Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARBARINO, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 We hold that in the absence of an emergency or automatic adjustment clause, the Arizona Corporation Commission cannot impose a rate surcharge based on a specific cost increase without first determining a utility’s fair value rate base.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In July 1999, Rio Verde Utilities, Inc. filed an application with the Arizona Corporation Commission (the Commission), pursuant to Senate Bill 1252,1 seeking authorization to impose a surcharge to recover increases in the cost of water purchased from the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Smyth v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Smyth v. Ames; Smyth v. Smith; Smyth v. HigginsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1956
- Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Scates v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 2016
- Lana A. v. WoodburnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
- Ruco v. AccCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015