In this case we consider whether the order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (“the Commission”) authorizing a 10.2% return on equity (“ROE”) for Duke Energy Carolinas (“Duke”) contained sufficient findings of fact to demonstrate that the order was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record.

Heard in the Supreme Court on 8 September 2014. §§ 7A–29(b) and 62–90(d) from a final order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission entered on 24 September 2013 in Docket No. On direct appeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. Runkle for NC WARN, intervenor-appellant.

Maddrey, Solicitor General, for intervenor-appellant Roy Cooper, Attorney General. Henry, Assistant Attorney General and John F. Woods, Special Deputy Attorney General Michael T. Kevin Anderson, Senior Deputy Attorney General Phillip K. Gillam, Staff Attorneys, for intervenor-appellee Public Staff-North Carolina Utilities Commission. Browning, Jr., for applicant-appellee Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. Castle, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Williams Mullen, by Christopher G. Mehta Heather Shirley Smith, Deputy General Counsel, and Charles A. Attorney General Roy COOPER and North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network. UTILITIES COMMISSION, PUBLIC STAFF-NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v.

Nc utilities commission statbook