AriSEIA Files Comments on the ACC Line Siting Rulemaking

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: RLS-00000A-23-0251; Line Siting Rules
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
AriSEIA files these comments in response to the Memo filed to this docket by Hearing Division on August 20, 2025.[1] As a macro issue, AriSEIA is not aware of any statutory or administrative code basis for “recertification.” Projects should not be “recertified” for decades, especially with no formal process for doing so. This issue must be taken up in this rulemaking. All projects granted a CEC should be done so on a limited basis in which to actually build the project. The factors under ARS 40-360.06 will change over time. None of these factors are static. The total environment of the area, noise levels, wildlife habitat, etc. could all very likely be different decades later than they were when the CEC was granted. If a project is not built in a timely manner, those issues should be reevaluated by the Committee before any extensions are granted. That time limit should be included in this rules update.
 
R14-3-201
The definitions of party and potential party should be modified. If someone has filed a timely notice to intervene, they should have the rights of a party until their intervention is denied with good cause. The definition of “legal representative” is also confusing as a representative under Rule 31.3(c)(5) is not necessarily a “legal” representative and is simply a representative. All defined terms should be capitalized through the rules.
 
R14-3-204
More than 24 hours’ notice should be provided of Line Siting Committee meetings. The Committee should strive for the utmost notice, but not less than 3 business days.
 
R14-3-207
There is no mention of a disclaimer of jurisdiction in Article 6.2 of Title 40 (the Line Siting statutes). Where does the authority to disclaim jurisdiction derive? If there is no statutory basis for it, it should not be in the Code. Further, the burden should not be on an intervenor to provide an affidavit as to the facts supporting the objection. It is an unfortunate reality that utilities (and other applicants) have an information asymmetry over other intervenors, including the public and nonprofit organizations. Additionally, ARS 40-360.05 grants intervention as a matter of right to the applicant, local governments, and domestic nonprofits. The Commission cannot circumvent statute via its own rules. The second sentence of (D) and all of (E) should be eliminated. Further, this section does not afford enough due process by which to grant a disclaimer. Objecting parties should be able to issue data requests to the would be applicant, question its witnesses, and offer testimony and other exhibits in opposition. Disclaimer should only be granted via hearing when there are objecting parties, contrary to (F)-(H).
 
R14-3-210
Under A(5), it is not clear what documentation one would need to demonstrate compliance with Rule 38, as you would have a bar number with the Arizona State Bar. That bar number should be sufficient and you should not need to provide additional documentation like you would under Rule 39. It is also unclear why Rule 42 is mentioned here.
 
The timeline for intervention under (E) should not be different than the timeline for intervenors under (A). It should just be 10 days for everyone. Also, the procedural order that sets the hearing should state the intervention deadline.
 
Under (F), the Committee should still be required to provide due process, which should require an explanation as to why intervention was denied and a means to either appeal or be heard. As written, the rules specifically discriminate against national or regional nonprofit organizations.
 
It is unclear how (G) is supposed to work. Do the rules permit adding parties after a hearing? Or the Committee is making legal determinations before a hearing? Everyone should have the same deadline to be a party and such determinations should be made only after the hearing. There should not be multiple rounds of hearings because local jurisdictions did not become a party at the appropriate time. This will just cause delay of what is already a lengthy process. If a city or county is impacted, they should get notice at the outset by the applicant and should apply for intervention 10 days before the hearing. The applicant should be required to notify all jurisdictions within a specified radius of any aspect of the project in advance of the hearing so they can participate from the outset.
 
It is unclear why (H) is there when there is a separate section on disclaimers.
 
R14-3-211
In (A), it is unclear to us who may be subpoenaed by the Commission. Is it all parties or only the applicant? In (B), why would anyone who is not a party be able to issue subpoenas and to whom? In (H), do the objections need to be in writing? (K)(2)(c) may be unreasonable. Requiring someone in Navajo or Mohave Counties, for example, to travel to Phoenix or Tucson for a deposition is unduly burdensome.
 
R14-3-213
All transcripts should be made publicly available on the applicant’s webpage and electronically via the Commission’s website.
 
R14-3-215
All Line Siting hearings should be recorded like other Commission proceedings and the recordings should be made available on the Commission’s website. Parties and public comment should be able to appear in person or remotely, at their discretion, and those arrangements should be made by the Commission or applicant. Regarding (F), the procedural order should also include any deadlines such as this or others. Exhibits should not need to be printed. All documents should be able to be filed and exchanged electronically. The Commission should also codify a discovery process for Line Siting cases here.
 
R14-3-216
In (B), is there any requirement that both the chair and the hearing officer will be an attorney and have the relevant energy experience? (C) should specify when public comment will be taken, otherwise it is hard for the public to know when they need to attend or how long they will need to be present, which will drive down participation. We recommend holding it the first day of the hearing. In (D)(4), the witnesses should not appear as a panel. The Commission does not do that in rate cases and should not do that in Line Siting cases. It reduces accountability. (D)(6) is ambiguous. What is “material, relevant, nonrepetitive evidence”? If a party moves to admit an exhibit and an objection is not offered and sustained, the exhibit must be admitted. (F) should be revised as it is not clear that this includes representatives under the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court 31.3(c)(5) and (6)).  
 
R14-3-218
Only parties should be able to request a continuance, not “potential parties.” The definitions should be modified, as suggested above. Similarly, only parties and the Committee should be permitted to take the tour.
 
R14-3-219
(D) grants too much discretion to the presiding officer to exclude evidence. As mentioned before, if it is offered and no objection is sustained, it should be admitted. In (F), once an objection is ruled upon, the party should not be able to continue to raise it seeking a different result. Similarly, the Presiding Officer should not be able to waffle on an objection already ruled upon. Parties need to be able to rely on decisions made in the docket or in the hearing.
 
R14-3-220
Transcripts should be made available, free of charge to the parties and the public in every Commission proceeding. The Commission should continue to make them available in Line Siting matters as they have done for years. (B) should state the “Presiding Office shall require” instead of “may.” Transcripts should be covered by the applicant in Line Siting and rate cases. If someone wants printed pages of a transcript in person the page number needs to be dramatically increased.
 
R14-3-222
Does this mean that CECs will not be reviewed and voted on by the Commission unless requested by a party?
 
R14-3-226
The Committee should also require the applicant to provide water impacts as water is part of the “total environment.”
 
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 
[1] Hearing Division Memo, August 20, 2025, Docket No. RLS-00000A-23-0251, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000215068.pdf?i=1760395720620. 

ariseia_line_siting_rules_comments_10.2025.pdf
File Size:	189 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---