Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 578 P.2d 612.

43 citing documents.

Vote Solar v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Courts have long recognized that a utility’s revenue “should be sufficient to meet [its] operating costs and to give [it] and its stockholders a reasonable rate of return on the utility’s investment.” Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -34 (App. 1978).
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 “The general theory of utility regulation is that the total revenue, including income from rates and charges, should be sufficient to meet a utility’s operating costs and to give the utility and its stockholders a reasonable rate of return on the utility’s investment.” Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -34 (App. 1978) (citing Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., ).
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n 419 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Freeport Minerals Corp. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n 419 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , , 533-34, , 614-15 (App. 1978).
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corporation commission/arizona Water Company 377 P.3d 305 Ariz. 2016
Service Company, we explained, “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.” 113 Ariz. at 370, 555 P.2d at 328 (citing Simms, P.2d 378) (emphasis added); see also Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“[T]he Commission must first determine the ‘fair value’ of a utility’s property and use this value as the utility’s ra
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 23 An automatic adjustor mechanism permits “rates to adjust automatically, *13 either up or down, in relation to fluctuations in certain, narrowly defined, operating expenses.” Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶23 An automatic adjustor mechanism permits “rates to adjust automatically, either up or down, in relation to fluctuations in certain, narrowly defined, operating expenses.” Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
See, e.g., Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -34 , -15 (App.1978).
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 118 Ariz, 531, 534
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
When setting rates for public utilities, the Commission should focus on the principle that “total revenue, including income from rates and charges, should be sufficient to meet a utility’s operating costs and to give the utility and its stockholders a reasonable rate of return on the utility’s investment.” ScaTes v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, -34 , -15 (App.1978).
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West relies on the mandatory language of section 14 and the decisions in Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , , to argue that the Commission must conduct fair value rate base hearings before fixing initial rates for the Competitors.
Turner Ranches Water & Sanitation Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 991 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Turner Ranches Water & Sanitation Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 991 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Scates v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , Sun City Water Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 26 Ariz.App.
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
5 (1960) (commenting that the public service corporation gives up the right to set its own rates and to abandon unprofitable lines); Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , (stating that the public service corporation receives in exchange the right to a fair overall return on its property devoted to public service); -34 , -15 (App.1978) (same).
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 915 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 915 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
Litchfield Park Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 874 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Litchfield Park Service Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 874 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Consolidated Water Utilities, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 875 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Consolidated Water Utilities, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 875 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co., 113 Ariz. at 370, 555 P.2d at 328; Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Arizona Water Co., , Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n
Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 772 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 772 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 672 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 672 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission 601 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission 601 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
MOUNTAIN STATES, ETC. v. Ariz. Corp. Com'n 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
MOUNTAIN STATES, ETC. v. Ariz. Corp. Com'n 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 604 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979