A. The attorney general on behalf of the state or any party to a proceeding before the commission who is dissatisfied with any order of the commission involving public service corporations and relating to rate making or rate design pursuant to sections 40-243, 40-246, 40-250 and 40-251 may file within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards, a notice of appeal in the court of appeals to vacate, set aside, affirm in part, reverse in part or remand with instructions to the commission the order if the court of appeals determines upon a clear and satisfactory showing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable.
B. If the commission rescinds the order complained of, the action shall be dismissed, and if the commission alters, modifies or amends the order, the altered, modified or amended order shall replace the original order complained of, and judgment shall be given thereon as though made by the commission in the first instance.
C. The appellate procedure shall be pursuant to rules adopted by the supreme court. The rules shall conform, as nearly as possible, to the manner in which other appeals are undertaken, including indicating the content of the record on review, the briefs to be filed and the time and manner for filing the briefs, record and other documents.
D. Any party to the action, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, may appeal to the supreme court as provided by law.
E. In all appeals that are taken pursuant to this section, the party adverse to the commission or seeking to vacate or set aside an order of the commission must make a clear and satisfactory showing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable.
F. Except as provided by this section, no court of this state has jurisdiction to enjoin, restrain, suspend, delay or review any order or decision of the commission involving public service corporations and relating to rate making or rate design pursuant to sections 40-243, 40-246, 40-250 and 40-251, or to enjoin, restrain or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, and the rules, orders or decrees fixed by the commission remain in force pending the decision of the courts, but a writ of mandamus shall lie from the supreme court to the commission in cases authorized by law.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona-Am. Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 98 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 15× “Or at a minimum, it asks us to vacate three conditions placed on the approval of the merger: condition 3 (requiring affiliates to produce their books and records in Phoenix upon request); condition 13 (limiting the cost of debt that can be used in rate-making for a three-year…”
Consol. Water Utils., Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 875 P.2d 137 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 11× “Consolidated claims entitlement to a trial de novo because “[although rate orders are now appealed directly to the appellate court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01, the decisions interpreting prior appeals to the Superior Court are still applicable.”
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 354 P.3d 1127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “We find unavailing Sierra Club's argument that it is “abundantly clear” that challenging a Commission ratemaking decision must be done as a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01. Although this court has interpreted A.”
U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 915 P.2d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “”) § 40-254.01, which provides for an expedited direct appeal to this court from Commission orders relating to rate making or design.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “¶ 76 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Commission promulgated R14-2-1616 pursuant to its plenary ratemaking authority. Further, the Cooperatives did not satisfy their burden to prove that the provision was unreasonable.”
Residential Util. Consum. Off. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 355 P.3d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “This Court has jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A). IV. The SIB Mechanism 3 ¶ 14 The SIB at issue in both the Eastern Group and Northern Group cases is a form of tariff that permits AWC, with Commission approval, to add surcharges to…”
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 419 P.3d 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “On February 8, 2017, the Commission held an open meeting to discuss the proposed order and the exceptions filed to it, and on February 24, 2017, the Commission issued the Decision, which adopted a nearly identical revenue allocation scheme as the one set forth in the proposed…”
Sw. Gas Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 818 P.2d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “In 1991, the legislature added A.R.S. § 40-254.01, providing that orders of the Commission be appealed directly to the court of appeals in rate-making or rate-design matters involving public service corporations.”
Turner Ranches Water & Sanitation Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 991 P.2d 804 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “01(E); see A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A) (court may disturb Commission’s order only if it determines “upon a clear and satisfactory showing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable”); see also Litchfield Park Service Co.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(0) — 1 case
Consol. Water Utils., Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 875 P.2d 137 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“Consolidated claims entitlement to a trial de novo because “[although rate orders are now appealed directly to the appellate court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01, the decisions interpreting prior appeals to the Superior Court are still applicable.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(A) — 16 cases
Arizona-Am. Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 98 P.3d 624 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“Or at a minimum, it asks us to vacate three conditions placed on the approval of the merger: condition 3 (requiring affiliates to produce their books and records in Phoenix upon request); condition 13 (limiting the cost of debt that can be used in rate-making for a three-year…”
Consol. Water Utils., Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 875 P.2d 137 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“Consolidated claims entitlement to a trial de novo because “[although rate orders are now appealed directly to the appellate court pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01, the decisions interpreting prior appeals to the Superior Court are still applicable.”
Residential Util. Consum. Off. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 355 P.3d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“This Court has jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A). IV. The SIB Mechanism 3 ¶ 14 The SIB at issue in both the Eastern Group and Northern Group cases is a form of tariff that permits AWC, with Commission approval, to add surcharges to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(D) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(E) — 11 cases
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc., 83 P.3d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 76 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Commission promulgated R14-2-1616 pursuant to its plenary ratemaking authority. Further, the Cooperatives did not satisfy their burden to prove that the provision was unreasonable.”
Residential Util. Consum. Off. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 355 P.3d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“This Court has jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A). IV. The SIB Mechanism 3 ¶ 14 The SIB at issue in both the Eastern Group and Northern Group cases is a form of tariff that permits AWC, with Commission approval, to add surcharges to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.