Complaints may be made by the Commission on its own motion or by any person having an interest, either direct or as a representative of any persons having a direct interest in the subject matter of such complaint by petition or complaint in writing setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule, regulation or rate heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility in violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission, or that any rate, service, classification, rule, regulation or practice is unjust and unreasonable. Upon good cause shown and in compliance with the rules of the Commission, the Commission shall also allow any such person authorized to file a complaint, to intervene in any pending proceeding. The Commission, by rule, may prescribe the form of complaints filed under this section, and may in its discretion order two or more complaints dealing with the same subject matter to be joined in one hearing. Unless the Commission shall determine, upon consideration of the complaint or otherwise, and after notice to the complainant and opportunity to be heard, that no reasonable ground exists for an investigation of such complaint, the Commission shall fix a time and place for hearing, after reasonable notice to the complainant and the utility complained of, which notice shall be not less than 10 days before the time set for such hearing. (1949, c. 989, s. 1; 1963, c. 1165, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Indus. Grp. for Fair Util. Rates, 503 S.E.2d 697 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 17× “N.C. Gen Stat. § 62-73 (1989). Thereafter, the Commission must schedule a hearing, “[u]nless [it] shall determine, upon consideration of the complaint or otherwise, and after notice to the complainant and opportunity to be heard, that no reasonable ground exists for an…”
Vill. of Bald Head Island v. Bald Head Island Transp. (N.C. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 12× “By its plain language and designation as “Complaints against public utilities[,]” N.C.G.S. § 62-73 governs when a complaint may be properly brought against a public utility.”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Edmisten, 227 S.E.2d 593 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “62-136(a), the legislature has given the Commission specific procedural and substantive guidelines to follow in fixing rates.”
State Ex Rel. Util. Com'n v. Carolina Water, 598 S.E.2d 179 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 62-73 (2003). OCV had a direct interest in the subject matter in that it was, at the time of the complaint, the owner of one phase of the land in question (referred to as Corolla Shores or Monterey Shores Phase III) and under an option contract with respect to…”
Bald Head Island Ltd., LLC v. Vill. of Bald Head Island (N.C. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “We held the language of section 62-73, which provides the mechanism through which a party may invoke the Utilities Commission’s jurisdiction, when read in tandem with the Declaratory Judgment Act, provided the Utilities Commission with jurisdiction to order declaratory judgment,…”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. North Carolina Elec. Membership Corp., 412 S.E.2d 166 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 5× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-73 (1989). By mentioning this alternative method of bringing concerns before the Commission, however, we do not mean to suggest that the issue of the real-time system demand signal is appropriately addressed to the Utilities Commission.”
State Ex Rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Util. Customers Ass'n Inc., 500 S.E.2d 693 (1998).
“” N.C.G.S. § 62-73 (1989). Once such considerations are afforded to all parties in a contested case, the Commission is required to embody its findings in an order sufficiently detailing the reasons for its determinations on all material and controverted issues of fact, law or…”
State ex rel. Utils. Comm'n v. Cnty. of Harnett, 226 S.E.2d 515 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).
“We hold, however, that the Utilities Commission was not required to determine in this, a general rate case, rights which appellant asserts are peculiar to it and to other telephone customers in Harnett County because of the special circumstance that multiple exchanges exist in…”
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.