The court rejected allegations that the UC's action violated the filed rate doctrine by interfering in Virginia's use of federal law under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The court analyzed both avoided-cost determinations, found the UC's correct, and rejected the alleged PURPA violation because only amounts above actual avoided costs were disallowed from rates. It explained that although Vepco had in fact argued for the proper avoided-cost method before the Virginia commission, it never appealed the decision and thus accepted the risk that other regulators might not permit recovery of the QF payments. North Carolina v. North Carolina Power, No. 230A93, Dec. 9, 1994 (N.C.U.C).
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.