in superior court. The harm that could result to US West because of the Commission’s decisions exempting the Competitors from fair value rate base scrutiny or carrier-of-last-resort obligations, to the extent that these decisions are unconstitutional as alleged, is not abstract. The Competitors are now recruiting customers and competing for local and intra-LATA telecommunications business unconstrained by the procedures and obligations with which US West must comply. Thus, the Commission’s decisions directly and profoundly affect US West’s ability to compete for a market share of its former monopoly. Therefore, we conclude that US West has standing to pursue its claims. Cf. City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage Dist., 107 Ariz. 117, 122, 483 P.2d 532, 537 (1971) (<HOLDING>); City of Tucson v. Woods, 191 Ariz. 523, 526,
holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation holding district court had no jurisdiction over citys decision to shut off customers water holding that the city had standing to challenge the formation of a water improvement district that might impede the citys expansion holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law holding that the city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute allowing certain communities within the same county as the city to incorporate as towns without the citys consent