{"id":12617,"date":"2016-10-26T13:01:25","date_gmt":"2016-10-26T21:01:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/in-the-matter-of-application-of-duke-energy-carolinas-llc-cliffside\/"},"modified":"2023-12-11T11:43:20","modified_gmt":"2023-12-11T19:43:20","slug":"us-nc-duke-2007","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/resource\/us-nc-duke-2007","title":{"rendered":"Dans l&#039;affaire de la demande de Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dans l&#039;affaire de la demande de Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside), ordonnance accordant un certificat de commodit\u00e9 et de n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 publiques avec conditions, NC PUC, dossier n\u00b0 E-7, sous 790&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\nLa North Carolina Utilities Commission a rejet\u00e9 la demande de Duke Energy de construire deux centrales \u00e9lectriques au charbon de 800 MW, affirmant que le service public n&#039;avait pas r\u00e9ussi \u00e0 prouver que les deux centrales \u00e9taient n\u00e9cessaires pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la demande. (Duke Energy avait pr\u00e9vu de vendre l&#039;\u00e9lectricit\u00e9 de l&#039;une des centrales). Au lieu de cela, la commission d&#039;\u00c9tat a donn\u00e9 son approbation pour une usine. La Commission a \u00e9galement conditionn\u00e9 son approbation \u00e0 l&#039;engagement du service public de mettre hors service les anciennes installations de production d&#039;\u00e9lectricit\u00e9 au charbon et d&#039;investir un petit pourcentage de ses revenus annuels d&#039;\u00e9lectricit\u00e9 au d\u00e9tail dans l&#039;efficacit\u00e9 \u00e9nerg\u00e9tique. Ordonnance E-70, Sub.790, p. 9.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the Matter of Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Cliffside), Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with Conditions, NC PUC, Docket No. E-7, Sub 790&nbsp; The North Carolina Utilities Commission denied Duke Energy&#8217;s request to build twin 800 MW coal-fired power plants, saying that the utility had failed to prove that both [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[190,61],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30102],"region":[539,642],"class_list":["post-12617","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-coal-and-gas-power-plants","resource-topic-energy","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-coal","region-north-america","region-united-states-of-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12617","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12617"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}