On Wednesday, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to
close its docket on electricity deregulation, based on concerns
over the constitutionality of a deregulated electricity market in
Arizona. The issue had been on the table since May, when the ACC
opened a docket to explore the possibility of allowing consumers to
choose their electricity provider in a competitive market.
The all-Republican Commission presumably supports the idea of
deregulated markets but was constrained by Arizona's
constitution and prior court opinions on the
issue. Specifically, Article 15, Section 3 of the state
constitution requires the ACC to set electricity rates: "The
corporation commission shall have full power to, and
shall, prescribe ... just and reasonable rates and charges
to be made and collected, by public service corporations within the
State for service rendered therein ... ." In a 2004 decision
dealing with the ACC's prior attempt to deregulate electricity
markets, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that deregulation was
essentially an abdication of the ACC's constitutional
responsibility to set rates. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec.
Coop., 207 Ariz. 95 (App. 2004).
Supporters of deregulation, including service providers,
out-of-state utilities, and certain large consumers; claim it would
lower prices through competition among providers. Opponents claim
it would create uncertain and potentially volatile electricity
prices and argue that it has failed to benefit consumers in states
that have implemented some form of electricity deregulation.
The vote was not unanimous. Commissioner Brenda Burns voted against the
action, preferring that the ACC continue exploring options for
deregulation and whether it could be done constitutionally.
Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) issued a statement in support of the Commission's
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court recently reaffirmed that the target company in a Delaware merger is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege to communications with its counsel and the privilege cannot be claimed by the seller.
In a challenge brought both by private plaintiffs and the government, a court has ruled that a health system’s acquisition of a competing physician group practice violated the antitrust laws where the transaction resulted in the health system employing 80 percent of the primary care physicians in one area.
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently announced that it will be hosting a two-day workshop in Washington, DC on March 20-21 to examine competition issues related to current developments in the U.S. health care industry.
Last November, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") with the "concurrence" of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and over the strenuous objection of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ("PhRMA"), issued final changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act premerger notification rules limited solely to pharmaceutical industry.
The Hart Scott Rodino Act (HSR) provides a federal regulatory scheme to monitor the acquisition of voting securities and assets in an effort to monitor whether such acquisitions may have anticompetitive effects on the marketplace