Woodward v. Azcc
1 CA-CV 15-0825
Ariz. Ct. App.Nov 8, 2016Background
- APS sought Commission approval in 2013 to impose "opt-out" charges for customers who decline smart meters; Woodward intervened and opposed the proposal.
- The Commission initially approved opt-out charges in Decision No. 74871; Woodward applied for rehearing and the Commission granted rehearing for "limited purpose of further consideration."
- On April 30, 2015 the Commission issued Decision No. 75047 rescinding No. 74871, granting Woodward’s rehearing application, and ordering interlocutory relief by staying APS’s application until the next general rate case.
- Woodward filed a second rehearing application (May 12, 2015); the Commission did not act within 20 days, and Woodward filed a superior court action on June 25, 2015 under A.R.S. § 40-254 challenging the Commission’s decision as arbitrary and capricious.
- The superior court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Woodward appealed, arguing his superior court filing was timely under § 40-254.
- The Court of Appeals agreed Woodward’s filing was timely but affirmed dismissal because Decision No. 75047 was interlocutory, non-final, and the dispute was not ripe for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woodward timely filed under A.R.S. § 40-254 | Woodward: second rehearing tolled timing; § 40-253 deemed rehearing denied 20 days after filing, so 30-day clock started June 1, 2015 | Commission: Decision No. 75047 granted rehearing of the first decision, so the 30-day clock began April 30, 2015; Woodward’s June 25 filing was late | Court: Woodward’s filing was timely because a second rehearing is permissible and § 40-253 deems denial 20 days after filing, so clock began June 1, 2015 |
| Whether Decision No. 75047 is a final, appealable order | Woodward: sought review despite interlocutory nature, arguing practical hardship | Commission: Decision No. 75047 is interlocutory/stay, not final, defers merits to future rate case under A.A.C. R14-2-103 | Court: Decision No. 75047 is non-final and interlocutory; not a final order under § 40-253(A) |
| Whether the action is ripe for judicial review | Woodward: Commission’s delay and stay cause hardship warranting review now | Commission: Matter deferred to future rate case; judicial review should await final administrative action | Court: Not ripe; review must await a final, conclusive Commission decision because current order could be mooted by future proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Church v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 94 Ariz. 107 (discusses rehearing practice and administrative exhaustion)
- Kunkle Transfer & Storage Co. v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa County, 22 Ariz. App. 315 (legislature intended courts to wait for Commission to act before judicial review)
- Arizona Downs v. Turf Paradise, Inc., 140 Ariz. 438 (ripeness: courts should not intervene until administrative decision is formalized and its effects are concrete)
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 207 Ariz. 95 (ripeness requires both hardship and a final, conclusive administrative decision)