§ 9.2 Identifying Commission Decisions Relating To Ratemaking or Rate Design.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 9.2 Identifying Commission Decisions Relating To Ratemaking or Rate Design. Only decisions relating to ratemaking or rate design may be challenged by direct appeal. Practitioners before the commission frequently stipulate to jurisdiction before the court of appeals under the direct appeal statute. Notwithstanding a stipulation to the court’s jurisdiction, the practitioner should analyze whether the court properly has jurisdiction under the direct appeal statute. The court has the duty to determine its own jurisdiction over a direct appeal and will not be bound by the stipulation if the court finds the parties should have pursued the appeal by a judicial review action. See Ariz.-Am. Water Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 209 Ariz. 189, 190,
¶ 5, 98 P.3d 624, 625 (App. 2004).

In most cases, counsel will have no difficulty identifying whether a decision is “relating to ratemaking or rate design pursuant to §§ 40-243, 40-246, 40-250, and 40-251.” A.R.S. § 40-254. See Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n,189 Ariz. 192, 194, 939 P.2d 1345, 1347 (App. 1997) (hereafter APS). A direct appeal typically involves a decision in a commission “rate case.” See, e.g., US W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 185 Ariz. 277, 279, 915 P.2d 1232, 1234 (App. 1996) (appeal of order establishing telephone rates); Litchfield Park Serv. Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 178 Ariz. 431, 433, 874 P.2d 988, 990 (App. 1994) (appeal of order denying portion of requested rate increase); Consol. Water Utils., Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 178 Ariz. 478, 480, 875 P.2d 137, 139 (App. 1993) (appeal of order setting water utility rates).

In contrast, decisions that clearly do not concern rate...