Cited by

at ¶ 15 (quoting Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., ).

See § 40-254.01(A); Sun City, 248 Ariz. at 297 ¶ 14 (citing Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., ).

And, although the Commission’s ratemaking decisions are subject to judicial review, such review is limited to whether its determinations are arbitrary, unlawful, or “supported by substantial evidence.” Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., Ariz. Const. art. 15, § 17 (stating that Commission orders may be appealed to state courts); see also Ethington, 66 Ariz. at 394 (stating the Commission’s ratemaking decisions are subject to judicial review).

¶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., ).

See Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., (“It is clear .

Co., Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co.

ized basis upon which rates and charges for services rendered should be made, and it is made the duty of the Commission to ascertain such value, not for legislative use, but for its own use, in arriving at just and reasonable rates and charges____ State v. Tucson Gas, Elec., Light & Power Co., , 138 P. 781, 784-85 (1914); see also Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , (“It is clear ...

State v. Tucson Gas, Elec., Light & Power Co., 138 P. 781, 784-85 (1914); see also Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., (“It is clear .

¶22 Similar to an appellate court’s general deference to trial courts on credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence, the Commission is also entitled to deference when “the [C]ommission’s ultimate conclusion or findings of facts [are] supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary or is not otherwise unlawful.” Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co.

SET cites cases involving the Arizona Corporation Commission, including Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co.

¶ 15 In Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , a public service corporation appealed the commission’s decision to set rates based on information obtained from a review of the company’s books.

See Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , Scates v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 118 Ariz, 531, 534

See Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Ariz. Water Co., , Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., -55

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.

Co., , (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).

390 (1930); Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Company

We agree with the Commission’s argument that the Arizona Supreme Court settled this issue over thirty-five years ago in Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , : It is clear, therefore, that under our 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 calculating what are just and reasonable rates.

As we later explained, “[t]he commission in exercising its rate-making power of necessity has a range of legislative discretion.” Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co.

Despite the broad discretion given to the Commission in determining what is the fair value of a utility’s property, Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , Cogent contends that the Commission may not lawfully exclude contributions in aid of construction from rate base.

Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , , State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light and Power Company, , 138 P. 781 (1914).

Arizona Constitution, art. XV, § 3; , Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Company, , , State v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light and Power Company, , 138 P. 781 (1914).

In Simms v. Round Valley, [ , ] supra, we said: “Fair value means the value of properties at the time of inquiry [citing cases],” 80 Ariz. at 151 , 294 P.2d at 382 , and “[t]his is necessary for the reason that the company is entitled to a reasonable return upon the fair value of its properties at the time the rate is fixed [citing

See Simms v. Round Valley Light & Power Co., , see generally Phillips, The Economics of Regulation 178-302 (Rev. ed. 1969).