AriSEIA filed direct testimony today with the Arizona Corporation Commission in the Tucson Electric Power rate case. We discuss TEP’s current time of use (“TOU”) rates for both residential and non-residential customers.  We also conducted analyses related to the Company’s system-level and class-level load profiles to inform a redesign of these TOU rates.  Finally, we discuss the Company’s Customer Energy Management (“CEM”) Framework that is designed to replace TEP’s current demand-side management programs. 

​Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
RE: Comments on APS 2026 RES Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-25-0140
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) submits these comments in response to the Utilities Division Staff Memorandum and Proposed Order concerning Arizona Public Service Company’s (APS) 2026 Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan.
 
These comments address two discrete issues: (1) Staff’s recommendation to deny continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website, and (2) the proposed waiver allowing Renewable Energy Standard compliance without the use and retirement of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
 
I.                    Objection to Elimination of Arizona Goes Solar Website Funding
 
Staff recommends denial of $360 in annual funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website without articulating any factual or policy basis for doing so. This recommendation is not supported by the record and fails to account for the website’s unique and critical role in Arizona’s energy regulatory ecosystem.
 
The Arizona Goes Solar website is not a discretionary marketing tool. It is a statewide consumer protection, transparency, and grid-awareness resource. It is the only centralized, publicly accessible platform in Arizona that provides neutral information on solar adoption, interconnection, incentives, utility-specific program requirements, and Renewable Energy Standard compliance across every major electric utility operating in the state. No other Commission-sponsored or utility-sponsored resource performs this function.
 
The website serves multiple core public-interest purposes. It provides consumers with clear, comparable information needed to make informed decisions, reduces confusion that can lead to fraud or misinformation, supports proper interconnection by directing customers to accurate utility requirements, and improves grid reliability by promoting informed deployment of distributed energy resources. In practice, the website reduces downstream disputes, complaints, and administrative burdens by improving clarity at the front end.
 
The annual cost of maintaining this resource is $360. This amount is de minimis relative to the overall Renewable Energy Standard budget and has no meaningful rate impact. Eliminating funding would not advance affordability or efficiency. It would instead eliminate the only neutral, statewide informational resource of its kind in Arizona, directly weakening consumer protection and transparency for no discernible benefit.
 
Importantly, elimination of this funding is inconsistent with the Commission’s stated priorities. Chairman Myers has publicly stated that his number one commitment as Chairman is transparency, noting that “transparency is not just about access; it’s about clarity.” The Arizona Goes Solar website embodies that principle. It provides clarity, not merely access, by consolidating complex, utility-specific information into a single, understandable public resource. Defunding the website would move the Commission in the opposite direction.
 
Absent a specific finding that the website is duplicative, inaccurate, unnecessary, or inconsistent with Commission policy, denial of continued funding is arbitrary and unsupported. The Commission has long recognized the value of low-cost educational and transparency tools that support informed participation in Arizona’s energy markets. Continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website is squarely aligned with that history and with the Commission’s stated commitment to transparency.
 
For these reasons, the Commission should reject Staff’s recommendation and approve continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website.
 
II.                 Objection to Waiver of REC Use and Retirement
 
AriSEIA also objects to APS’ request for a waiver of Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-1804(A), which would allow Renewable Energy Standard compliance without the use and retirement of RECs.
 
Nationwide, a REC represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour of electricity generated from a qualifying renewable resource.[1] In every established Renewable Portfolio Standard or Renewable Energy Standard program in the United States, the core compliance mechanism is the demonstration that qualifying RECs have been both owned and retired on behalf of customers. Retirement is the act that permanently removes a REC from the market and prevents it from being claimed more than once.
 
This structure is not unique to Arizona. It is the uniform accounting framework used by state regulators, utilities, system operators, and voluntary and compliance markets across the country. The use and retirement of RECs is what ensures environmental integrity, prevents double counting, and preserves the credibility of renewable energy claims. Without retirement, there is no verifiable proof that renewable attributes have been exclusively applied to compliance rather than sold, transferred, or claimed elsewhere. Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-1804(A) reflects this national norm. It is not a procedural preference. It is the substantive mechanism by which Renewable Energy Standard compliance is verified.
 
The waiver requested in this docket would fundamentally depart from this established framework by allowing compliance to be demonstrated without the retirement of RECs. Approval would represent a significant deviation from nationally accepted REC accounting practices and would introduce uncertainty into Arizona’s REC market regarding ownership, exclusivity, and environmental claims.
 
Such a deviation would have consequences extending well beyond this filing. It would affect market confidence, undermine the validity of REC transactions, and create ambiguity for third parties that rely on Arizona RECs for compliance, voluntary procurement, financing, and contractual claims. These impacts would not be limited to APS or the 2026 plan year.
 
Fundamental changes to REC mechanics should not be decided through a single utility’s Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan proceeding. The appropriate venue for reconsideration of REC use, retirement, and compliance accounting is a dedicated rulemaking or policy docket with full stakeholder participation and a comprehensive evaluation of market, regulatory, and legal impacts. Determining the basic mechanics of REC compliance in this docket risks unintended and irreversible consequences that extend beyond the scope of the 2026 plan and beyond APS.
 
For these reasons, the Commission should deny the requested waiver and maintain the existing requirement that Renewable Energy Standard compliance be demonstrated through the use and retirement of RECs, unless and until the Commission considers changes through a broader, deliberate, and transparent policy process.
 
III.              Conclusion
 
For the reasons stated above, AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Commission reject Staff’s recommendation to eliminate funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website and deny APS’ requested waiver of REC use and retirement requirements in this docket. Two amendments are attached for your convenience.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] US Environmental Protection Agency, Renewable Energy Certificates, available here https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/renewable-energy-certificates-recs?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253, AriSEIA submits this Application for Rehearing of the Commission’s Decision that makes significant changes to net metering, export compensation, interconnection treatment, and related rate design elements applicable to solar customers. As set forth below, those changes are legally flawed, unsupported by substantial evidence, procedurally deficient, and inconsistent with governing constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and federal law requirements. Rehearing is necessary to correct errors of law, address unsupported and arbitrary findings, and remedy due process violations that materially affected the outcome of this proceeding.
At a high level, AriSEIA seeks rehearing on the following grounds:

First, the utility failed to meet its burden of proof. The Decision relies on a defective cost-of-service analysis that does not demonstrate justness, reasonableness, or cost causation sufficient to support eliminating net metering or different treatment for solar customers.

Second, the Commission unlawfully eliminated net metering through adjudication without modifying its own net metering rules. Net metering is required by the Commission’s existing rules, which bind the Commission and the utility. Nothing in the rules or Arizona administrative law permits agencies, including the Commission, to ignore binding rules. Changes in substantive policy of general applicability must be accomplished through lawful rulemaking. The Commission’s Decision unlawfully skips rulemaking and changes net metering treatment through an ad hoc adjudication decision.

Third, the avoided cost methodology reflected in the Decision does not correspond to the definition of avoided cost under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The utility’s calculation of avoided cost fails to reflect the utility’s marginal costs that would be incurred but-for solar customer’s exported solar electricity and in a non-discriminatory way compared to how the utility’s other sources of supply are treated.

Fourth, the Decision reflects arbitrary and capricious ratemaking. The Commission’s choice to eliminate the 10-year export rate lock and the premature termination of grandfathering are unsupported by substantial evidence and constitute unexplained departures from prior regulatory treatment. At the same time, the Decision imposes new interconnection fees and other adverse changes on solar customers without evidentiary support or a reasoned explanation for departing from prior Commission practice, resulting in an internally inconsistent and unsupported ratemaking outcome.

Fifth, the Decision unlawfully discriminates against solar customers. Differential treatment, including interconnection fees, is imposed without a showing of cost causation, in violation of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona statutes, the Commission’s net metering rules, and PURPA.

Finally, the proceeding was marred by due process violations. These include an unexplained reversal by Staff following the settlement process, refusal to respond to data requests or engage on critical issues, reliance on untested and shifting rationales, misrepresentations to the Commission regarding AriSEIA’s willingness to negotiate, and no opportunity for AriSEIA to respond to those allegations during the open meeting.

​For these reasons, and as set forth in greater detail below, AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Commission grant rehearing and provide appropriate relief.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AriSEIA Responds to the Arizona Corporation Commission Vote Ending Solar Protections in Sulphur Springs Rate Case

Phoenix, Arizona — The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) expressed deep concern today after the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted unanimously to approve changes to Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative’s (SSVEC) rate structure that dramatically roll back long standing consumer protections for solar customers in Cochise County.

In a 5 to 0 vote, the Commission approved SSVEC’s request to eliminate net metering for non residential solar customers effective immediately, end the ten year export rate lock for new residential solar customers, and terminate twenty year grandfathering for existing commercial solar systems. The Commission also approved the creation of punitive and discriminatory interconnection fees that apply only to solar customers. The only issue the Commission rejected was a component that would have violated federal law.

These decisions overturn years of established policy. Grandfathering protections were upheld in the original Value of Solar decision, in SSVEC’s last rate case, in the 2023 Resource Comparison Proxy review docket, and in the Trico rate case decided just last month. The Commission also had previously affirmed the ten year export rate lock and the principle that avoided cost is the lawful floor for export rates.

The Commission also declined to require SSVEC to evaluate virtual power plant programs or other modern Demand Side Management innovations that other utilities across the state are actively adopting. These programs reduce peak demand, improve reliability, and lower system costs, yet SSVEC will not be required to even study them.

In addition, the Commission voted not to require SSVEC to reimburse the documented underpayment to residential solar customers in 2023, when the cooperative paid an export rate below its own calculated avoided cost. That payment level was not only contrary to federal requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), but also contrary to SSVEC’s Plan of Administration and the Value of Solar decision.

“For years, the Commission has emphasized the importance of regulatory certainty for businesses and consumers,” Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. “That certainty was abandoned today. Decisions that were reaffirmed again and again were reversed without new evidence and without any demonstration that circumstances had changed. Customers who made investments based on Commission rules are now being told those rules no longer apply.”

AriSEIA will continue to advocate for fair, lawful, and transparent rate design and for policies that support customer choice, reliability, and innovation across all Arizona utilities.

Media Contact:
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director, AriSEIA
[email protected]
www.ariseia.org

AriSEIA submitted Exceptions to the Recommended Opinion and Order (ROO) to address several findings and conclusions that are not supported by the evidentiary record, are inconsistent with Commission practice, or undermine regulatory certainty. The ROO adopts Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s (SSVEC’s) cost-of-service study despite its omission of recognized distributed generation benefits, eliminates commercial net metering without a fair transition period, removes the ten-year export rate lock even though the Commission recently confirmed that it should remain unchanged, and concludes that SSVEC did not underpay distributed generation members in 2023 despite the Cooperative paying below avoided cost and failing to update its export rate as required. It further approves interconnection fees that are unsupported by the record, declines to direct SSVEC to evaluate virtual power plant and critical peak pricing programs despite consistent support for such programs across multiple Arizona utilities, and dismisses the legitimate transparency concerns raised by the settlement process.

For these reasons, and for those set forth in detail in the filing, AriSEIA respectfully requested that the Commission modify the ROO. AriSEIA submitted proposed amendments addressing the phase-in period for commercial net metering, the ten-year export rate lock, reimbursement of the 2023 underpayment, the interconnection fee provisions, and the virtual power plant and critical peak pricing directive.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
Re: AriSEIA Support for the 2024 Arizona Public Service Company Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) respectfully urges the Arizona Corporation Commission (Commission) to approve the Arizona Public Service Company (“APS”) Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management (DSM) Implementation Plan as filed, along with the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order.
 
AriSEIA supports approval of the APS Second Amended 2024 DSM Implementation Plan[1] because the record demonstrates that the proposed measures comply with the Arizona Administrative Code requirements for cost-effective DSM programs and because the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order concludes that the updated portfolio meets applicable evaluation criteria.[2] AriSEIA’s interest is ensuring a stable, predictable regulatory landscape for distributed energy resources and demand-side programs. Approval of the plan, along with the Staff recommendation, provides needed clarity for market participants, customers, and project developers.
 
AriSEIA also strongly urges the Commission to preserve the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Virtual Power Plant Battery Pilot Program even if other changes to the DSM portfolio are considered. The BYOD program has been approved twice by vote of the Commission and resulted from a fully litigated rate case. It is a pay-for-performance-only program designed to compensate customers strictly for verified grid services. The Commission approved BYOD for a five-year term, and the program has not yet operated through even a single summer season. Premature modification or suspension would undermine the purpose of the pilot, create regulatory uncertainty, and diminish the value of distributed demand response resources that the Commission has repeatedly endorsed.
 
The BYOD pilot is also an essential contributor to APS’s projected portfolio-wide capacity savings. APS estimates that BYOD could enroll up to five thousand customers and contribute approximately 17 MW of dispatchable capacity during the pilot period.[3] These distributed, flexible resources play a significant role in meeting peak demand, reducing system costs, and increasing grid resilience for all APS customers.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA supports approval of the Second Amended 2024 DSM Implementation Plan and the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order. If the Commission elects to modify the plan, AriSEIA respectfully asks that the Commission preserve the BYOD pilot in its entirety, including all funding allocated to the program in this plan, consistent with the Commission’s prior decisions and the purpose of the pilot itself.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Application of Arizona Public Service Company for Approval of Its Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (filed June 20, 2025).

[2] Utilities Division Staff, Recommended Opinion and Order, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (Nov. 19, 2025).

[3] Application of Arizona Public Service Company for Approval of Its Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (filed June 20, 2025) at page 3.

Arizona Public Service
400 N 5th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
 
RE: AriSEIA Comments on the APS Interconnection Manual Draft Rev. 9.1 
 
Dear APS Interconnection Team,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on Arizona Public Service Company’s Interconnection Requirements Manual, Revision 9.1. These comments are intended to support clarity, consistency, and compliance with the Arizona Corporation Commission’s interconnection rules, particularly as they relate to Maximum Capacity, screening criteria, and the treatment of Active Power Limiting systems.
 
AriSEIA’s overarching concerns fall into several categories. First, multiple sections of the Manual reference Nameplate Capacity where Maximum Capacity is required under Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-2615. Consistent and accurate use of the defined regulatory terms is essential to ensure uniform application of the screening process and to prevent inadvertent misclassification of generating facilities.
 
Second, several provisions governing Active Power Limiting systems do not fully align with Arizona Corporation Commission requirements or with best practices used in other jurisdictions. These include scope limitations, terminology inconsistencies, and restrictions that would unnecessarily limit non-parallel operating modes that are widely expected to become more common as solar and storage penetration increases.
 
Third, certain protection and monitoring requirements would benefit from additional specificity to improve predictability for both developers and reviewers. In particular, clarification of Minimum Power Protection settings and the definition of the Relative Generating Facility Rating will help ensure consistent implementation across projects.
 
A detailed list of recommended revisions is attached. These recommendations include requested edits to sections 8.1, 8.3, 10.4, 12.2, and related protection and control provisions. Each recommended change is tied either to Arizona Corporation Commission rule requirements or to accepted technical standards used in other jurisdictions.
 
AriSEIA appreciates APS’s attention to these issues and remains committed to constructive engagement to support an interconnection process that is efficient, transparent, and compliant with state requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
 
Sincerely,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

AriSEIA has previously filed multiple times in both dockets in opposition to the rules repeal. However, the Commission does not count any comments filed before August 19, 2025 as part of the REST record or comments filed before September 26, 2025 as part of the EE record, so AriSEIA filed ours (and everyone else's) again.

AriSEIA filed its reply brief in the Sulphur Springs rate case today. AriSEIA is the only intervenor in that case to provide any meaningful push back on the utility and its wildly anti-solar rate design. Our recommendations are as follows:
1.  Reject or modify the proposed settlement to the extent it establishes a Distributed Generation Exported Energy (DGEE) rate of $0.0307 per kilowatt hour for three years without demonstrating compliance with the avoided cost floor applicable and without showing substantial evidence supporting the value.
2. Reject the settlement provision that freezes net metering and limits grandfathering of existing customers to the earlier of twenty years from installation or November 17, 2035, because Decision No. 76465 stated that to deviate from that framework required a showing of good cause supported by evidence. (AriSEIA-22 at 12).
3. Preserve the ten year export rate lock in applicable to distributed generation customers because the Value of Solar decision requires a ten year lock in period (AriSEIA-22 at 10) and the Commission just reaffirmed that framework in the RCP Docket No. 23-0273.
4.  A six-month implementation buffer must precede elimination of NEM or adoption of new tariffs,
5. Direct SSVEC to perform the required annual update consistent with the Plan of Administration and demonstrate that export compensation is not less than avoided cost.
6. Require SSVEC to credit customers for the year in which they were paid below avoided cost for their exported solar (2023).
7. Reject imposition of interconnection fees that were not supported by record evidence, were first provided after the hearing, and were never subject to cross examination. (Joint Opening Brief at 12–13).

AriSEIA filed a reply brief with the Arizona Court of Appeals today in the ongoing appeal from Arizona Public Service's last rate case, in which they imposed a discriminatory fee on rooftop solar customers. This is expected to be the last round of briefing and oral argument should be held in early 2026.