Gov. Cooper files motion to dismiss Town of La Grange lawsuit

On May 8 the Town of La Grange filed a lawsuit against Gov. Cooper in Superior Court requesting a declaratory judgment that one of his Executive Orders violated N.C.G.S. 159B-22*. The Town asserts the order unlawfully interferes with the ability of utility service providers to exercise their own discretion and judgment in collecting charges for utility services provided to their customers.

The Town, represented by the lawyers of Cauley Pridgen, argued before the Honorable James Gale in Superior Court on July 9.

“Based on the arguments made,” said attorney James P. Cauley III “the municipality has vested rights from statute 159B-22 and asks respectfully to deny the state’s motion to dismiss.”

Governor Roy Cooper submitted a brief in opposition to the Town’s motion for a preliminary injunction and in support of his motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

“Our attorneys asked the judge to uphold the executive orders and leave in place the Governor’s protections that keep customers from having their utilities be cut off,” said Laura Brewer, Communications Director.

Elizabeth City was granted a waiver by Governor Cooper and the Town of La Grange sought to do the same. The state represented by Special Deputy Attorney Brian Rabinovitz argued that Elizabeth City turned in the information requested and the Town of La Grange had not.

On July 16, State Treasurer Dale R. Folwell, CPA, called on Gov. Roy Cooper and Attorney General Josh Stein to grant waivers from Executive Order 142 for cities that operate citizen-owned utilities like ElectriCities of North Carolina. Without the waivers, some of the citizen-owned utilities could face potential bankruptcy.

“We’re in uncharted territory now with the inability of cities to collect not only electric fees but sanitation, sewer and water fees as well,” said Treasurer Folwell. “That’s why I’m asking the Local Government Commission to create a Working Group, which will include the governor, to find out exactly how big this problem is and what we can do about preventing these utilities from going bankrupt. We don’t have the capacity or the desire to take over and run all of these utilities.”

On July 30, Folwell voiced his support for the City Council of Elizabeth City’s decision to resume collections of utility payments in opposition to Executive Order 142. On June 8, the city voted to request Attorney General Josh Stein and Gov. Roy Cooper grant the city a waiver from the order. 

“I’m disappointed that the unintended economic consequences of Executive Order 142 are not being considered,” said Treasurer Folwell. “I believe that elected city councils and county commissions know their customers better than people in Raleigh and for decades they have come up with fair and equitable solutions that will not bankrupt the utilities, cities or its citizens. All hearts pump blood, but theirs also pump compassion.”

After the attorneys wrapped up their arguments, the Honorable James Gale brought the proceedings to a close. Neuse News will continue to follow this story and update our readers from time to time.

*§ 159B-22. Agreement of the State. The State does hereby covenant and agree with the holders of any bonds that so long as any bonds of a municipality or joint agency are outstanding and unpaid the State will not limit or alter the rights vested in such municipality or joint agency to acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, enlarge, better, extend, own, operate and maintain its electric system or any project or interest therein, as the case may be, or to establish, maintain, revise, charge, and collect the rents, rates, fees and charges referred to in this Chapter and to fulfill the terms of any agreements made with the holders of the bonds or in any way impair the rights and remedies of the bondholders, until the bonds, together with interest thereon, interest on any unpaid installment of interest, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceedings by or on behalf of the bondholders, are fully paid, met and discharged. (1975, c. 186, s. 1.)