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.