N&O Index Card
Subject/Name: Carolina Power and Light Company
Article(s) Referenced In:
- Editorial: Fuel charge hits consumers - Fe 20 82 4A
- Group assails CP and L hike request - Fe 21 82 30A
- CP and L remains Wake County's top taxpayer - Fe 22 82 1C
- Costly work would shut CP and L nuclear plant for about a year - Fe 24 82 1C
- Commission OKs rate hikes to cover utilities' fuel costs - Fe 27 82 1C
- CP and L construction costs build up customers' bills - Fe 28 82 1
- Public staff asks utilities commission to reject CP and L rate hike request - Mr 11 82 1C
- Editorial: CP and L faces nuclear costs - Mr 18 82 4A
- Top salary at CP and L $227,383 in 1981 - Ap 9 82 1D
- CP and L raises generate angry calls - Ap 10 82 9A
- CP and L rate hike to be appealed - Ap 14 82 1C
- CP and L board members' letters defend executive pay increases - Ap 25 82 36A
- State orders CP and L to pay for violations at Hyco Lake - My 13 82 2C
- Utilities Commission members rebuke CP and L for salary hikes - My 14 82 1
- Duke, CP and L say plant problems will be fixed - My 17 82 14C
- Editorial: CP and L generates steam - My 17 82 4A
- Improved plant performance may shrink CP and L bills in Aug. - My 20 82 3C
- CP and L plan calls for cut in bills - My 26 82 1C
- CP and L's Smith to earn $275,000 for 1982 - Jn 9 82 1
- Public Staff gets CP and L figures on officials' salaries - Jn 11 82 6A
- Editorial: Let CP and L stockholders pay - Jn 12 82 4A
- CP and L says sabotage suspected in damage to monitoring devices - Jn 30 82 1C
- Public Staff seeking cut in CP and L rates - Jy 2 82 1
- CP and L blasts rate cut proposal - Jy 3 82 1C
- Editorial: Landmark for CWIP - Jy 5 82 4A
- CP and L N-plants cited by NRC in 12 incidents - Jy 8 82 1C
- CP and L rate hike hearing draws 200 unhappy Wayne residents - Jy 16 82 2D
- CP and L faces possible $120,000 fine for safety violation - Jy 17 82 1
- Carolina Action, CP and L official discuss request for hike in rates - Jy 20 82 3C
- CP and L chief cites need for rate hikes - Jy 21 82 1
- CP and L chairman says customers should pay for halted Harris units - Jy 22 82 1C
- Editorial: Holding CP and L accountable - Jy 26 82 4A
- All CP and L reactors down through middle of August - Jy 28 82 1
- CP and L omits more safety tests - Jy 30 82 1D
- CP and L plant (Brunswick) down more than planned - Jy 31 82 12C
- Editorial: CP and L does it again - Au 2 82 4A
- Court rejects charges added by CP and L, Vepco - Au 4 82 1
- CP and L forced to delay start-up of nuclear units - Au 5 82 19A
- CP and L pays for safety violations - Au 17 82 1C
- CP and L plants rank lowest in safety report - Au 19 82 1C
- Petition drive formed to fight CP and L rate hike - Au 20 82 3D
- Editorial: Shaky nuclear record - Au 21 82 4A
- CP and L seeks 18.7% rate hike for 20 wholesale customers - Au 26 82 13A
- Agency to buy another share of CP and L plants - Au 27 82 8C
- High costs, safety fines plague CP and L N-plants - Se 5 82 1
- CP and L rule could hike cable system expansion cost - Se 10 82 1
- CP and L, cable companies clash - Se 11 82 1C
- CP and L creates post at troubled plant (Brunswick) - Se 16 82 8B
- Group offers petitions opposing utility rate hike - Se 16 82 4C
- CP and L denied bulk of rate hike request - Se 25 82 1
- Statement by CP and L official responding to ruling - Se 25 82 7A
- Profits are a central issue in utilities rate increases - Se 26 82 17A
- Utilities panel strengthening stance against industry, observers report - Se 26 82 1
- CP and L stock prices fall following rate decision - Se 28 82 1C
- Editorial: CP and L gets a message - Se 28 82 4A
See a typo in our data? Let us know and we'll fix it.
Places you might find this article:
Search For This Topic
Help us correct this text for future researchers.
Type your transcription below – don't worry about formatting. Please include the line number you are correcting.
Thank you!