Hugh Caperton’s back in the news, with a new trial against his West Virginia coal-mining enemy about to kick off,  just shortly before the release of a book detailing his nemesis’s attempts to buy off that state’s supreme court justices.

Remember Caperton? He’s the West Virginia coal-mining executive whose litigation against Massey Coal and its then chief Don Blankenship wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2009 the justices held  that the failure of a state supreme court justice who’d received millions in campaign contributions from Blankenship to recuse himself when the dispute was before that court violated Caperton’s  due process rights.

Caperton had sued Massey in Virginia for breach of contract and won a $6 million jury verdict there.  He also sued Massey in West Virginia, asserting tort claims and claiming that the company and Blankenship intentionally tried to destroy him, and won a $50 million verdict there. It was that West Virginia verdict which eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Read More…

Or was everybody asleep at the switch?

On April 10, the state senate passed without objection Senate Bill 528, which on its face purports to “clarify” the oath jurors are required to take under the state constitution.

Here’s what the constitution says:

Sec. 7.  Oath.

Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:

“I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as _______________, so help me God.”

But S528 seeks to amend G.S. 9-14, which sets forth the oath for jurors, to say the following:

Each juror shall swear or affirm that he will take (i) the oath required by Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina, by swearing or affirming to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the United States not inconsistent therewith.

Is this what the senate means — that jurors are only obliged to support and maintain the laws of the United State which they deem consistent with the U.S. Constitution?

Certainly the language of S528 is contrary to that in the state constitution and is likely an oversight in need of correction.

Or is it?

Just in case you were away this past week or so and missed the news, here’s some headlines to make you feel right back at home again:

• North Carolina GOP Files Arizona-Style ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Bill
• NC lawmaker equates Islamic prayer with terrorism
• Lawmakers Pass Bill To Resume Executions In North Carolina
• North Carolina has power to establish official religion, resolution says
• North Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Penalize Parents Of College Student Voters
• Corporate tax breaks rolled out in Senate committee
• ALEC-Sponsored Bill To Repeal North Carolina’s Renewable Energy Standard Narrowly Passes Out Of Committee
• North Carolina ‘Healthy Marriage Act’ Would Set Two-Year Waiting Period For Divorce, Require Counseling
• N.C. House passes cursive handwriting bill
• Top North Carolina Republican Introduces Florida-Style Voter Suppression Bill
• Eleven North Carolina Republicans Sponsor Resolution Saying Their State Can Ignore The Constitution
• North Carolina Is Going Out Of Its Mind

The state Supreme Court today reversed the N.C. Utilities Commission’s approval of a 7.2 percent rate increase for Duke Energy, saying that the Commission failed to reach its own independent conclusion that the increase was fair and reasonable to all involved, including the company’s customers.

In a unanimous decision Justice Barbara Jackson wrote:

Because we conclude that the Commission failed to make the necessary findings of fact to support its ROE determination, we reverse the Commission‘s order and remand this case to the Commission so that it may enter sufficient findings of fact.

* * *

We further note that in making its ROE determination the Commission failed to make findings of fact regarding the impact of changing economic conditions on customers.

Justice Cheri Beasley, who was not on the Court when the case was argued, did not participate in deciding the appeal.

The Commission approved the rate increase to customers in January 2012 after hearing testimony from the public and from experts and concluding that Duke Energy was entitled to a 10.5 percent return on equity (ROE) — its return on investment, which ultimately affects both rates for customers and profits to shareholders.

In reviewing the record of that testimony, the Court noted that many experts failed to even consider the impact of any increase on customers, especially given the economic climate, and found that the Commission failed to make any findings in that regard. Instead, the Court concluded:

It appears that the Commission adopted wholesale, without analysis or deduction, the 10.5% stipulated ROE, as opposed to considering it as one piece of evidence to be weighed in making an otherwise independent determination.

The case now returns to the Commission, with specific instructions from the Court to make findings relating to the impact of any increase to customers.  Wrote Justice Jackson:

Given the legislature‘s goal of balancing customer and investor interests, the customer-focused purpose of Chapter 62, and this Court‘s recognition that the Commission must consider all evidence presented by interested parties, which necessarily includes customers, it is apparent that customer interests cannot be measured only indirectly or treated as mere afterthoughts and that Chapter 62‘s ROE provisions cannot be read in isolation as only protecting public utilities and their shareholders. Instead, it is clear that the Commission must take customer interests into account when making an ROE determination. Therefore, we hold that in retail electric service rate cases the Commission must make findings of fact regarding the impact of changing economic conditions on customers when determining the proper ROE for a public utility.