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.

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.