Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 40
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07 (2026)

Compliance by utility; commission order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. No utility may construct a plant or transmission line within this state until it has received a certificate of environmental compatibility from the committee with respect to the proposed site, affirmed and approved by an order of the commission which shall be issued not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the certificate is issued by the committee, except that within fifteen days after the committee has rendered its written decision any party to a certification proceeding may request a review of the committee's decision by the commission.

B. The grounds for review shall be stated in a written notice filed with the commission with a copy thereof served on the chairman of the committee. The committee shall transmit to the commission the complete record, including a certified transcript, and the review shall be conducted on the basis of the record. The commission may, at the request of any party, require written briefs or oral argument and shall within sixty days from the date the notice is filed either confirm, deny or modify any certificate granted by the committee, or in the event the committee refused to grant a certificate, the commission may issue a certificate to the applicant. In arriving at its decision, the commission shall comply with the provisions of section 40-360.06 and shall balance, in the broad public interest, the need for an adequate, economical and reliable supply of electric power with the desire to minimize the effect thereof on the environment and ecology of this state.

C. The committee or any party to a decision by the commission pursuant to subsection B of this section may request the commission to reconsider its decision within thirty days after the decision is issued. A request for reconsideration made pursuant to this subsection shall set forth the grounds upon which it is based and state the manner in which the party believes the commission unreasonably or unlawfully applied or failed to apply the criteria set forth in section 40-360.06. The decision of the commission is final with respect to all issues, subject only to judicial review as provided by law in the event of an appeal by a person having a legal right or interest that will be injuriously affected by the decision.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2007 · leading case: Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 39× “SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-360.07(0 enabled it to proceed directly to superior court to challenge the Commission’s decision.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 107 P.3d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 29× “It only requires that the Commission do so when a party requests that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s written decision concerning a CEC within fifteen days of its issuance. 7 ¶ 18 In this case, no party requested that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s…”
Brenteson Wholesale, Inc. v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 803 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 40-360.07(B) provides: In arriving at its decision, the commission shall comply with the provisions of § 40-360.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07(0): 1 case
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-360.07(0 enabled it to proceed directly to superior court to challenge the Commission’s decision.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07(A): 2 cases
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-360.07(0 enabled it to proceed directly to superior court to challenge the Commission’s decision.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 107 P.3d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “It only requires that the Commission do so when a party requests that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s written decision concerning a CEC within fifteen days of its issuance. 7 ¶ 18 In this case, no party requested that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07(B): 3 cases
Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 107 P.3d 356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “It only requires that the Commission do so when a party requests that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s written decision concerning a CEC within fifteen days of its issuance. 7 ¶ 18 In this case, no party requested that the Commission review the Siting Committee’s…”
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-360.07(0 enabled it to proceed directly to superior court to challenge the Commission’s decision.”
Brenteson Wholesale, Inc. v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 803 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “A.R.S. § 40-360.07(B) provides: In arriving at its decision, the commission shall comply with the provisions of § 40-360.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07(C): 1 case
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 165 P.3d 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “SOVA countered that the filing of its request for reconsideration pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-360.07(0 enabled it to proceed directly to superior court to challenge the Commission’s decision.”
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.