SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT


                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 12, 2000
                                                           -------------


                        PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


            Arizona                    1-8962                   86-0512431
- ----------------------------        ------------          ----------------------
(State or other jurisdiction         (Commission               (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)             File Number)          Identification Number)


400 East Van Buren St., P.O. Box 52132, Phoenix, Arizona        85072-2132
- --------------------------------------------------------        ----------
        (Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)


                                 (602) 379-2500
              ----------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


                                      NONE
          -------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS

RETAIL ELECTRIC COMPETITION RULES

     As previously  reported,  several  lawsuits have been filed relating to the
adoption or amendment of the retail  electric  competition  rules  (Rules).  See
"State - Retail  Electric  Competition  Rules"  in Note 6 of Notes to  Condensed
Consolidated  Financial  Statements  in the Pinnacle  West  Capital  Corporation
(Company)  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2000.

     On July  12,  2000,  a  Maricopa  County  Superior  Court  judge  issued  a
preliminary  ruling on  cross-motions  for  summary  judgment  filed by  certain
electric cooperatives and the Arizona Corporation  Commission (ACC). The motions
were filed in several consolidated cases that included challenges to the various
ACC  rulemaking  decisions  and ACC  decisions  certificating  new  suppliers to
provide competitive electric services.  Arizona Public Service Company (APS) had
also  appealed  the Rules in this  consolidated  case,  but these  appeals  were
stayed, at APS' request,  after the settlement agreement was approved last year.
APS was not involved in the cross-motions for summary judgment.

     In his  written  opinion,  the judge  ruled in favor of the ACC and  denied
substantive  challenges  to the  Rules  that  had  been  made  by  the  electric
cooperatives.  However, he concluded that some of the Rules were invalid because
of  procedural  deficiencies.  Specifically,  the judge  concluded  that several
non-ratemaking  Rules were  required to be  presented  to the  Arizona  Attorney
General for certification.  Additionally,  the judge determined that the Arizona
Constitution  requires  the ACC to make  findings  regarding  the fair  value of
property in Arizona of competitive electric service providers.

     The  Company  does not  believe  that the ruling  affects  APS'  regulatory
settlement  agreement with the ACC. The settlement agreement was not at issue in
the consolidated cases before the judge.  Further, the ACC made findings related
to fair  value  of APS'  property  in the  order  approving  the APS  settlement
agreement.

     This ruling does not immediately affect the Rules. APS expects that, in the
next few  weeks,  parties to the case will  propose  forms of  judgment  for the
court's  consideration  which will establish the specific  impact of the ruling.
Although  the ACC has not yet  indicated  what  steps it intends to take after a
judgment is issued,  the ACC could  appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals or
could elect to take  corrective  action to correct the  procedural  deficiencies
identified in the judge's ruling. Additionally,  the judge could reconsider this
ruling or stay the effect of the ruling pending further appeal. The cooperatives
may also appeal the ruling.

     Certain other appeals of the Rules are still pending in the Maricopa County
Superior  Court.  The Company  believes that the court may rule on the remaining
appeals later this year or next year.

     The settlement  agreement was separately appealed by different parties, and
judicial  review of the ACC  decision  approving  the  settlement  agreement  is
pending.  Legal  briefs  have been  filed,  but oral  argument  has not yet been
scheduled. A decision on the appeals to the settlement agreement is not expected
until later this year or next year.

                                   SIGNATURES


     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the
Company  has  duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on  its  behalf  by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                         PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
                                                   (Registrant)



Dated: July 17, 2000                     By: Barbara M. Gomez
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Barbara M. Gomez
                                             Treasurer