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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-608 (2026)

Financing charges; trueup mechanism; civil action

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

40-608. Financing charges; true-up mechanism; civil action

A. Financing charges are nonbypassable, are mandatory and apply to all customers.  Financing revenues shall be used solely for the payment of ongoing financing costs.

B. The true-up mechanism shall correct for any overcollection or undercollection of financing revenues and provide for timely and complete payment of ongoing financing costs.  Adjustments to financing charges that are made in accordance with the true-up mechanism shall be applied through an equal percentage change to all unit financing charges or through an alternative nondiscretionary mathematical process of adjusting unit financing charges that is included in the true-up mechanism and that is described in the application. 

C. For combined cooperative securitization, the true-up mechanism may also allocate or reallocate financing costs or financing charges and unit financing charges to the customers of the cooperative applicants.

D. Adjustments to the financing charges and unit financing charges resulting from the application of the true-up mechanism are not subject to regulation by the commission and are effective without any order or action of the commission or any other body, except as provided in subsection E of this section.

E. After transition bonds have been issued, the determination and imposition of financing charges, the recovery of financing revenues and the adjustment of the financing charges through the true-up mechanism are not subject to review or approval by any government entity including state agencies, public corporations, municipalities or other instrumentalities of this state, except that the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction to and, on commencement of a suit against the qualified special purpose entity by a customer, may review and determine whether there has been a mathematical or administrative error in any of the following:

1. The calculation or application of the true-up mechanism.

2. The calculation of the resulting financing charges and unit financing charges.

F. The jurisdiction and authority of the superior court in an action under this section is limited to determining the financing charges and unit financing charges that result from the correct calculation and application of the true-up mechanism.  The superior court shall not order or require any modification to the true-up mechanism or limit, reduce, alter, impair, delay or terminate the application of the true-up mechanism or the collection and remittance of financing revenues.  A party may not bring any action to enjoin, restrain, stay or delay the validity, calculation and imposition of financing charges or the collection of financing revenues, including the establishment and application of the true-up mechanism and the collection and remittance of financing revenues.  An action under this section must be filed within ten days after the qualified special purpose entity or servicer files notice with the commission under subsection K of this section.  The time for bringing the action may not be tolled or extended for any reason.  Within sixty days after the filing of an action under this section, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter. The decision is appealable only to the supreme court, and the notice of appeal shall be filed within five days after the decision of the superior court in the action.  The supreme court shall issue a decision on the appeal promptly but not later than ninety days after the notice of appeal is filed with the supreme court. 

G. A court may not enjoin, restrain, stay or delay the application of the true-up mechanism or the collection and remittance of financing revenues.  If the final judgment of the superior court, after all appeals are exhausted, requires a modification of any adjustment made under the true-up mechanism, the servicer shall make that modification at the time of and as part of the next periodic adjustment of the financing charges following the final judgment and exhaustion of all appeals through the true-up mechanism. 

H. Any adjustments that are made pursuant to the true-up mechanism, any review of the calculations of those adjustments or any action brought to determine whether there has been a mathematical or administrative error in the application of the true-up mechanism shall not affect the irrevocability of the transition property, the financing charges, the financing order, the nonbypassibility of the financing charges and unit financing charges or the nonimpairment pledges prescribed in section 40-610.

I. Regardless of whether financing charges are administered, billed or collected by a servicer that is a public service corporation, the financing charges are not rates or charges imposed or made by a public service corporation for electric service, and the right to receive financing charges and to collect resulting financing revenues is independent of any rate that is established, made or charged by a public service corporation for electric services and the revenues collected thereunder.  Financing revenues are the property of the qualified special purpose entity and are not the property of the servicer or any other public service corporation.

J. The servicer, as agent for the qualified special purpose entity, at a minimum semiannually and quarterly during the two-year period preceding the final maturity date of the transition bonds or the final maturity date of the series, class or tranche of the bonds with the latest final maturity date, if more than one series, class or tranche has been issued, shall perform calculations for both of the following:

1. Estimating whether the existing financing charges and resulting financing revenues are sufficient to provide for timely and complete payment of ongoing financing costs or whether an overcollection or undercollection of financing revenues is projected.

2. Undertaking the processes used in the true-up mechanism to determine the adjustment to the financing charges projected to correct for any overcollection or undercollection of financing revenues.

K. The qualified special purpose entity or the servicer as agent for the qualified special purpose entity shall file with the commission an informational notice that identifies the adjusted unit financing charges that are to be included on a customer's bills under the transition billing services tariff.  This notice shall be provided not later than fifteen days before the date the unit financing charges become effective.  The notice shall provide sufficient information to verify the mathematical calculation of the adjusted financing charges and unit financing charges that result from applying the true-up mechanism.

L. If a customer does not pay any unit financing charge, the qualified special purpose entity or the servicer as agent of and in the name of the qualified special purpose entity may bring suit in any court of competent jurisdiction against the customer to collect the unpaid unit financing charges.  Reasonable attorney fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party. Commencement of the suit does not affect the calculation of any adjustment that is authorized by the true-up mechanism until and unless net proceeds are recovered and paid to the qualified special purpose entity as financing revenues.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1958–1969 · leading case: Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell, 388 P.2d 155 (Ariz. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell, 388 P.2d 155 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 18× “” The certificate under A.R.S. § 40-608, however, is not a grant of monopoly, and, if the law is properly administered, new persons can enter the field of contract motor carriage.”
Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Reliable Transp. Co., 346 P.2d 1091 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 6× “1 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-608, appellants applied to the Commission for permits to operate, as contract motor carriers for the transportation of petroleum and petroleum products, in bulk, in tank transport equipment over irregular routes between all points and places in Arizona…”
Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Cont'l Sec. Guards, 443 P.2d 406 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 4× “§ 40-607 a common motor carrier is required to satisfy the Commission that ‘the public convenience and necessity requires the proposed service * * * ’ A.R.S. § 40-608 requires the Commission to find that the granting of a permit to a contract motor carrier — • “ ‘ * * * will not…”
Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. Senner, 373 P.2d 370 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 40-608, subd. C., which governs applications for contract carriers, requires only that the Commission find: “that the privilege sought will not endanger the safety of the public or interfere with the public use of the public highways, or impair the condition or…”
Old Pueblo Transit Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 329 P.2d 1108 (Ariz. 1958). “” Section 40-607, in prescribing what an application for a certificate of convenience and necessity shall contain, pro-' vides in subsection A, paragraph 3: “The public highways over which, and the fixed termini or regular route, if any, between or over which applicant desires…”
Meyer v. Senner, 361 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 7× “If this carriage is a type of carriage which is subject to control by the corporation commission at all it would have to be a contract carriage which is regulated under A.R.S. § 40-608. Whether petitioner is a contract carrier or no carrier at all, which we need not decide and…”
Boyes v. State, 459 P.2d 86 (Ariz. 1969). · cites it 2× “During this same period, the Arizona Corporation Commission filed a criminal complaint against Boyes alleging his operation as a contract carrier for compensation on the highways of Arizona without having first obtained the permit required for all contract carriers, A.R.S. §…”
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.