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.

UNSE has been operating Black Mountain Generating Station illegally for almost two decades. It never obtained a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility or a disclaimer of jurisdiction, despite the plant exceeding 100 MW. They now argue the Arizona Corporation Commission should let them continue to violate the law as long as they pursue baseless appeals.

AriSEIA filed a complaint against UNSE after its disclaimer of jurisdiction for the Black Mountain Expansion Project was denied by the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee in 2024. However, because the ACC overrode that decision and then it was appealed, the complaint has been on hold. Today the Superior Court ruled against UNSE. It must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) for the expansion and because it never obtained a CEC for the underlying plant, it has been violating the law daily since at least 2008.

AriSEIA filed its brief today in opposition to the settlement agreement between Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff and Sulphur Springs (SSVEC), which eliminates net metering for commercial and industrial solar customers, eliminates grandfathering for solar customers, violates federal law by allowing the export rate to drop below avoided cost, eliminates the 10-year export rate clock for residential solar customers, and imposes punitive interconnection fees on solar customers. 

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. 

Joint Statement from Solar United Neighbors, Vote Solar, and the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association

Arizona Corporation Commission Disappoints Solar Advocates, Siding with Utility Profits
​
Tucson, Arizona - The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) today approved Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP) and UniSource Electric’s (UNSE) proposal to decrease Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP) rates for 2025, further undermining the opportunity to use solar energy to save money on utility bills for customers across Arizona. The Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP) is Arizona’s solar export rate, which determines how much solar customers are paid for the electricity they send back to the energy grid. Commissioners have the option to limit reductions to the RCP in order to avoid negatively impacting solar adoption, and have previously exercised this option during times of economic turmoil such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With the reduction approved today, utilities will pay less for the energy rooftop solar provides, which will ultimately discourage new installations and force the construction of costly new power plants that all customers will pay for through higher energy bills. Solar installations among TEP’s customers fell nearly 40% in 2024, and the ACC-approved reduction to solar rates will only accelerate this trend.[1]

“Today’s vote is yet another gift to profit-driven utilities at the expense of communities,” said Kate Bowman, Senior Regulatory Director at Vote Solar. “By cutting the value of solar, the ACC is making it harder for Arizonans to invest in solar—just as these same households are facing rising costs of living and utility bills and a phase out of the federal solar tax credit.”

“This decision demonstrates a troubling pattern of behavior by this Commission," said Adrian Keller, Arizona Program Director at Solar United Neighbors. "The ACC consistently approves utility requests while neglecting the ratepayers they are supposed to protect. Following their approval of APS's identical proposal last month, today’s decision continues to penalize families who invest in solar.”

“The Commission likes to say it is for an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, yet its decisions paired with federal policy changes continue to single out renewables punitively,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA). “This Commission has imposed solar only fees, continues to reduce the solar export rate, and is trying to eliminate our renewable standards (REST rule), all while the federal government has cut tax credits, imposed extreme tariffs, and enacted a de facto moratorium on all renewables development.”

Utilities earn a rate of return on every dollar they spend building power plants and transmission lines. When homeowners invest their own savings to install rooftop solar, they help avoid these expensive projects, saving money for all customers—which is exactly why utilities oppose technologies that threaten their bottom line. Shortly before requesting a 10% reduction to the rate paid to solar customers for exporting electricity, TEP filed a rate case asking Commissioners to increase the rates families pay to purchase electricity from the utility by 14%.

Reducing solar export rates will ultimately eliminate jobs, weaken our grid, and force utilities to build new energy generation—a cost that will be passed down directly to customers. On the other hand, increasing access to solar has proven to help families mitigate rising power bills and deliver critical power during record-breaking heat and peak demand.

At a time when energy bills are soaring, the Commission should be making solar more affordable, not less. Arizonans deserve the freedom to choose solar power to reduce their bills and protect against rate hikes. Instead, the ACC continues giving utilities tools to discourage renewable energy adoption and maintain their monopoly control.
 
About Solar United Neighbors
Solar United Neighbors is a national nonprofit organization that helps people go solar, join together, and fight for their energy rights. SUN's Arizona program advocates for policies that expand solar access and protect solar rights for all Arizonans.
 
About AriSEIA
AriSEIA is an Arizona nonprofit trade association working on renewables policies across the state. AriSEIA’s mission is to develop and support policies that create opportunities to advance Arizona’s economy through solar energy, storage, and electrification.
 
About Vote Solar
Vote Solar is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to advance state-level policies that make solar and clean energy solutions accessible to all. Since 2002, Vote Solar has worked to build a just and equitable energy future by leveraging deep policy expertise, strategic partnerships, and public engagement. In the face of powerful opposition, Vote Solar champions bold solutions that expand clean energy access, drive investment in frontline communities, and accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy.

[1] According to TEP’s most recent published solar installation data, comparing the first three quarters of 2023 with the first three quarters of 2024. Available at: https://arizonagoessolar.org/tucson-electric-power-tep/

AriSEIA filed nearly 1000 pages of exhibits in the Sulphur Springs rate case in which the utility seeks to undermine the contract rights of solar customers. AriSEIA also filed a response to SSVEC's attempt to strike our testimony on their underpayment to solar customers, an issue we have been raising for almost two years.

September 12, 2025
 
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Response to Staff IRP Software License Reimbursement Framework; IRP Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
AriSEIA is a member of both the TEP/UNSE and APS Resource Planning Advisory Councils (RPAC). We have been engaged with the last two TEP and APS Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). In addition to being on the RPACs, regularly attending the meetings, submitting detailed comments on the plans, presenting at the IRP workshop and IRP open meeting; we also participated in the modeling process last time.
 
AriSEIA filed comments on the original Staff recommendation on October 4, 2024[1] and then again on June 13, 2025.[2] AriSEIA continues to maintain that it is a mistake to require stakeholders to pay for their own modeling licenses. AriSEIA also filed comments refuting utility statements at the IRP workshop that stakeholders had not properly utilized their licenses on August 27, 2024.[3] AriSEIA filed comments on the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024 as required. That filing was 142 pages long.[4] AriSEIA also filed 263 pages of joint comments with Vote Solar and Advanced Energy United as to the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024.[5] That filing included 124 slides as to RMI’s analysis of TEP and APS’ IRPs, based on their use of the modeling licenses. RMI was our consultant in that matter. AriSEIA filed joint comments in the same docket supporting the need to move the IRP deadline due to modeling delays on May 2, 2023.[6] AriSEIA filed a letter to the docket expressing concerns that APS and TEP were violating the 2020 IRP Order in delaying the release of the modeling tools on April 28, 2023.[7] We note these filings now to draw attention to our robust participation in IRP dockets, but also to highlight that issues with the modeling licenses plagued all of 2023. AriSEIA does not recommend changing the process yet again, as we had just barely worked out the issues with the prior process.
 
Nevertheless, we highlight the following remaining concerns with the Utilities Division Staff  IRP Software License Reimbursement Framework filed on September 3, 2025.[8]
 
RECOMMENDATION 1: Require One Model
 
AriSEIA recommends the policy require a stakeholder to run the base case scenario or one (not two) distinct portfolio. Staff’s concerns about ability to hire consultants, Staff capacity as to time, and their lack of any modeling in the 2023 IRP process highlight how onerous this work is. There is no substantiation as to why stakeholder need to run three models. One should be the floor. If a stakeholder has the time or resources to run more, then there is nothing stopping them from doing that. Many stakeholders are on multiple RPACs. Three models per utility means that some of us would actually need to run 6-9 models. Additionally, the Commission should not further limit what constitutes a distinct model by prohibiting modification of retirement dates to be considered a distinct model.
 
RECOMMENDATION 2: Create a Scholarship Option
 
The Commission should consider a scholarship process for stakeholders that can demonstrate a financial hardship. The Commission should put parameters in place to make sure only qualified stakeholders qualify for the scholarship. If a stakeholder does qualify, they should be required to complete the requirements set out in this policy, but without paying for the license themselves. Suggested parameters may include: being a member of the RPAC, attending a certain percentage of RPAC meetings, demonstrated participation in the last IRP process, being a not for profit entity, and financial hardship either by 990 or other means. Penalty for obtaining a scholarship and not completing the requirements as set forth in this policy could be disqualification from any such similar program in the next IRP cycle.
 
RECOMMENDATION 3: Provide Data to RPAC Members That Do Not Obtain Licenses
 
The cost of the licenses and a consultant to perform the required portfolios will cost ~$175,000. This will make this process cost prohibitive for many stakeholders, thereby reducing participation and the number of eyes reviewing plans that cost >$30 billion dollars. The Commission should create an alternative option by which RPAC members can obtain more data than the filed IRP, but not data that can only be utilized with proprietary software. Additionally, the Commission could direct the LSEs to provide certain deliverables to RPAC members and/or require LSEs to run portfolios suggested by RPAC members. For example, RPAC members that do not obtain licenses should be permitted to put forward two portfolios for the LSE to run by the NOI date in the Staff Framework.
 
Because the Framework does not have line numbers or numbered bullets, we have provided a redline for Commission consideration as Exhibit 1, as opposed to amendments. This is the bare minimum changes we recommend, but also suggest inclusion of Recommendations 2 and 3, as well.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] AriSEIA Comments on the August 30, 2024 Utilities Division Memorandum and Amendments, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed October 4, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000039019.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[2] AriSEIA Comments on the Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed June 13, 2025, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000044750.pdf?i=1757656787403. . 

[3] AriSEIA Response, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed August 27, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037591.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[4] AriSEIA Comments on the APS and TEP 2023 IRPs, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed January 31, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033415.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[5] Joint Comments of AriSEIA, Advanced Energy United, and Vote Solar on the 2023 IRPs, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed January 31, 2024, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033451.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[6] Support for APS and TEP’s Request for an Extension of IRP Filing Deadline, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed May 2, 2023, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026358.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[7] AriSEIA Letter on IRP Modeling Licenses, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026311.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[8] Utilities Division Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement Memorandum, Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058, filed May 9, 2025, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000044023.pdf?i=1748461994048. 

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Opposition to Repeal of the Electric Energy Efficiency Standards Rules in Docket No. RE-00000A-24-0025
 
Dear Chairman and Commissioners:
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) respectfully submits these comments in opposition to the wholesale repeal of the electric energy efficiency standards rules in the above-referenced docket. At the very least, please preserve the sections of the rule that pertain to filing Demand Side Management (DSM) plans R14-2-2405 through R14-2-2410, as well as any other provisions that Hearing Division deems necessary to DSM plan submission and approval.
 
Arizona is experiencing significant load growth and has repeatedly set new system peak records.[1] In this environment, demand side management programs are more critical than ever. Energy efficiency and demand side management resources provide cost-effective capacity, reduce reliance on volatile wholesale markets, and enhance reliability during times of peak demand. Arizona Public Service (APS) alone meets 14% of demand from DSM program, that is equal to the share of coal in their portfolio and exceeds the amount of utility scale renewables on their system.[2] APS has more than 2 GW of DSM on their system.[3] Eliminating the framework that enables these programs would increase costs for ratepayers and threaten grid stability.
 
We are particularly concerned about the proposed repeal of R14-2-2405 and the immediately following sections. These provisions are where utilities currently house their demand side management plans, including their virtual power plant (VPP) programs. The Commission has already twice voted to uphold these programs as valuable and cost-effective resources. These programs deliver capacity for less than market purchases and help utilities manage peak load reliably.
 
The Commission itself ordered the APS VPP pilot program in Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144, following review in a contested rate case and a year-long dedicated stakeholder process. The second year of funding for that program is now included in APS’s pending DSM plan in Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088. Repealing the DSM rule sections that house these plans could undermine the ability of the Commission and stakeholders to continue building on programs that have already been vetted and approved.
 
Energy efficiency and demand side management programs are not abstract policy ideas. They are in operation today, they are working, and they are providing measurable value to Arizona utilities and ratepayers. They save money, improve reliability, and ensure that Arizona can meet the challenges of rapid growth.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA urges the Commission to reject the wholesale proposed repeal of the electric energy efficiency standards rules. Preserving at least portions of these rules, especially the DSM provisions, is essential to maintaining affordable, reliable, and resilient power for Arizona families and businesses.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
  
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona Electric Utilities Set Record High Demand Again; Demand Soars Above Original Forecasts for 2025, August 8, 2025, available here https://azcc.gov/news/home/2025/08/09/arizona-electric-utilities-set-record-high-demand--again--demand-soars-above-original-forecasts-for-2025.

[2] Arizona Public Service, Form 10-K 2024, December 31, 2024, p.5,  available here https://s22.q4cdn.com/464697698/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/PNW-2024-12-31-10-K.pdf.

[3] Arizona Public Service, 2023 Integrated Resource Plan, November 2023, p.26, available here https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Our-Company/Doing-business-with-us/Resource-Planning-and-Management/APS_IRP_2023_PUBLIC.pdf?la=en&hash=F601897086C6836F7FD33C5C2F295F47.