翻訳と辞書 ・ Miller Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania
・ Miller Township, Knox County, Nebraska
・ Miller Township, Knox County, Ohio
・ Miller Township, LaSalle County, Illinois
・ Miller Township, Pennsylvania
・ Miller Township, Perry County, Pennsylvania
・ Miller Transit
・ Miller Trunk Corridor
・ Miller twist rule
・ Miller v Jackson
・ Miller v Janks
・ Miller v Miller
・ Miller v R
・ Miller v. Alabama
・ Miller v. Albright
・ Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission
・ Miller v. California
・ Miller v. Campbell
・ Miller v. Commissioner
・ Miller v. Davis
・ Miller v. Jenkins
・ Miller v. Johnson
・ Miller v. Korns
・ Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.
・ Miller v. Schoene
・ Miller v. Skumanick
・ Miller v. United States
・ Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
・ Miller Valley
・ Miller Valley Veterans Monument
|
|
| Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission
According to the Arizona state Constitution, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has the full power to, “prescribe just and reasonable classifications to be used and just and reasonable rates and charges to be made and collected, by public service corporations within the state for service rendered therein, and make reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, by which such corporations shall be governed in the transaction of business within the state…”〔(“Arizona Constitution” ), Arizona State Legislature.〕 In a controversial move, the ACC adopted a new policy known as the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST). REST required public utilities in Arizona to run a certain amount of their power from renewable energy sources. The move brought into question whether the ACC had constitutional authority to impose such a requirement on utilities. The Goldwater Institute filed suit arguing that the ACC had expanded its powers beyond its constitutional jurisdiction.〔(“Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission” ), The Goldwater Institute.〕 According to the director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center For Constitutional Litigation, Clint Bolick, “The rules are an unconstitutional power grab by an agency that is rapidly becoming Arizona’s fourth branch of government.”〔Rhoades, Starlee.(“Goldwater Institute Challenges $48.2 million APS Rate Charge” ), Goldwater Institute News Release, June 27, 2008.〕 The Arizona Public Service (APS) utility estimated that for the fiscal year of 2008, the cost of the new renewable energy standards would cost $48.2 million. By 2012, the APS estimated the costs would reach $347 million. But Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, issued an opinion saying that they were within their constitutional jurisdiction to set a renewable energy standard.〔O’Grady, Patrick.(“Goldwater Institute sues Arizona Corporation Commission over renewable energy fee” ), Phoenix Business Journal, June 27, 2008.〕
==Lawsuit==
In June 2008, the Goldwater Institute filed a request to the Arizona Supreme Court to strike down the regulations imposed by the ACC. In November 2008, the Goldwater Institute re-filed in two lower courts where the Maricopa County Superior Court finally accepted Goldwater’s request to hear the case. Oral arguments began in June 2009. On September 2, 2009, a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the Arizona Corporation Commission. Two months later, the Goldwater Institute filed an appeal.〔(“Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission” ), The Goldwater Institute.〕 Reflecting on Goldwater’s attempts to overturn the ACC’s renewable energy standards, Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in Public Interest, said, “I don’t see how investing in renewable energy can be a bad thing for our state.”〔Náñez, Dianna.(“Goldwater Institute Blazing a Conservative Legal Trail” ), The Arizona Republic, March 28, 2010.〕 Currently, the appeal is still pending.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|