APS has been charging a punitive and discriminatory fee against residential rooftop solar customers for almost a year and AriSEIA has been fighting it every step of the way. Today we joined with the Solar Energy Industries Association and two individual ratepayers in filing for an appeal with the Arizona Court of Appeals.

AriSEIA filed for reconsideration/rehearing today on the APS grid access charge and "legacy adjustment." These are two charges that uniquely punish solar customers for using less power from APS. The fee is currently ~$2.50 a month per customer, but APS has said it should be $88 a month per customer and the ACC has ordered them to increase it in their next rate case, which they plan to file this year. Applying for rehearing is a necessary step towards appealing to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which we plan to do on January 30th.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
​
Contact: Autumn Johnson
520-240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ: Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to uphold a fee on all Arizona Public Service (APS) solar customers. APS has nearly 200,000 solar customers, all of whom are paying 15% more than the rate increase approved for all residential customers this year. The ACC upheld the fees after granting a rehearing on this issue at the request of AriSEIA, Vote Solar, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The ACC refused to consider key evidence in the record.

In January, the ACC surprised stakeholders by inserting a “grid access charge” into APS’ nearly completed rate case. AriSEIA argued the fee should be removed from the rate case decision, which was unheeded by the ACC. Therefore, AriSEIA and others immediately filed for reconsideration/rehearing, which was granted. After nearly a year of litigation, the ACC upheld the original decision after a number of abnormalities in the execution of the case, such as constraining the evidence to be considered, moving the hearing earlier after APS requested more time for adequate customer notice, an abbreviated briefing scheduled, and then scheduling the vote before the recommendation was even written.

​AriSEIA demonstrated at the hearing that based on a quantitative analysis of several national expert witnesses, APS had miscalculated the cost of service to solar customers. That miscalculation reflected that solar customers were not paying their fair share, when in fact, the inverse is true. Solar customers pay more than they should and actually subsidize non-solar customers.

APS testified that if the ACC eliminated the solar fees, the difference would be $.25 to residential customers. Despite the evidence, the ACC will penalize solar customers several dollars per month and approved an amendment to increase it in APS’ next rate case, which is anticipated to be filed in 2025.

“The evidentiary record makes it clear that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers and yet APS and the ACC continue to penalize solar customers with unfounded and discriminatory fees,” said Autumn Johnson, executive director of AriSEIA.

An appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals is likely in 2025.

The Judge issued a recommended opinion and order (ROO) upholding APS' discriminatory fee on solar customers. The vote by the Commission is on Tuesday, December 17th at 9am. The ROO as drafted fails to resolve many of the underlying issues that prompted a rehearing in the first instance. The ROO is inadequate for the following reasons:

1. The ROO makes it clear that despite comments made at the April procedural conference, in the October Procedural Order, and at the hearing, all of the many concerns regarding the site-load COSS were not considered in the decision[1]; therefore, no due process concerns have been alleviated.
2. The ROO falsely states that the Legacy Adjustment “bares no relationship to the GAC other than the same percentage increase,”[2] which is contrary to the testimony from the hearing.
3. The ROO completely fails to address any of Mr. Lucas’ testimony as to the calculation of the solar credit, which is a part of the site-load COSS. That analysis proved that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers, not the other way around.
4. The ROO misstates the Value of Solar decision. The decision as cited in the ROO did not find that the Net Metering Rules resulted in a cost shift to non-solar residential customers.[3] The decision specifically stated that the “the ratemaking implications of this separate class treatment are to be determined in each utilities’ rate case supported by a fully vetted cost of service analysis.”[4]
5. The ROO fails to address the arguments related to the Commission’s own Net Metering Rules,[5] despite the fact this issue was raised in AriSEIA’s request for rehearing and in its pre and post hearing briefs.
6. The ROO fails to address the fact that the infrastructure in place during the test year was designed and built to provide resource adequacy for solar customers’ delivered load only meaning that when solar customers paid their bills for delivered load, they paid all the costs incurred during the test year to provide them with resource adequacy. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that APS used delivered load, and not site load for planning purposes in the 2020 integrated resource plan (IRP) and before.[6]
7. The ROO fails to address the fact that the “risk” argument as articulated by Mr. McClain[7] is contrary to the risk analysis APS actually does as articulated in their IRPs.
8. The ROO misstates the “Challenging Parties’” positions, in that AriSEIA has never argued that solar customers are not partial requirements customers.[8] Instead, AriSEIA argued that being partial requirements customers alone is not a sufficient basis on which to base an additional charge.[9] There needs to be an evidentiary basis on which additional charges are warranted.
9. The ROO falsely states that solar customers are distinct from all other residential customers, without any analysis as to energy efficiency or electric vehicle (EV) customers. The ROO also admittedly does “not address the parties’ various arguments reflecting a deeper dive into the intricacies of those laws” pertaining to discrimination.[10]
10. The ROO, which was filed approximately 24 hours after reply briefs were due, does not seem to at all consider AriSEIA’s arguments in its Reply Brief.
11. The ROO falsely places the burden of proof on the intervenors,[11] when the entire issue on rehearing is whether APS’ fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory.

[1] Rehearing ROO at 22:8-9 and 30:20.
[2] Id. at 16:7-9.
[3] Id. at 39:10-13.
[4] Decision No. 75859 at 174:17-19.
[5] Rehearing ROO at 23:19-20.
[6] Id. at 26:14-15.
[7] Id. at 25:15-17.
[8] Id. at 22:17-19.
[9] Id. at 31:5-6. This is not a “keystone inquiry” and was not challenged by any party. What the Value of Solar decision says on this subject was covered extensively in the hearing.
[10] Id. at 32:2-4.
[11] Id. at 20:3-4.

AriSEIA filed its second and final brief today opposing APS' discriminatory fee on all solar customers. The recommended opinion and order is expected this week, because the ACC has indicated it will be vote on on 12/17.

AriSEIA filed its first post-hearing brief in the APS rate case rehearing. In the original rate case, APS imposed a new fee targeted only at solar customers. AriSEIA asked for a rehearing, which was granted. AriSEIA filed a pre-hearing brief, available here, and also filed its first of two post-hearing briefs. The reply brief is due next week. A vote is scheduled at the Arizona Corporation Commission on 12/17/24.

The Judge in the APS rate case rehearing on the grid access charge fees imposed against all APS solar customers asked parties to submit briefs before the hearing on whether or not the fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory. Read AriSEIA's position at the link above. The hearing starts on Monday, October 28th.

AriSEIA filed rebuttal testimony of our expert witness, Kevin Lucas, rebutting the testimony of APS, IBEW, and Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff, all who support opposing new fixed fees on all APS solar customers. Read the full filing above. The hearing commences October 28th.

In a bold move, Arizona Public Service (APS) has moved to entirely exclude the testimony of the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Governor's Office from the rate case rehearing on its discriminatory charge on all solar customers. In so doing, APS also seeks to exclude most of the testimony of AriSEIA and Vote Solar. APS argues that any evidence used to create the solar charge is not to be examined in the rehearing, thereby rendering the entire process a sham. AriSEIA, Vote Solar, the Attorney General, individual ratepayers, and the Governor's Office through the consumer advocate (RUCO) have all filed in opposition.

In Arizona, a state blessed with abundant sunshine, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) holds a crucial role in shaping the future of solar energy. This independent regulatory body influences policies that directly impact how solar energy is adopted, integrated, and managed across the state. 

As voters prepare to cast their ballots, understanding the ACC’s significance and the importance of electing pro-solar candidates is absolutely essential for both solar customers and the general public, especially when considering the down-ballot position of this race.

The ACC is responsible for regulating utilities, overseeing corporate practices, and ensuring consumer protection. Among its many duties, the ACC plays a pivotal role in determining policies related to energy, including solar power. In addition, the ACC approves long-term resource plans provided by the utilities, including the balance of how many of those resources are distributed on residential or commercial properties versus sited upstream of transmission lines. This is a critical function when considering the future of our grid given substantial load growth projections across the state and the need for an “all of the above” approach to reliability.

What Does a Pro-Solar Candidate Look Like?

Promoting solar adoption: Electing pro-solar candidates ensures that the ACC supports policies conducive to a more modern and sustainable grid. These candidates advocate for distributed solar and energy storage as an important tool in Arizona’s toolbox to complement continued utility-scale investment in the same technology as the lowest-cost resource. As a result, more Arizona communities are likely to invest in solar technology, and will benefit from cleaner, renewable energy.

Protecting consumer interests: Commissioners are constitutionally dedicated to protecting the interests of ratepayers. Regulated monopoly utility companies are enshrined with a similar responsibility. It is important as a ratepayer and a voter to look into the true cost of energy infrastructure and operations. Generally, solar with energy storage remains cheaper than fossil fuels even without environmental considerations. 

Enhancing energy independence: Investing in local solar energy infrastructure reduces reliance on imported energy resources. By supporting pro-solar policies in Arizona, the ACC can accelerate our path to energy independence, which is crucial for a stable and secure economy. Pro-solar candidates promote policies that enhance local energy production and contribute to a more resilient energy infrastructure.

Addressing environmental impact: Arizona has a significant opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through solar investment. Pro-solar candidates prioritize environmental sustainability and support policies that align with climate goals. Their efforts help to mitigate environmental impacts and promote a healthier, cleaner state.

Boosting the economy: The solar industry creates jobs, stimulates economic growth and drives technological innovation. As larger companies relocate to Arizona, they will prioritize sustainability factors due to evolving state, national, and global regulations that require mandatory disclosures, and because investors are increasingly focused on these factors. A diversified grid that includes renewable energy is instrumental in company decisions to establish offices in Arizona. 
​
In conclusion, the Arizona Corporation Commission is the key player in shaping the state’s solar energy landscape. Voting for pro-solar candidates is essential for advancing solar adoption, protecting consumer interests, promoting energy independence, addressing environmental concerns, and boosting the economy. Be sure to vote for 3! The ACC race is below national and legislative candidates, but before judges and ballot propositions.