(a) The burden of proof is on the applicant in all cases under this Article, except that any party proposing an alternative location for the proposed transmission line shall have the burden of proof in sustaining its position. The Commission may consider any factors that it finds are relevant and material to its decision. The Commission shall grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line if it finds:
(1) That the proposed transmission line is necessary to satisfy the reasonable needs of the public for an adequate and reliable supply of electric energy;
(2) That, when compared with reasonable alternative courses of action, construction of the transmission line in the proposed location is reasonable, preferred, and in the public interest;
(3) That the costs associated with the proposed transmission line are reasonable;
(4) That the impact the proposed transmission line will have on the environment is justified considering the state of available technology, the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other material considerations; and
(5) That the environmental compatibility, public convenience, and necessity require the transmission line.
(b) If the Commission determines that the location of the proposed transmission line should be modified, it may condition its certificate upon modifications it finds necessary to make the findings and determinations set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (1991, c. 189, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
City Coach Co. v. Gastonia Transit Co., 42 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. 1947).
· cites it 4× “The Utilities Commission is given the power to grant licenses or franchises for the operation of motor buses over and upon the public highways, G. S. 62-105, Utilities Com. v. Coach Co.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. City Coach Co., 67 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. 1951).
· cites it 3× “62-105 (f), used this language in interpretation thereof: “Under the provisions of the foregoing statute, the Commission may in its discretion grant a franchise which would duplicate in whole or in part a previously authorized similar claim of service, and when it is shown to…”
State ex rel. North Carolina Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Coach Co., 224 N.C. 390 (N.C. 1944).
· cites it 3× “Did tbe court below err in granting tbe appellee’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit? Tbe answer to tbe first question is contained in tbe statute, G. S., 62-105; C. S., 2613 (1). Tbe application for a franchise to operate any motor vehicle upon tbe public highways of North…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-105(a) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-105(f) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. City Coach Co., 67 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. 1951).
“62-105 (f), used this language in interpretation thereof: “Under the provisions of the foregoing statute, the Commission may in its discretion grant a franchise which would duplicate in whole or in part a previously authorized similar claim of service, and when it is shown to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.