Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two holds that SRP must follow Arizona Public Records Law and rejects blanket confidentiality.

The Sierra Club, an environmental organization that opposes fossil fuels, submitted several public records requests to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (“SRP”), a public power utility, for documents related to the utility’s expansion of a power station that relies on fossil fuels. SRP denied that it was subject to Arizona’s public records requirements but provided the Sierra Club with some materials. SRP withheld other materials as confidential under a statute that protects a public power entity’s records from public disclosure as confidential, see A.R.S. § 30-805(B). The Sierra Club filed a special action seeking to compel SRP to produce the withheld documents.

The superior court dismissed the Sierra Club’s complaint, finding SRP to be a public body under Arizona’s public records law, but concluding that the withheld records were protected from public disclosure as confidential. The Sierra Club appealed, challenging the confidentiality determination and SRP cross-appealed, challenging the finding that it is a public body subject to public records law.

The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two upheld the superior court’s determination that SRP is subject to the public records law.  The Arizona Public Records Law applies to public bodies, which includes any political subdivision.  The Arizona Constitution specifies that agricultural improvement districts are political subdivisions of the state.  SRP was organized as an agricultural district.  It is therefore a political subdivision and in turn qualifies as a public body subject to the Public Records Law. 

However, the court of appeals found that the superior court erred in applying a blanket presumption of confidentiality without conducting a fact-specific evaluation.  The Court explained that the superior court misinterpreted § 30-805(B) to create a general, blanket presumption of confidentiality for all of a public utility company’s records. Instead, the statute requires a fact-specific determination of whether the utility’s records (a) relate to competitive activity, and (b) could provide a material advantage to another entity upon disclosure. The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to conduct a case-specific analysis of whether the documents at issue in the Sierra Club’s public records request to SRP met this standard.

Presiding Judge Gard authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom joined.

Posted by: Payslie M. Bowman