fffccd8ca33714de166", "simhash": "1:1b6c114cd54e3051", "word_count": 1445 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:21:41.323369+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "SOUTH RIVER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION and NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and MAIDENFORM, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCRODDEN, Judge.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the extension of electric service by PWC, not an \u201celectric supplier,\u201d to a site the North Carolina Utilities Commission (Utilities Commission) had assigned to an electric supplier was \u201cwithin reasonable limitations\u201d as that phrase is utilized in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-312 (Supp. 1993).\nThe underlying dispute arose as follows. In June 1983, Cumberland County purchased land within its borders for development of a County Industrial Park. In connection with this development, the county requested PWC to coordinate and participate in providing utility and electric services to the Industrial Park. Thereafter, Maidenform purchased a thirty-one acre tract of land located in the Industrial Park, where it constructed a modern distribution facility to be used for processing and distributing women\u2019s intimate apparel. Maidenform requested electric service from PWC which had rates competitive with those of South River. The tract of land is located approximately five miles from the corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville and is wholly within service territory that, on 18 December 1969, the Utilities Commission had, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62410.2(c)(1) (Supp. 1992), assigned to South River.\nPlaintiffs claim that the extension of electric service by PWC was not within reasonable limitations and that consequently South River should be the exclusive provider of service to Maidenform. They have assigned no error to the trial court\u2019s findings which are, therefore, presumed to be supported by the evidence and are conclusive. Insurance Co. v. Trucking Co., 256 N.C. 721, 725, 125 S.E.2d 25, 28 (1962).\nThe trial court found that South River is an electric distribution corporation and an \u201celectric supplier,\u201d as defined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 62-110.2(a)(3), and that EMC is a generation and transmission electric corporation. Further findings established that PWC is an agency of the City of Fayetteville and is not an \u201celectric supplier\u201d within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 62-110.2(a)(3).\nAn \u201celectric supplier\u201d is defined in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 62410.2(a)(3) as \u201cany public utility furnishing electric service or any electric membership corporation.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 62410.2(b)(8) provides an electric supplier with the right to serve all premises located wholly within the service area assigned to it. No other electric supplier may serve any premises located in the territory assigned to another electric supplier. Domestic Electric v. City of Rocky Mount, 285 N.C. 135, 143, 203 S.E.2d 838, 843 (1974). In the case at hand, since the Utilities Commission had assigned to South River the service territory within which Maidenform\u2019s tract is wholly located, no other public utility or electric membership corporation may serve the Maidenform facility. See id.\nSubsection 110.2(b)(8), however, does not grant an assignee an exclusive right to serve within a territory. Id. Since a municipality is not an \u201celectric supplier\u201d as that term is used in section 62-110.2, Lumbee River Electric Corp. v. City of Fayetteville, 309 N.C. 726, 735, 309 S.E.2d 209, 215 (1983), its PWC is not prohibited from supplying electric service to the Maidenform facility. See Domestic Electric, 285 N.C. at 143, 203 S.E.2d at 843. PWC may serve the Maidenform site, so long as its extension of service is within \u201creasonable limitations,\u201d as provided for in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-312.\nIn interpreting the term \u201creasonable limitations,\u201d the Domestic Electric Court stated that the term \u201cdoes not refer solely to the territorial extent of the venture but embraces all facts and circumstances which affect the reasonableness of the [extension of service].\u201d Id. at 144, 203 S.E.2d at 844 (quoting Service Co. v. Shelby, 252 N.C. 816, 115 S.E.2d 12 (1960)). In Lumbee River, our Supreme Court set out the determinative factors, listed in Domestic Electric, used to ascertain whether the extension of service is reasonable. These factors are the electric providers\u2019 current levels of service in the area in question, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the potential customer, and the readiness, willingness, and ability of each to serve the potential customer. Lumbee River, 309 N.C. at 738, 309 S.E.2d at 217.\nApplying these factors to the instant case establishes that PWC\u2019s extension of electric service to the Maidenform site was reasonable. South River provides electric power to approximately 98 customers, none of whom is industrial, within a mile radius of Maidenform\u2019s facility, and within the same one mile radius PWC provides electric power to five customers, three of whom are industrial. Both South River and PWC are willing and able to provide and maintain adequate three-phase electric power to Maidenform. However, the following unchallenged findings of fact demonstrate that South River does not have the readiness to serve the Maidenform facility. South River does not presently have easements providing access to Maidenform\u2019s distribution facility. PWC does. South River cannot presently provide for dual feed electrical power to the Maidenform facility without making modifications to its equipment. PWC can provide the required dual feed electrical power. Furthermore, Maidenform\u2019s distribution facility requires three-phase electrical power in order to meet its industrial needs. At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, PWC\u2019s three-phase electric distribution line was approximately eighty feet from Maidenform\u2019s distribution facility, while South River\u2019s nearest three-phase electric distribution line was approximately 6,400 feet by road and 3,600 feet by direct line from Maidenform.\nPlaintiffs argue that public policy requires that the readiness, willingness, and ability of each provider to serve the potential customer must be considered at the time the electric service is needed, not when the request is made. Although plaintiffs set forth a persuasive argument, they have failed to provide any authority for their position. Thus, we must rely upon our Supreme Court in Lumbee River, which considered each provider\u2019s present readiness to serve the potential customer. Since PWC demonstrated its present readiness to serve Maidenform, we overrule this challenge.\nBased upon its findings of fact, the trial court properly concluded that PWC\u2019s extension of service to the Maidenform distribution facility in the Cumberland County Industrial Park was within reasonable limitations. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCRODDEN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert H. Jones for plaintiff-appellant South River Electric Membership Corporation, and Thomas J. Bolch for plaintiff-appellant North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation.", "Reid, Lewis, Deese & Nance, by Renny W. Deese and Richard M. Lewis, Jr., for defendant-appellees The City of Fayetteville and Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville.", "R. Joyce Garrett for defendant-appellee Maidenform, Inc." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SOUTH RIVER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION and NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and MAIDENFORM, INC.\nNo. 9212SC1172\n(Filed 18 January 1994)\nEnergy \u00a7 12 (NCI4th)\u2014 site within electric membership corporation\u2019s assigned territory \u2014 provision of service by city public works commission reasonable\nThe extension of electric service by defendant city\u2019s Public Works Commission, which was not an \u201celectric supplier\u201d within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 62-110.2(a)(3), to a site the Utilities Commission had assigned to an electric supplier was \u201cwithin reasonable limitations\u201d as that phrase is used in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-312, since an assignee does not have an exclusive right to serve within a territory; since the PWC was not an electric supplier, it was not prohibited from supplying electric service to the site; PWC served five other customers, including three who were industrial, within a mile radius of the site; PWC was ready, willing, and able to provide the required service to the site, while plaintiff electric membership corporation did not have the readiness to serve the site; and extension of service to the site by PWC was reasonable.\nAm Jur 2d, Electricity, Gas, and Steam \u00a7 19; Public Utilities \u00a7\u00a7 16 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment entered 22 July 1992 by Judge Giles R. Clark in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 October 1993.\nPlaintiffs South River Electric Membership Corporation (South River) and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) initiated this action on 13 August 1991, by filing a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions to restrain and enjoin defendant Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville (PWC) from further constructing, upgrading, or connecting an electric distribution system outside the city limits of Fayetteville and to restrain defendant Maidenform, Inc. (Maidenform) from accepting electric service from PWC for its distribution facility. On the basis of the verified complaint, the trial court entered a temporary restraining order on 13 August 1991, but later denied plaintiffs\u2019 request for a preliminary injunction. Following trial without a jury on 6 and 7 July 1992, the court entered judgment on 22 July 1992, denying plaintiffs\u2019 claim for an injunction prohibiting PWC from providing Maidenform with electric power. Plaintiffs appeal from this judgment.\nRobert H. Jones for plaintiff-appellant South River Electric Membership Corporation, and Thomas J. Bolch for plaintiff-appellant North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation.\nReid, Lewis, Deese & Nance, by Renny W. Deese and Richard M. Lewis, Jr., for defendant-appellees The City of Fayetteville and Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville.\nR. Joyce Garrett for defendant-appellee Maidenform, Inc." }, "file_name": "0401-01", "first_page_order": 431, "last_page_order": 435 }