With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Commission did not ascertain PG & E’s marginal cost. Additionally, at the time the Commission set the maximum rate, the average price of electricity was 8 cents to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Thus, any rate PG & E can negotiate between its unknown marginal cost and a rate that is roughly 500 to 830 times the average price of electricity, regardless of fairness to the consumer, its impact on an Affected Utility, or whether the rate provides a fair return, is deemed “just and reasonable” pursuant to R14-2-1611(A). The potential for abuse in pricing within this virtually unrestricted range of rates is apparent and can only be avoided by having the Commission, rather than the market alone, set just and reasonable rates. Cf. Arizona Cmty. Action Ass’n, 123 Ariz. at 231, 599 P.2d at 187 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 36 Additionally, for all intents and

A: holding that the utilities commission has the discretion to use a hypothetical capital structure in setting customer rates particularly where the utility is a whollyowned subsidiary of a holding company
B: holding that constitutionally conferred right to operate utility without restraint or restriction by general assembly limits courts role to reviewing resident rates for reasonableness
C: holding commission cannot authorize utility to increase rates based solely on return on stock and warning of potential danger of tying rates to one factor over which the utility exercises total control  without regard for the interests of the consumer
D: holding that the plaintiff utility company deserved a remedy for confiscatory rates
C.