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
Vote Solar v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A). DISCUSSION I. The Adoption of the Solar-Specific Charges Did Not Comport with Due Process.”
ruco/thaler v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “” The Commission also argued RUCO failed to timely appeal the Decision under A.R.S. § 40-254.01, which authorizes a party in interest to challenge any order of the Commission relating to ratemaking or rate design by appealing to this court.”
Aps v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Two of the five Commission members dissented. The Commission then used this data to calculate APS's "fair value rate of return.”
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Acc (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Finally, Sun City does not contest the Commission’s factual 2 For that reason, contrary to the Commission’s argument, § 40-254.01(A), requiring a challenger to make “a clear and satisfactory showing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable,” does not apply in an adjudication…”
Burns v. Apsc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “§ 40-254(A), only parties in interest or the attorney general may bring such a challenge: Except as provided in § 40-254.01, any party in interest, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, being dissatisfied with an order or decision of the commission, may within thirty…”
Sun City v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-254.01(A). On appeal, Verrado Community Association, Inc.”
Johnson Utils. v. acc/swing First (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“As applicable, § 40-254(A) provides in part as follows: Except as provided in § 40-254.01 [which addresses orders relating to rate making or rate design], any party in interest, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, being dissatisfied with an order or decision of the…”
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…”
Woodward v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “at 481 (explaining that § 40-254.01 was adopted to make rate-case challenges much more efficient and that they are to “conform, as nearly as possible, to the manner in which other appeals are undertaken”).”
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.”
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…”
Ruco v. Acc (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 Mechanism3 ¶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(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(A) — 16 cases
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
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Acc (Ariz. 2021).
“Finally, Sun City does not contest the Commission’s factual 2 For that reason, contrary to the Commission’s argument, § 40-254.01(A), requiring a challenger to make “a clear and satisfactory showing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable,” does not apply in an adjudication…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-254.01(E) — 11 cases
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.