Arizona Corp. Commission v. Arizona Public Service Co.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 12697,12697 |
| Citation | 113 Ariz. 368,555 P.2d 326 |
| Parties | ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by Charles S. Pierson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Murphy & Storey by Robert T. Murphy, Phoenix for Ariz. Corp. Commission.
Kenneth Sundlof, Bruce Meyerson, Phoenix, for Power.
Snell & Wilmer, by Mark B. Wilmer, Edward Jacobson and Jaron B. Norberg Phoenix, for Ariz. Public Service Co.
This matter came to the Supreme Court in a procedurally unusual manner, a manner which is of necessity reserved to those unusual cases which present a far-reaching, statewide problem demanding in the public interest an early solution.
The Arizona Corporation Commission filed a Petition for Special Action, No. 12683, against the respondent Superior Court Judge and real parties in interest, Arizona Public Service Company and an unincorporated association concerned with power rates. Prior thereto the aforesaid unincorporated association and three individuals had filed a Petition for Special Action, No. 12697, naming the same Superior Court Judge as respondent and Arizona Public Service Company as real party in interest.
Pursuant to a stipulation presented by all parties to both actions, the court consolidated the actions and ordered that the consolidated action be treated as an appeal. Briefs were filed and oral argument was had.
On March 5, 1975 Arizona Public Service Company filed a formal application with the Corporation Commission for a hearing to determine the fair value of the property of the Company for ratemaking purposes, and to fix a just and reasonable rate thereon. The Company also sought approval of the emergency interim rate schedule approved January 16, 1975 and a determination that said rate schedules should be made permanent. Hearings commenced May 12, 1975 and concluded on July 11, 1975. In its opinion and order dated October 30, 1975, the Commission found a fair-value rate base at the end of the test year in the amount of $957,478,500 and a fair rate of return of 7.882%. The interim increases of 17.7% For electric and 11.68% For gas service which had been allowed in January were approved, but the Company's request for an additional 7% Was rejected.
Previously, in September of 1974, the Company had filed an application for a rate increase, but the hearing had been deferred because the Commission lacked funds to make the requisite investigation. After the hearing, the interim rates mentioned above were granted. Some further delay was occasioned by the Company's request for continuance.
On November 12, 1975 the appellee company, pursuant to ARS § 40--254, filed an action in the Superior Court alleging that the Commission's order violated due process of law in that it would result in confiscation of the Company's property.
On January 12, 1976 the matter was tried before Judge Case. The Company presented the testimony of one witness, the vice-president and treasurer of the utility. He gave a history of the financial difficulties of the Company resulting in a lower rating of the utility's bonds. The witness then pointed out the descending amount of the rate of return on fair value as time progressed. He stated that the rates set by the Commission are confiscatory and will make the financing of the Company's construction program expensive, and if not impossible, at least much more difficult. He further indicated that in confining the testimony and evidence of fair value to the calendar year 1974 which had been designated as the historic test year, an unfair and illegal result obtained.
The witness pointed out that by September 30, 1975 plant additions were over $71,000,000 and that by year end 1976, plant additions in the amount of $209,000,000 will be in service. None of this evidence was considered by the Commission in determining the Company's fair-value rate base.
On April 19, 1976 the Superior Court Judge signed a judgment vacating and setting aside Order No. 46512 of the Corporation Commission, authorizing Arizona Public Service to file a schedule of reasonable rates to be charged, and setting a bond in the amount of $250,000. Thereafter, as heretofore indicated, special actions were filed which were consolidated as an appeal.
The appellee, Arizona Public Service Co., asserted that the use of a historic test year in inflationary times with a rapidly expanding plant structure, becomes confiscatory. An examination of the record, however, indicates that there is no evidentiary basis for holding that the rate set by the Commission is at this juncture confiscatory. Prospectively the rate may well become confiscatory, but appellants contend that appellee's relief lies in a new demand for rate adjustment.
The Arizona Constitution, article 15, section 3, gives the Corporation Commission the power to make reasonable rates and charges to be collected by public service corporations. Article 15, section 14, requires the Commission to ascertain the fair value of the property within the state, of every public service doing business therein. Under the constitution as interpreted by this court, the Commission is required to find the fair value of the company's property and use such finding as a rate base for the purpose of determining what are just and reasonable rates. Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., 80 Ariz. 145, 294 P.2d 378 (1956).
The company is entitled to a reasonable return upon the fair value of its properties at the time the rate is fixed. Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., supra. This however presents the problem with which we are confronted. The argument of the appellee is that the 'fair value' set by the Commission is prospectively confiscatory because the use of a historic year produces a rate which is obsolete before it is set.
Even though there may be some merit to appellee's position, we are bound by the constitution and our previous decisions. We said in Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., supra:
'The commission in exercising its rate-making power of necessity has a range of legislative discretion and so long as that discretion is not abused, the court cannot substitute its judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson Utilities, L.L.C. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n
...discretion" regarding the method it uses to calculate it. Id . at 151, 154, 294 P.2d 378 ; see Ariz. Corp. Comm'n v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. , 113 Ariz. 368, 370–71, 555 P.2d 326, 328-29 (1976) (stating that Simms stands for the proposition that "[t]he determination of the formula to be used b......
-
Sun City Home Owners Ass'n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n
...in mind that all parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to rebut evidence presented." Ariz. Corp. Comm’n v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. , 113 Ariz. 368, 371, 555 P.2d 326, 329 (1976). Although Arizona Public Service only addressed the inclusion of "projects contracted for and commenced d......
-
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. ARIZONA ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC.
...as the method complies with the constitutional mandate and is not arbitrary and unreasonable." Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 113 Ariz. 368, 371, 555 P.2d 326, 329 (1976). Consequently, assuming the Commission establishes a range of rates that is "just and reasonable," the ......
-
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Entex, Inc.
...common equity." Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., 80 Ariz. 145, 294 P.2d 378 (1956); see, Arizona Corp. Comm'n v. Arizona Public Service Co., 113 Ariz. 368, 555 P.2d 326 (1976) (en banc); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of Ohio, 42 Ohio St.2d 403, 330 N......