815, Sections 2 and 3 do not prohibit such distinctions. For this reason, we reject the Cooperatives’ argument and conclude that the superior court properly entered judgment against them on this issue. ¶ 98 The Cooperatives next argue that the decisions permit the ESPs to charge different rates to similarly situated customers in violation of Article 15, Section 12, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 40-334. Article 15, Section 12 prohibits public service corporations from discriminating in the rates charged “for rendering a like and contemporaneous service.” Similarly, § 40-334 forbids such corporations from charging preferential rates or establishing any “unreasonable difference as to rates.” See also Town of Wickenburg v. Sabin, 68 Ariz. 75, 77-78, 200 P.2d 342, 343-44 (1948) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 99 The superior court ruled that the
holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery holding public service corporation obligated to furnish service to each patron at same price charged to other patrons for substantially similar service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service