AriSEIA has joined the Arizona Attorney General, Vote Solar, and other appellants in asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to deny motions for reconsideration filed by APS and the Arizona Corporation Commission and preserve the Court's decision eliminating the APS Grid Access Charge. The joint filing argues that APS and the Commission have failed to identify any legal or factual error in the Court's opinion and instead seek to reargue issues the Court has already considered and rejected.
​
The response defends the Court's conclusion that the Commission's rehearing did not cure the original due process violation. It explains that the rehearing improperly limited parties' ability to challenge the site-load Cost of Service Study, the primary evidence supporting the Grid Access Charge, while also improperly shifting the burden of proof from APS to the parties challenging the charge. According to the filing, those defects prevented the rehearing from providing the fair process required under Arizona law.
​
The joint filing asks the Court to deny the motions for reconsideration, make one technical clarification to its opinion, and leave intact its decision vacating the Grid Access Charge. AriSEIA remains committed to defending fair regulatory processes and ensuring that new utility charges are adopted only after customers and stakeholders receive the full due process guaranteed by law.

Today, AriSEIA filed a motion asking the Arizona Corporation Commission to take judicial notice of new public statements made by APS CEO Ted Geisler during Pinnacle West's second quarter earnings call.

Why does this matter?

On May 26, APS Chief Operating Officer Jacob Tetlow testified under oath that APS did not have "a definitive plan" for the future of the Cholla Power Plant, was still "evaluating different alternatives," and that "the stakeholder process" was "too early."

APS later defended that testimony through supplemental testimony and legal briefing, arguing that its evaluation remained ongoing and that no final plan existed before the APS Board approved the project on June 24.

But during today's earnings call, when investors asked why APS delayed filing its 2026 Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP"), CEO Ted Geisler gave a very different explanation. Rather than citing the absence of Board approval, an ongoing evaluation, or uncertainty regarding the Company's plans, he explained that the likelihood of being able to convert Cholla was one of the reasons APS sought the extension so the conversion could be reflected in the IRP.

That statement is significant because APS requested the IRP extension on May 22, four days before Mr. Tetlow testified.
​
AriSEIA's motion does not ask the Commission to reopen the evidentiary hearing or decide the merits of the Cholla conversion. Instead, it asks the Administrative Law Judge to take judicial notice of APS's subsequent public admissions and consider them when evaluating the weight and credibility of APS's evidence.

The integrity of the regulatory process depends on parties providing complete and accurate information to the Commission. When subsequent public statements appear difficult to reconcile with sworn testimony and litigation positions, the Commission should consider those statements in evaluating the evidentiary record.

Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Surprise
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
Re: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Text Amendment – Goodyear Ordinance and Setback Framework
 
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
 
AriSEIA appreciates the ongoing engagement with the City of Surprise on the BESS ordinance and the meaningful progress that has been made through four rounds of comments and multiple public meetings. We are writing today to bring one additional and timely development to the City’s attention as deliberations continue.
 
The City of Goodyear recently adopted a BESS ordinance that we believe offers a compelling and directly applicable model for Surprise. The Goodyear ordinance establishes a 330-foot setback from residential areas as a baseline while building in a mechanism that allows that setback to be reduced to 150 feet when an applicant submits a plume and toxic gas study as part of the special use permit process. You can review the Goodyear ordinance here.[1]
 
This approach is notable because it takes safety seriously by tying the setback to the actual science. A plume study is a site-specific technical analysis of potential emissions dispersion in the event of an incident, which means the setback reflects real conditions at a real site rather than a uniform standard applied regardless of context. Second, it creates a clear and administratively manageable pathway for projects that can demonstrate equivalent safety through that analysis.
 
AriSEIA’s consistent position has been that a maximum of 150 feet, consistent with NFPA guidance and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s own recommendation, is the appropriate baseline. We believe 330 feet with a plume study pathway to 150 feet, as Goodyear has adopted, is a reasonable middle ground that Surprise’s municipal neighbors have already found workable. What we do not support is a blanket setback that bears no relationship to the safety literature, peer jurisdictions, or  the actual characteristics of a given site.
 
AriSEIA also wishes to draw the City’s attention to the waiver provision included in Goodyear’s BESS ordinance. Section 3.11.20 (B)(7)2 of Goodyear’s recently adopted Zoning Ordinance allows any requirement with the BESS section to be waived through the special use permit process. This kind of administrative flexibility allows the City to establish a clear standard while preserving the City’s ability to respond to projects that meet underlying safety objectives through alternative means. AriSEIA encourages Surprise to incorporate similar waiver language into its own BESS ordinance, ensuring that staff and decision-makers retain the discretion to evaluate projects on their own merits rather than being bound by provisions that may not fit every circumstance.
 
We respectfully request that Surprise look closely at what Goodyear has done and consider whether a similar framework consisting of a baseline setback with a pathway for reduction (via plume study or a waiver provision for exceptional circumstances) would give Surprise the protection it is appropriately seeking while still establishing an ordinance that responsible projects can meet.
 
We appreciate the opportunity to continue engaging with the City of Surprise and look forward to working collaboratively toward an ordinance that reflects best practices and supports responsible energy infrastructure development.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] City of Goodyear, Zoning Ordinance, P.72, available here https://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/33651/639192003214330000
2 Id. at 75.

Today, AriSEIA filed its closing brief in the Tucson Electric Power (TEP) rate case, outlining recommendations to modernize rate design, improve customer access to energy storage and virtual power plants, strengthen regulatory oversight, and protect customers from unjustified costs.

At the heart of AriSEIA's case is a simple principle: utility rates should help customers make informed decisions that reduce costs and strengthen the grid.

The evidence presented during the hearing showed that TEP's current time-of-use rates are overly complex, produce limited customer participation, and fail to send meaningful price signals that encourage customers to shift energy use away from peak demand. AriSEIA recommends a simpler, more effective rate structure with stronger incentives that better reflect the costs customers impose on the electric system.

The brief also urges the Arizona Corporation Commission to expand opportunities for commercial and industrial customers to participate in battery storage and virtual power plant programs. Rather than eliminating existing storage tariffs without replacement, AriSEIA recommends that TEP develop viable pathways for businesses to deploy customer-sited storage that improves grid reliability while reducing system costs.

Beyond rate design, AriSEIA asks the Commission to carefully scrutinize several components of TEP's requested revenue requirement, including its proposed return on equity and certain shareholder-related expenses, to ensure customers pay only costs that are just, reasonable, and supported by the record.

Finally, the brief recommends important procedural improvements if the Commission adopts an Annual Rate Adjustment Mechanism (ARAM). Those recommendations are designed to preserve transparency, meaningful public participation, and Commission oversight while ensuring future rate adjustments remain fair and evidence-based.
​
The Arizona Corporation Commission's decision in this case will shape electric rates, customer programs, and distributed energy opportunities for years to come. AriSEIA appreciates the opportunity to participate in this proceeding and looks forward to the Commission's decision.

After Arizona Public Service (APS) announced plans to convert the Cholla Power Plant from coal to natural gas just weeks after testifying that it did not have a "definitive plan" and that a stakeholder process was "too early," AriSEIA asked the Administrative Law Judge to recall APS witness Jacob Tetlow for additional testimony. Instead of recalling the witness, the Judge directed APS to provide written responses to supplemental questions. APS has now filed those responses, and AriSEIA has responded.

Our response explains why the written testimony raises more questions than it answers. Among other things, APS now claims the project had been incorporated into its resource planning process, yet stakeholders were never provided the purported IRP base case on the date APS identifies. APS also admits the proposed Cholla conversion was not part of the 2025 All-Source Request for Proposals (ASRFP) and that its analysis did not include production cost modeling, fuel costs, variable operating costs, or energy market impacts.

The issue is not whether the Cholla conversion should ultimately be approved. It is whether stakeholders and Commissioners received complete and accurate information during the rate case and whether APS' supplemental testimony supports its claim that everyone was already on notice of the project.

AriSEIA's response asks the Administrative Law Judge to carefully consider these deficiencies when evaluating APS' late-filed testimony. Transparency and meaningful stakeholder participation are essential to sound utility planning, particularly when major generation decisions are announced after testimony has concluded.

AriSEIA has filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on the latest draft of the proposed Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee rules and the accompanying Preliminary Economic Impact Statement. While the revised draft addresses several stakeholder concerns, important improvements are still needed to ensure the Line Siting process is transparent, fair, and accessible for all participants.

Our comments recommend practical procedural improvements, including establishing reasonable time limits for Certificates of Environmental Compatibility, providing more advance notice for Committee meetings, creating clear procedures for jurisdictional determinations, improving public access to hearing transcripts, allowing limited discovery, expanding opportunities for remote participation, and ensuring the Commission reviews every Certificate of Environmental Compatibility before it becomes effective. We also encourage a more robust evaluation of how the proposed rules will affect transparency, public participation, and the ability of stakeholders to meaningfully participate in these proceedings.
​
Modernizing Arizona's Line Siting rules is an important opportunity to improve the process for developers, landowners, local governments, and the public. AriSEIA appreciates the work that has gone into the revised draft and looks forward to continuing to work with the Commission to develop rules that provide greater transparency, procedural fairness, and regulatory certainty while supporting responsible energy infrastructure development across Arizona.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086
 
Re: AriSEIA Comments on the Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona
 
Dear Arizona Game and Fish Department:
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Arizona Game and Fish Department's ("AZGFD") Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona. AriSEIA is a statewide nonprofit organization that works on energy policy at every level of government. AriSEIA works with state agencies, utilities, local governments, industry stakeholders, and policymakers to advance practical energy policies that support Arizona's economy, electric grid, and clean energy future.
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's efforts to develop a comprehensive resource that promotes both wildlife conservation and responsible solar development. The draft appropriately recognizes that utility-scale solar is an important component of Arizona's energy future and acknowledges that thoughtful project siting and design can reduce impacts to wildlife while supporting continued deployment of renewable energy. AriSEIA strongly supports early coordination between developers and resource agencies and agrees that project-specific collaboration often produces better environmental and development outcomes.
 
While AriSEIA generally supports the objectives of the draft, several revisions would improve the document by maintaining flexibility, recognizing Arizona's significant energy needs, and ensuring that voluntary guidance is not inadvertently transformed into de facto regulatory standards.
 
I. The Guidelines Should More Clearly Emphasize Their Voluntary Nature
 
The Executive Summary appropriately describes this document as a “voluntary framework,” and AriSEIA commends that framing. However, we are concerned that this characterization is insufficiently reinforced throughout the body of the document. The guidelines explicitly encourage local governments to incorporate recommendations into zoning codes, conditional use permit criteria, and site plan review processes. As written, there is a substantial risk that recommendations developed as voluntary best management practices will instead become mandatory local development standards.
 
AriSEIA recommends strengthening the document’s repeated emphasis that these guidelines are advisory only, are intended to support project-specific decision making, and should not be interpreted as establishing minimum design requirements or default permit conditions applicable to every solar project. For example, the guidelines could expressly state that they are intended solely as voluntary best management practices and are not intended to establish regulatory requirements or mandatory permit conditions. Each section of AZGFD’s Guidelines could benefit from a brief reminder of this intent.
 
II. The Guidelines’ Framing Often Undermines the Solar Industry and the Wildlife Conservation Goals it is Trying to Advance
 
AriSEIA has a concern related to the structuring of the guidelines. Throughout the document, potential adverse impacts of solar development are described in detail, while the corresponding mitigations, advances in technology, or contradicting research are either presented as brief afterthoughts or omitted entirely. This imbalance does not reflect the current state of the science, and it risks discouraging the responsible solar development that both AZGFD and AriSEIA want to see done well.
 
A few examples:
 
The guidelines devote significant space to avian fatalities at solar facilities, citing studies documenting the “lake effect” phenomenon, while the counter research receives only a single sentence near the end of the section. Recent studies have found no evidence of bird collisions at modern facilities in the Southwest and suggests that previously reported fatalities may have been associated with older panel technologies no longer in use. This finding deserves equal emphasis, not a footnote.
 
Similarly, the section on hazardous materials implies that end-of-life solar panels pose a significant leaching risk. In practice, this risk is rare and highly regulated, and there are well-established industry best practices for responsible panel disposal and recycling. 1, 2 Presenting the risk without the context of how it is managed creates a misleading framing.
 
The vegetation management section raises concerns about herbicide overuse without noting that solar grazing (the use of livestock, commonly sheep, to manage vegetation within solar arrays) is well-documented and increasingly seen as an alternative.3 This strategy avoids herbicide use entirely while generating co-benefits for land managers and local agricultural operations.
 
The stormwater section similarly raises concerns without pointing to the body of knowledge on solar farm stormwater management best practices that do exist.4
 
AriSEIA recommends that AZGFD adopt a consistent framing practice throughout the document. When a potential impact is identified, any associated mitigation, newer technology, or counter research should be presented with equal weight in the same section and not buried or omitted. This would make the guidelines more accurate, more useful to developers and permitting agencies, and more in alignment with AZGFD’s stated goal of facilitating responsible solar development alongside wildlife considerations.
 
III. Additional Substantive Recommendations
 
Balancing Wildlife Conservation and Arizona’s Energy Needs
Arizona is experiencing unprecedented electric load growth driven by population growth, manufacturing, industrial development, data centers, and continued economic expansion. Meeting those needs will require substantial deployment of new generation resources, including utility-scale solar.
 
The draft appropriately recognizes that solar energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and can be developed in a manner that minimizes impacts to wildlife. AriSEIA recommends expanding that discussion to acknowledge that facilitating the timely deployment of utility-scale solar is itself an important public policy objective that supports electric reliability, economic development, and Arizona's long-term energy security. Wildlife conservation and renewable energy development are complementary goals that should be advanced together.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends emphasizing throughout the guidelines that conservation measures should be implemented in a manner that is practical, proportional, and based on project-specific conditions. Recognizing the need to balance wildlife conservation with Arizona's growing energy needs will better reflect the important role these guidelines can play in supporting both objectives.
 
Soil Disturbance Should Be Centered Much Earlier in the Guidelines
 
The guidelines address soil disturbance and grading practices in Chapter 3’s vegetation management section which is located well into the document. Given how foundational soil health is to wildlife habitat, plant community recovery, pollinator contributions, and invasive species resistance, this topic warrants much earlier and more prominent treatment. Soil disturbance is not a vegetation management sub-issue but the primary driver of habitat impact and should be addressed as such.
 
Additionally, the guidelines do not note that complete site grading is increasingly unnecessary with modern solar installation designs and technologies. 5, 6 Tracker systems and racking designs can now be deployed with significantly reduced ground disturbance, preserving soil seed bank, mycorrhizal networks, and native root structures that the document correctly identifies as ecologically valuable. This is an important insight that the guidelines should highlight proactively rather than treating grading as a baseline assumption.
 
Pollinator Habitat Should Be Recognized for Its Broader Landscape Value
 
The guidelines’ discussion of pollinator habitat within solar facilities is welcome, but it stops short of acknowledging the broader co-benefits that well-designed solar pollinator habitat can deliver. Localized native plantings within and around solar arrays can function as corridors or stepping stones that support nearby rewilding efforts, wildland connectivity, and agricultural pollination services. This is critical for surrounding farms and ranches that are common in rural Arizona. These benefits should be articulated explicitly, as they represent a meaningful opportunity for solar facilities to contribute positively to the landscapes they occupy.
 
Recommendations That Significantly Reduce Developable Acreage Should Remain Flexible and Site-Specific
 
The draft contains numerous recommendations intended to improve wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, including wide wildlife corridors, rounded facility corners, avoidance of dead-end fencing, roadway setbacks, and preservation of unfenced areas. Collectively, these recommendations can substantially reduce the developable area of a project and materially affect project economics.
 
In particular, the recommendation for wildlife corridors approximately 1,300 feet wide, and potentially up to 2,000 feet under certain circumstances, represents a significant design recommendation with substantial land use implications. The draft also notes that AZGFD is continuing to study effective corridor widths for solar facilities. AriSEIA recommends emphasizing that corridor width, configuration, and wildlife accommodations should be determined through project-specific evaluation based on site conditions, target species, landscape context, and the best available science.
 
The Guidelines Should Recognize the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Recommendations
 
The draft appropriately identifies numerous best management practices addressing site selection, biological surveys, facility design, fencing, vegetation management, monitoring, and decommissioning. While many of these recommendations are reasonable individually, implementing numerous recommendations simultaneously can substantially increase project costs, extend development schedules, and reduce generating capacity.
 
AriSEIA recommends acknowledging that project proponents must balance environmental benefits with engineering feasibility, land availability, project economics, and Arizona's growing need for additional electric generation. Encouraging proportional, project-specific implementation of best management practices will better support both wildlife conservation and successful project development.
 
Cumulative Impact Analysis Should Be Project-Specific
 
The discussion of cumulative landscape-scale impacts provides useful context regarding statewide development trends. However, AriSEIA recommends clarifying that cumulative impacts should be evaluated using project-specific evidence rather than presumed solely because multiple solar facilities exist within a broader region.
 
Projects that incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures should continue to be evaluated on their individual merits rather than being disadvantaged by generalized concerns regarding regional development patterns.
 
The Guidelines Should Distinguish Between Established Best Management Practices and Emerging Recommendations
 
AriSEIA appreciates that the draft reflects current scientific understanding regarding wildlife conservation and solar development. However, not all recommendations in the document are supported by the same degree of scientific consensus or practical experience. Some recommendations, such as early coordination, thoughtful site selection, and wildlife-compatible fencing, represent well-established best management practices. Other recommendations, including specific wildlife corridor widths, reflect areas where the draft acknowledges that research is ongoing.
 
AriSEIA recommends distinguishing between generally accepted best management practices and recommendations that represent emerging science or project-specific considerations. Doing so would improve transparency for developers, permitting agencies, and local governments while reducing the likelihood that recommendations based on evolving research are interpreted as universal design standards. This distinction would also reinforce the document's stated purpose as a voluntary, flexible framework that supports project-specific decision making.
 
Conclusion
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's work in developing these guidelines and recognizes the significant effort involved in producing a comprehensive resource addressing both wildlife conservation and renewable energy development. AriSEIA supports continued collaboration to identify practical, science-based approaches that conserve Arizona's wildlife while allowing the timely development of the renewable energy resources needed to support Arizona's continued economic growth.
 
As Arizona continues to experience growth in utility-scale solar and battery energy storage development, AriSEIA respectfully requests that AZGFD include the association in future stakeholder processes relating to renewable energy, battery energy storage systems, and associated wildlife guidance. AriSEIA values the opportunity to collaborate with state agencies and other stakeholders to develop practical, science-based approaches that support both wildlife conservation and responsible energy development.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 
cc Governor’s Office of Resiliency
 
[1] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panels are Safe for Your Community, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ACP_Solar-Panels_are_Safe-for-Your-Community_FactSheet.pdf
 
[2] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/gateway/2024/10/SolarRecycling_241104.pdf
 
[3] American Solar Grazing Association, n.d., What Is Solar Grazing and How Does It Work?, https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Solar-Grazing-Brochure.pdf
 
[4] National Laboratory of the Rockies, last updated 2026, Photovoltaic Stormwater Management Research and Testing, https://www.nlr.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/pv-smart
 
[5] PV Magazine, 2026, Say goodbye to grading: New alternatives for solar on challenging topography, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/01/13/say-goodbye-to-grading-new-alternatives-for-solar-on-challenging-topography/
 
[6] PV Tech, The end of mass grading for solar projects, 2023, https://www.pv-tech.org/the-end-of-mass-grading-for-solar-projects/

Arizona deserves a transparent resource planning process, especially when major generation investments could shape the state's energy mix for decades.

Just weeks after APS testified in its rate case that it did not have a definitive plan for the future of the Cholla Power Plant, the utility announced it plans to convert the facility to natural gas.

Today, AriSEIA filed supplemental questions seeking answers about when that decision was made, what alternatives were considered, and whether renewable energy and energy storage were fully evaluated alongside the proposed gas conversion. The questions also seek information about the project's costs, supporting analyses, and how the decision relates to APS' ongoing Integrated Resource Plan.
​
As Arizona continues to experience rapid load growth, it is critical that utilities evaluate all available resources on a level playing field. Customers and stakeholders deserve confidence that major investment decisions are based on transparent analysis, sound economics, and a fair comparison of all available energy options.

AriSEIA has joined a motion asking the Administrative Law Judge to reconsider the admission of a report that claims solar energy is expensive and unreliable, arguing that the document lacks a disclosed methodology, was not authored by the sponsoring witness, and directly conflicts with substantial evidence already in the record.

The report, offered by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, is a policy brief published by the Heartland Institute. Although the witness who sponsored the exhibit cited it in his testimony, he acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not write the report, did not develop its scoring system, and could not explain the methodology used to reach its conclusions.

The publication presents itself as an "objective scorecard" comparing different electric generation technologies. It assigns numerical scores to resources such as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, concluding that solar is among the least affordable and least reliable generation resources. However, the report contains no methodology explaining how those scores were calculated, how competing factors were weighted, or how the numerical rankings were derived.

AriSEIA's filing argues that unsupported conclusions should not be admitted for the truth of the matters asserted simply because they appear in a published report. Instead, parties should be required to demonstrate the analytical basis for factual claims that are central to issues being litigated before the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The filing also notes that the report's conclusions are inconsistent with other evidence already admitted into the case, including APS's own long-term resource planning and nationally recognized cost analyses showing that renewable energy continues to be among the most cost-competitive options for new electric generation.

Administrative proceedings often operate under more flexible evidentiary standards than traditional court proceedings. Even so, those standards do not eliminate the need for reliable evidence. When a publication presents factual conclusions without explaining how those conclusions were reached, and the sponsoring witness cannot explain or defend the underlying analysis, the Commission should carefully consider whether the exhibit deserves any evidentiary weight.
​
As Arizona continues to make long-term decisions about reliability, affordability, and the future of the electric grid, those decisions should be based on transparent analysis, sound methodology, and credible evidence—not unsupported scorecards.