Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086
 
Re: AriSEIA Comments on the Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona
 
Dear Arizona Game and Fish Department:
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Arizona Game and Fish Department's ("AZGFD") Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona. AriSEIA is a statewide nonprofit organization that works on energy policy at every level of government. AriSEIA works with state agencies, utilities, local governments, industry stakeholders, and policymakers to advance practical energy policies that support Arizona's economy, electric grid, and clean energy future.
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's efforts to develop a comprehensive resource that promotes both wildlife conservation and responsible solar development. The draft appropriately recognizes that utility-scale solar is an important component of Arizona's energy future and acknowledges that thoughtful project siting and design can reduce impacts to wildlife while supporting continued deployment of renewable energy. AriSEIA strongly supports early coordination between developers and resource agencies and agrees that project-specific collaboration often produces better environmental and development outcomes.
 
While AriSEIA generally supports the objectives of the draft, several revisions would improve the document by maintaining flexibility, recognizing Arizona's significant energy needs, and ensuring that voluntary guidance is not inadvertently transformed into de facto regulatory standards.
 
I. The Guidelines Should More Clearly Emphasize Their Voluntary Nature
 
The Executive Summary appropriately describes this document as a “voluntary framework,” and AriSEIA commends that framing. However, we are concerned that this characterization is insufficiently reinforced throughout the body of the document. The guidelines explicitly encourage local governments to incorporate recommendations into zoning codes, conditional use permit criteria, and site plan review processes. As written, there is a substantial risk that recommendations developed as voluntary best management practices will instead become mandatory local development standards.
 
AriSEIA recommends strengthening the document’s repeated emphasis that these guidelines are advisory only, are intended to support project-specific decision making, and should not be interpreted as establishing minimum design requirements or default permit conditions applicable to every solar project. For example, the guidelines could expressly state that they are intended solely as voluntary best management practices and are not intended to establish regulatory requirements or mandatory permit conditions. Each section of AZGFD’s Guidelines could benefit from a brief reminder of this intent.
 
II. The Guidelines’ Framing Often Undermines the Solar Industry and the Wildlife Conservation Goals it is Trying to Advance
 
AriSEIA has a concern related to the structuring of the guidelines. Throughout the document, potential adverse impacts of solar development are described in detail, while the corresponding mitigations, advances in technology, or contradicting research are either presented as brief afterthoughts or omitted entirely. This imbalance does not reflect the current state of the science, and it risks discouraging the responsible solar development that both AZGFD and AriSEIA want to see done well.
 
A few examples:
 
The guidelines devote significant space to avian fatalities at solar facilities, citing studies documenting the “lake effect” phenomenon, while the counter research receives only a single sentence near the end of the section. Recent studies have found no evidence of bird collisions at modern facilities in the Southwest and suggests that previously reported fatalities may have been associated with older panel technologies no longer in use. This finding deserves equal emphasis, not a footnote.
 
Similarly, the section on hazardous materials implies that end-of-life solar panels pose a significant leaching risk. In practice, this risk is rare and highly regulated, and there are well-established industry best practices for responsible panel disposal and recycling. 1, 2 Presenting the risk without the context of how it is managed creates a misleading framing.
 
The vegetation management section raises concerns about herbicide overuse without noting that solar grazing (the use of livestock, commonly sheep, to manage vegetation within solar arrays) is well-documented and increasingly seen as an alternative.3 This strategy avoids herbicide use entirely while generating co-benefits for land managers and local agricultural operations.
 
The stormwater section similarly raises concerns without pointing to the body of knowledge on solar farm stormwater management best practices that do exist.4
 
AriSEIA recommends that AZGFD adopt a consistent framing practice throughout the document. When a potential impact is identified, any associated mitigation, newer technology, or counter research should be presented with equal weight in the same section and not buried or omitted. This would make the guidelines more accurate, more useful to developers and permitting agencies, and more in alignment with AZGFD’s stated goal of facilitating responsible solar development alongside wildlife considerations.
 
III. Additional Substantive Recommendations
 
Balancing Wildlife Conservation and Arizona’s Energy Needs
Arizona is experiencing unprecedented electric load growth driven by population growth, manufacturing, industrial development, data centers, and continued economic expansion. Meeting those needs will require substantial deployment of new generation resources, including utility-scale solar.
 
The draft appropriately recognizes that solar energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and can be developed in a manner that minimizes impacts to wildlife. AriSEIA recommends expanding that discussion to acknowledge that facilitating the timely deployment of utility-scale solar is itself an important public policy objective that supports electric reliability, economic development, and Arizona's long-term energy security. Wildlife conservation and renewable energy development are complementary goals that should be advanced together.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends emphasizing throughout the guidelines that conservation measures should be implemented in a manner that is practical, proportional, and based on project-specific conditions. Recognizing the need to balance wildlife conservation with Arizona's growing energy needs will better reflect the important role these guidelines can play in supporting both objectives.
 
Soil Disturbance Should Be Centered Much Earlier in the Guidelines
 
The guidelines address soil disturbance and grading practices in Chapter 3’s vegetation management section which is located well into the document. Given how foundational soil health is to wildlife habitat, plant community recovery, pollinator contributions, and invasive species resistance, this topic warrants much earlier and more prominent treatment. Soil disturbance is not a vegetation management sub-issue but the primary driver of habitat impact and should be addressed as such.
 
Additionally, the guidelines do not note that complete site grading is increasingly unnecessary with modern solar installation designs and technologies. 5, 6 Tracker systems and racking designs can now be deployed with significantly reduced ground disturbance, preserving soil seed bank, mycorrhizal networks, and native root structures that the document correctly identifies as ecologically valuable. This is an important insight that the guidelines should highlight proactively rather than treating grading as a baseline assumption.
 
Pollinator Habitat Should Be Recognized for Its Broader Landscape Value
 
The guidelines’ discussion of pollinator habitat within solar facilities is welcome, but it stops short of acknowledging the broader co-benefits that well-designed solar pollinator habitat can deliver. Localized native plantings within and around solar arrays can function as corridors or stepping stones that support nearby rewilding efforts, wildland connectivity, and agricultural pollination services. This is critical for surrounding farms and ranches that are common in rural Arizona. These benefits should be articulated explicitly, as they represent a meaningful opportunity for solar facilities to contribute positively to the landscapes they occupy.
 
Recommendations That Significantly Reduce Developable Acreage Should Remain Flexible and Site-Specific
 
The draft contains numerous recommendations intended to improve wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, including wide wildlife corridors, rounded facility corners, avoidance of dead-end fencing, roadway setbacks, and preservation of unfenced areas. Collectively, these recommendations can substantially reduce the developable area of a project and materially affect project economics.
 
In particular, the recommendation for wildlife corridors approximately 1,300 feet wide, and potentially up to 2,000 feet under certain circumstances, represents a significant design recommendation with substantial land use implications. The draft also notes that AZGFD is continuing to study effective corridor widths for solar facilities. AriSEIA recommends emphasizing that corridor width, configuration, and wildlife accommodations should be determined through project-specific evaluation based on site conditions, target species, landscape context, and the best available science.
 
The Guidelines Should Recognize the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Recommendations
 
The draft appropriately identifies numerous best management practices addressing site selection, biological surveys, facility design, fencing, vegetation management, monitoring, and decommissioning. While many of these recommendations are reasonable individually, implementing numerous recommendations simultaneously can substantially increase project costs, extend development schedules, and reduce generating capacity.
 
AriSEIA recommends acknowledging that project proponents must balance environmental benefits with engineering feasibility, land availability, project economics, and Arizona's growing need for additional electric generation. Encouraging proportional, project-specific implementation of best management practices will better support both wildlife conservation and successful project development.
 
Cumulative Impact Analysis Should Be Project-Specific
 
The discussion of cumulative landscape-scale impacts provides useful context regarding statewide development trends. However, AriSEIA recommends clarifying that cumulative impacts should be evaluated using project-specific evidence rather than presumed solely because multiple solar facilities exist within a broader region.
 
Projects that incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures should continue to be evaluated on their individual merits rather than being disadvantaged by generalized concerns regarding regional development patterns.
 
The Guidelines Should Distinguish Between Established Best Management Practices and Emerging Recommendations
 
AriSEIA appreciates that the draft reflects current scientific understanding regarding wildlife conservation and solar development. However, not all recommendations in the document are supported by the same degree of scientific consensus or practical experience. Some recommendations, such as early coordination, thoughtful site selection, and wildlife-compatible fencing, represent well-established best management practices. Other recommendations, including specific wildlife corridor widths, reflect areas where the draft acknowledges that research is ongoing.
 
AriSEIA recommends distinguishing between generally accepted best management practices and recommendations that represent emerging science or project-specific considerations. Doing so would improve transparency for developers, permitting agencies, and local governments while reducing the likelihood that recommendations based on evolving research are interpreted as universal design standards. This distinction would also reinforce the document's stated purpose as a voluntary, flexible framework that supports project-specific decision making.
 
Conclusion
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's work in developing these guidelines and recognizes the significant effort involved in producing a comprehensive resource addressing both wildlife conservation and renewable energy development. AriSEIA supports continued collaboration to identify practical, science-based approaches that conserve Arizona's wildlife while allowing the timely development of the renewable energy resources needed to support Arizona's continued economic growth.
 
As Arizona continues to experience growth in utility-scale solar and battery energy storage development, AriSEIA respectfully requests that AZGFD include the association in future stakeholder processes relating to renewable energy, battery energy storage systems, and associated wildlife guidance. AriSEIA values the opportunity to collaborate with state agencies and other stakeholders to develop practical, science-based approaches that support both wildlife conservation and responsible energy development.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 
cc Governor’s Office of Resiliency
 
[1] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panels are Safe for Your Community, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ACP_Solar-Panels_are_Safe-for-Your-Community_FactSheet.pdf
 
[2] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/gateway/2024/10/SolarRecycling_241104.pdf
 
[3] American Solar Grazing Association, n.d., What Is Solar Grazing and How Does It Work?, https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Solar-Grazing-Brochure.pdf
 
[4] National Laboratory of the Rockies, last updated 2026, Photovoltaic Stormwater Management Research and Testing, https://www.nlr.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/pv-smart
 
[5] PV Magazine, 2026, Say goodbye to grading: New alternatives for solar on challenging topography, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/01/13/say-goodbye-to-grading-new-alternatives-for-solar-on-challenging-topography/
 
[6] PV Tech, The end of mass grading for solar projects, 2023, https://www.pv-tech.org/the-end-of-mass-grading-for-solar-projects/

Arizona deserves a transparent resource planning process, especially when major generation investments could shape the state's energy mix for decades.

Just weeks after APS testified in its rate case that it did not have a definitive plan for the future of the Cholla Power Plant, the utility announced it plans to convert the facility to natural gas.

Today, AriSEIA filed supplemental questions seeking answers about when that decision was made, what alternatives were considered, and whether renewable energy and energy storage were fully evaluated alongside the proposed gas conversion. The questions also seek information about the project's costs, supporting analyses, and how the decision relates to APS' ongoing Integrated Resource Plan.
​
As Arizona continues to experience rapid load growth, it is critical that utilities evaluate all available resources on a level playing field. Customers and stakeholders deserve confidence that major investment decisions are based on transparent analysis, sound economics, and a fair comparison of all available energy options.

AriSEIA has joined a motion asking the Administrative Law Judge to reconsider the admission of a report that claims solar energy is expensive and unreliable, arguing that the document lacks a disclosed methodology, was not authored by the sponsoring witness, and directly conflicts with substantial evidence already in the record.

The report, offered by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, is a policy brief published by the Heartland Institute. Although the witness who sponsored the exhibit cited it in his testimony, he acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not write the report, did not develop its scoring system, and could not explain the methodology used to reach its conclusions.

The publication presents itself as an "objective scorecard" comparing different electric generation technologies. It assigns numerical scores to resources such as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, concluding that solar is among the least affordable and least reliable generation resources. However, the report contains no methodology explaining how those scores were calculated, how competing factors were weighted, or how the numerical rankings were derived.

AriSEIA's filing argues that unsupported conclusions should not be admitted for the truth of the matters asserted simply because they appear in a published report. Instead, parties should be required to demonstrate the analytical basis for factual claims that are central to issues being litigated before the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The filing also notes that the report's conclusions are inconsistent with other evidence already admitted into the case, including APS's own long-term resource planning and nationally recognized cost analyses showing that renewable energy continues to be among the most cost-competitive options for new electric generation.

Administrative proceedings often operate under more flexible evidentiary standards than traditional court proceedings. Even so, those standards do not eliminate the need for reliable evidence. When a publication presents factual conclusions without explaining how those conclusions were reached, and the sponsoring witness cannot explain or defend the underlying analysis, the Commission should carefully consider whether the exhibit deserves any evidentiary weight.
​
As Arizona continues to make long-term decisions about reliability, affordability, and the future of the electric grid, those decisions should be based on transparent analysis, sound methodology, and credible evidence—not unsupported scorecards.

Today, AriSEIA filed a motion asking the Arizona Corporation Commission's Administrative Law Judge to recall APS Chief Operating Officer Jacob Tetlow for limited additional cross-examination.

During the APS rate case hearing on May 26, AriSEIA questioned Mr. Tetlow about APS's plans for the Cholla Power Plant after its coal units retire. Mr. Tetlow testified that APS did not have a definitive plan for the site, that multiple options remained under consideration, and that it was too early for a stakeholder process regarding the plant's future.
On July 2, however, APS announced plans to convert the Cholla Power Plant to natural gas.
​
Because the announcement came while the rate case hearing is still underway and concerns the same subject addressed during Mr. Tetlow's testimony, AriSEIA has asked that he be recalled to answer limited questions about when APS made this decision, what planning had already occurred at the time of his testimony, and how the project fits within APS's resource planning process.

Gila Bend Town Council
Gila Bend Unified School District Media Center
308 N. Martin Avenue
Gila Bend, AZ 85337
 
RE: Solar Field Overlay Zone Update Comments
 
Mayor and Council Members,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Town of Gila Bend's proposed Solar Field Overlay Zone ("SFOZ") ordinance. AriSEIA is a statewide nonprofit working on energy policy at every level of government across the state. AriSEIA regularly works with cities, counties, utilities, the Arizona Corporation Commission, state agencies, the Arizona Legislature, and Tribal governments to develop energy policies that promote economic development, protect consumers, and provide regulatory certainty.
 
As part of that work, AriSEIA has provided recommendations on renewable energy and battery ordinances for jurisdictions throughout Arizona, including Maricopa County, Apache County, Navajo County, Mohave County, Yavapai County, the City of Buckeye, the City of Goodyear, the City of Surprise, and the City of Eloy, among others. Those efforts have focused on developing objective, predictable land use standards that protect public health and safety while preserving private property rights, supporting economic development, and allowing local elected officials to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the significant effort the Town has invested in comprehensively updating its Zoning Ordinance. The proposed SFOZ establishes a discretionary review process that appropriately recognizes the importance of evaluating utility-scale solar projects based on their individual characteristics, surrounding land uses, available infrastructure, and consistency with the Town's long-term planning objectives. AriSEIA supports that case-by-case approach and believes it provides the Town Council with the flexibility necessary to make informed land use decisions as future opportunities arise.
 
The recommendations below are guided by three overarching principles. First, the ordinance should preserve the Town Council's discretion to evaluate each proposal on its own merits rather than unnecessarily limiting that discretion through categorical restrictions. Second, the ordinance should respect private property rights by allowing landowners to pursue lawful development opportunities while preserving the Town Council's authority to determine whether a particular proposal is appropriate for its location. Finally, the ordinance should position Gila Bend to compete for future economic development opportunities. Markets, utility infrastructure, and regional energy needs will continue to evolve over time. The ordinance should preserve the flexibility of future Town Councils to respond to those changes rather than unnecessarily limiting the Town's options today.
 
I. Preserve Town Council Discretion, Private Property Rights, and Economic Development
 
AriSEIA supports the Town's decision to structure the Solar Field Overlay Zone ("SFOZ") as a discretionary overlay requiring approval by the Town Council. That approach appropriately recognizes that utility-scale solar projects, like other significant land use decisions, should be evaluated based on their individual merits, surrounding land uses, available infrastructure, consistency with the Town's planning objectives, and anticipated public benefits. The discretionary approval process provides the Town Council with broad authority to approve, deny, or condition projects based on the unique facts presented by each application.
 
Because the proposed SFOZ already requires discretionary approval, AriSEIA recommends against imposing an overall acreage cap on SFOZ development within the Town. While AriSEIA understands the desire to thoughtfully manage growth, an acreage cap would unnecessarily limit the authority of future Town Councils by prohibiting them from even considering projects once the cap is reached, regardless of their merits or the wishes of the affected property owners.
 
Preserving the Town Council's discretion is particularly important because no one can predict with certainty which economic opportunities will ultimately materialize. An acreage cap effectively assumes that another, more desirable land use will develop instead of utility-scale solar. That assumption may prove correct for some properties, but it may prove incorrect for many others. If a property owner wishes to pursue manufacturing, industrial development, logistics, housing, or another lawful use, the Town Council remains free to approve that proposal. If no competing development materializes, however, there is little public benefit in preventing the Town Council from even considering a utility-scale solar project that could create jobs, generate tax revenue, and provide long-term investment in the community.
 
The discretionary review process also provides the Town with the opportunity to secure additional community benefits where appropriate.  Utilities are increasingly recognizing the importance of community investment. For example, Salt River Project's 2026 All-Source Request for Proposals requires respondents to provide a one-time contribution of $1,500 per megawatt of nameplate capacity dedicated to supporting the surrounding community, with Salt River Project retaining direct input regarding how those funds are used.[1]
 
Maintaining that flexibility is particularly important given the substantial economic benefits utility-scale solar projects can provide. A recent economic impact analysis prepared by Elliott D. Pollack & Company found that a representative utility-scale solar and battery storage project in Gila Bend would support approximately 690 construction and related jobs, generate approximately $736.7 million in cumulative economic activity throughout Maricopa County, and produce approximately $36.4 million in tax revenues over the life of the project, including approximately $2.6 million for the Town of Gila Bend.[2] While every project differs, these findings demonstrate that utility-scale energy projects can represent significant long-term economic development opportunities for the Town and surrounding region.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends that the Town preserve the discretion afforded by the proposed SFOZ process and decline to adopt an overall acreage cap. The Town Council is fully capable of evaluating each proposal on its own merits and determining whether it is appropriate for the proposed location. Maintaining that flexibility best protects private property rights, preserves the authority of future elected officials, and allows Gila Bend to respond to changing economic conditions and development opportunities over time.
 
II. Battery Energy Storage Systems
 
Section 16-4-17 appropriately recognizes Battery Energy Storage Systems ("BESS") as an accessory use to utility-scale solar facilities. AriSEIA supports allowing co-located energy storage as part of SFOZ developments because battery storage has become an increasingly important component of modern electric generation projects. However, AriSEIA recommends removing the provision limiting BESS to no more than 20% of the total SFOZ area.
 
The proposed 20% limitation assumes that today's project configurations will remain appropriate throughout the life of the ordinance. In reality, the electric industry continues to evolve rapidly. Utilities are increasingly procuring solar generation paired with larger amounts of energy storage to improve grid reliability, increase operational flexibility, and better match energy production with customer demand. As battery technology continues to improve and costs decline, future projects may appropriately include larger storage components than are common today.
 
A fixed acreage limitation may therefore unnecessarily constrain future project design and discourage investment in technologies that are expected to become increasingly valuable over time. Because utility-scale energy projects often operate for 30 to 40 years, zoning ordinances should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate technological advancements and changing utility procurement practices rather than locking future development into today's assumptions.
 
Importantly, removing the 20% limitation would not reduce the Town's oversight of energy storage projects. Every SFOZ application remains subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council. If a future project proposes a battery storage configuration that is incompatible with the surrounding area or otherwise inconsistent with the Town's planning objectives, the Town Council retains full authority to approve the project, deny the project, or impose reasonable conditions tailored to the specific proposal.
 
Rather than relying on a rigid numerical limitation, AriSEIA recommends allowing the Town Council to evaluate the appropriate amount of battery storage on a case-by-case basis as part of the overall SFOZ review process. This approach preserves the Town's discretion, better accommodates future technological advancements, and positions Gila Bend to remain competitive as utility-scale energy projects continue to evolve.
 
III. Solar Panel Setbacks
 
AriSEIA supports establishing setback requirements that protect neighboring properties, provide adequate access for maintenance and emergency response, and promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. Objective development standards such as setbacks can play an important role in creating predictable and well-designed projects. At the same time, setback requirements should retain sufficient flexibility to account for the unique characteristics of individual sites and should not unnecessarily constrain otherwise appropriate development.
 
The proposed ordinance establishes both traditional setbacks and significantly larger separation requirements from residential zoning districts, schools, churches, parks, preserves, and airport property. AriSEIA respectfully encourages the Town to reevaluate whether these separation requirements are larger than necessary to accomplish the Town's planning objectives. The American Clean Power Association's Model Ordinance Framework for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems identifies "Common and Accepted Setback Requirements" of 100 feet from nonparticipating residences, 200 feet without a vegetative buffer, 75 feet from occupied community buildings, and 50 feet from nonparticipating property lines and public road rights-of-way.[3] By comparison, section 16-4-17(B)(5), the proposed ordinance requires 2,500-foot separation from residential zoning districts and 3,000-foot separation from schools, churches, parks, preserves, and airport property boundaries, in addition to other setback and siting requirements. While AriSEIA recognizes that every community is different, the proposed separation requirements appear substantially larger than nationally recognized guidance and should be supported by a demonstrated planning, engineering, or public safety basis.
 
Additionally, AriSEIA recommends expressly authorizing setback waivers as part of the SFOZ approval process or, where appropriate, by the Planning Director. Utility-scale solar facilities often encompass thousands of acres, and the need for setbacks may vary considerably throughout a project depending on adjacent land uses, topography, access roads, and parcel configurations. Providing flexibility to modify setbacks in appropriate circumstances would allow the Town to achieve its planning objectives while avoiding unnecessary restrictions.
 
This flexibility is particularly important for interior parcel lines and roadways that are part of a unified development. Utility-scale solar projects are frequently assembled from multiple contiguous parcels or are separated by internal roads, utility easements, or rights-of-way that remain under common ownership or control. In these situations, requiring setbacks that are intended to protect adjacent, unrelated properties serves little planning purpose because the parcels function as a single integrated project. It is common industry practice to allow reduced or zero-foot setbacks along these interior boundaries while maintaining appropriate setbacks along the exterior perimeter of the development.
 
More broadly, AriSEIA encourages the Town to recognize that not all project boundaries present the same planning considerations. Perimeter setbacks adjacent to neighboring properties, public roadways, or sensitive land uses may warrant different treatment than boundaries internal to a unified project. Allowing the Town Council or Planning Director to approve reasonable modifications based on site-specific circumstances would provide greater flexibility while continuing to protect the public interest.
 
Finally, because every SFOZ application is subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council, the Town already possesses the authority to determine whether proposed setbacks are appropriate for a particular project. Authorizing reasonable setback waivers where justified by the facts of an individual application preserves that discretion and allows the Town to tailor development standards to the unique characteristics of each site rather than relying exclusively on inflexible dimensional requirements.
 
IV. Minimum Project Size
 
AriSEIA recommends removing the minimum project acreage requirement in section 16-4-17(B)(4)(a). While AriSEIA understands that utility-scale solar facilities are generally large developments, establishing a minimum acreage requirement unnecessarily limits the Town Council's ability to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
The proposed SFOZ already requires discretionary approval by the Town Council. That process provides ample opportunity to evaluate whether a proposed project is appropriately sized for its location, compatible with surrounding land uses, and consistent with the Town's planning objectives. Imposing a minimum acreage requirement in addition to discretionary review restricts the Town's flexibility without providing a corresponding planning benefit.
 
The minimum acreage requirement may also unintentionally discourage future investment in existing solar facilities. Utility-scale energy projects frequently evolve over time through phased construction, expansions, repowering activities, technology upgrades, or the addition of complementary infrastructure. A project that does not satisfy the minimum acreage requirement may nevertheless represent a beneficial investment that improves the performance of an existing facility, increases local tax revenues, or better serves the evolving needs of the electric grid.
 
Moreover, the energy industry continues to evolve rapidly. Future utility procurement practices, technological advancements, and project designs may differ significantly from those common today. Rather than establishing a rigid minimum acreage requirement based on current market conditions, the ordinance should preserve the Town Council's ability to evaluate each proposal on a case-by-case basis as development patterns and industry practices continue to change.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends eliminating the minimum project acreage requirement and allowing the Town Council to determine whether the size of a proposed SFOZ is appropriate through the existing discretionary review process. This approach preserves local control while providing the flexibility necessary to accommodate future investment and technological innovation.
 
V. Minimum Separation and Proximity to Electrical Infrastructure
 
AriSEIA recommends reconsidering the proposed minimum separation and proximity-to-electrical-infrastructure requirements in section 16-4-17(B)(4)(d). While AriSEIA understands the Town's interest in encouraging orderly development and utilizing existing infrastructure where practical, these fixed locational requirements may unnecessarily limit future development opportunities and reduce the Town Council's flexibility to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
Grid infrastructure is not static. Utilities routinely expand transmission systems, construct new substations, upgrade existing facilities, and modify long-term transmission planning in response to changing customer demand and regional growth. A property that does not satisfy the proposed proximity requirements today may become an ideal location for future energy development as new infrastructure is constructed or existing facilities are expanded. Conversely, projects located farther from existing infrastructure may still prove appropriate depending on future utility planning and interconnection solutions.
 
In addition, these requirements may become increasingly restrictive over time. As additional transmission lines, substations, and utility facilities are developed in and around Gila Bend, more properties may become subject to the ordinance's separation requirements while other properties remain ineligible because they do not satisfy the prescribed proximity standards. The cumulative effect of these overlapping restrictions may unnecessarily reduce the number of sites available for future consideration.
 
Because every SFOZ application remains subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council, the ordinance already provides an effective mechanism for evaluating whether a proposed location is appropriate based on available infrastructure, surrounding land uses, community priorities, and other site-specific considerations. Fixed locational requirements are therefore unnecessary to protect the Town's interests and may instead limit the flexibility of future Town Councils to respond to changing utility needs and evolving development opportunities.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends removing or providing flexibility from the mandatory proximity requirements and allowing the Town Council to evaluate whether a proposed project is appropriately located as part of the existing discretionary SFOZ approval process. This approach preserves local control while ensuring the ordinance remains adaptable as infrastructure, technology, and regional energy needs continue to evolve.
 
VI. Schedule of Construction
 
AriSEIA recommends revising section 16-4-17(C)(1) to provide a minimum five-year period for commencement of development following SFOZ approval and to authorize administrative extensions by Town staff where appropriate.
 
Utility-scale energy projects routinely require multi-year development timelines that extend well beyond local land use approval. Following zoning approval, project developers must complete utility interconnection studies, transmission planning, environmental reviews, financing, equipment procurement, and negotiations for power purchase agreements. Many of these activities are controlled by utilities, regional transmission planning, or other third parties and cannot be accelerated by the project developer.
 
In addition, utility procurement practices have evolved significantly in recent years. Utilities increasingly prefer projects to obtain local land use approvals before selecting projects through competitive solicitations. As a result, zoning approval is often one of the earliest milestones in the development process rather than one of the last. It is therefore common for several years to elapse between local zoning approval and the commencement of construction while developers complete utility procurement, interconnection, and permitting requirements.
 
A one-year commencement requirement, even with limited extensions for documented utility interconnection delays, does not adequately reflect current industry development timelines. Such a short timeframe may unnecessarily create entitlement risk for otherwise viable projects, complicate project financing, and reduce the competitiveness of projects seeking selection through utility procurement processes. These consequences do not advance the Town's planning objectives and may discourage investment in Gila Bend.
 
Providing a five-year commencement period, together with the ability for staff to grant reasonable administrative extensions where warranted, would better align the ordinance with current utility procurement and development practices while reducing unnecessary re-entitlement efforts and administrative burdens for both applicants and the Town. At the same time, the Town would retain its existing authority to ensure approved projects continue to move forward in good faith and remain consistent with the conditions of approval.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends extending the commencement period to at least five years following SFOZ approval and authorizing administrative extensions where appropriate. This approach better reflects the realities of modern utility-scale energy development while preserving the Town's oversight of approved projects.
 
Conclusion
 
AriSEIA appreciates the Town's willingness to carefully consider how best to regulate utility-scale solar and battery storage development. The proposed Solar Field Overlay Zone establishes a thoughtful framework for evaluating these projects through discretionary review by the Town Council. AriSEIA believes that framework provides the Town with the tools necessary to protect the public interest while preserving the flexibility to respond to changing technologies, market conditions, utility needs, and future economic development opportunities.
 
The recommendations above are intended to preserve that flexibility by avoiding unnecessary numerical limitations and rigid development standards where the Town Council already possesses the authority to evaluate each proposal on its individual merits. Preserving local discretion, respecting private property rights, and maintaining opportunities for future economic development will help ensure the ordinance remains effective as the energy industry and the Town continue to evolve.
 
AriSEIA has attached the recent economic impact analysis prepared by Elliott D. Pollack & Company, which evaluates the potential economic and fiscal impacts of a representative utility-scale solar and battery storage project in Gila Bend. As discussed above, the study demonstrates that projects of this nature can generate substantial employment, long-term tax revenues, and economic activity for the Town, local schools, Maricopa County, and the surrounding region. If it would be helpful, AriSEIA would be pleased to arrange a meeting between the Town and Elliott D. Pollack & Company so that Town officials may ask questions about the study, its methodology, assumptions, and conclusions.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the considerable work that has gone into modernizing the Town's Zoning Ordinance and thanks the Mayor, Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town staff, and Logan Simpson for their time and thoughtful consideration of these comments. AriSEIA welcomes the opportunity to continue working collaboratively with the Town throughout this process and is available to answer any questions or provide any additional information that may be helpful.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Salt River Project, 2026 All-Source RFP, page 8, https://www.srpnet.com/assets/srpnet/pdf/doing-business/suppliers/2026-All-Source-RFP.pdf.

[2] See Attachment A.

[3] American Clean Power, Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems, Model Ordinance Framework, page 7, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/gateway/2024/11/ACP_Model-Commercial-Solar-Ordinance_StandardsPractices_241114.pdf. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently vacated the solar-specific charges adopted in APS's 2022 rate case, concluding that they were imposed without providing customers and stakeholders the due process required under Arizona law.
​
While the Court did not decide whether the Grid Access Charge (GAC) and Legacy Solar Rate Increase (LSRI) are substantively lawful, its decision reinforces what AriSEIA has consistently argued throughout the current APS rate case: APS has failed to demonstrate that residential solar customers impose unique costs that justify discriminatory solar-specific charges.

In response to the Court's decision, AriSEIA has recommended that the Arizona Corporation Commission:

• Reject any proposal to increase the GAC or LSRI in the current APS rate case.
• Eliminate both charges based on the existing evidentiary record.
• Decline to reopen the record or create a second phase to give APS another opportunity to justify the charges.
• Reserve only the question of potential customer refunds until the appellate process is complete, if necessary.

APS has argued that the Court's decision should have little impact on the current rate case. AriSEIA agrees that this case should be decided on its own evidentiary record. The difference is that AriSEIA believes the record demonstrates that the solar charges should be eliminated, not increased.

The evidence presented in this case shows that APS has again failed to identify unique costs associated with serving residential solar customers. APS's own witnesses acknowledged that resource adequacy planning is conducted on a system-wide basis for the benefit of all customers, not solely rooftop solar customers. AriSEIA witness Kevin Lucas also identified significant methodological flaws in APS's site-load Cost of Service Study, demonstrating that it does not provide a reliable basis for discriminatory solar-specific charges.

APS has also requested that, if necessary, the Commission postpone deciding the future of the solar charges by creating a second phase of the rate case. AriSEIA opposes that request. APS filed this rate case knowing the Court of Appeals challenge was pending and chose the evidence and methodology it presented. The Commission already has the evidence necessary to decide the issue, and delaying resolution would unnecessarily prolong the case while giving APS another opportunity to justify charges it has not supported.
​
AriSEIA will continue advocating for fair, evidence-based ratemaking and equal treatment of Arizona's rooftop solar customers throughout the remainder of the APS rate case.

AriSEIA has filed supplemental testimony in the Arizona Public Service (APS) rate case, due to factually inaccurate statements made by several APS witnesses on the stand after AriSEIA's witness, Kevin Lucas, testified. We had requested to move him after the conclusion of the APS witnesses, but APS objected. We have indicated our intention to recall Mr. Lucas to discuss these issues.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: IRP Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058, Response to Staff’s June 23, 2026 Memo
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") supports the Utilities Division Staff's recommendation to amend Decision No. 80699 to extend the Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP") filing schedule and establish a February 10, 2027 deadline for stakeholder comments and stakeholder deliverables.
 
AriSEIA also appreciates Staff's recommendation that the revised IRP schedule apply uniformly to all Commission-regulated electric utilities required to file IRPs. A consistent statewide schedule promotes administrative efficiency, reduces unnecessary scheduling conflicts, and allows stakeholders that participate across multiple IRP proceedings to more effectively allocate their resources.
 
AriSEIA respectfully requests one clarification to the proposed order. While Staff recommends that all Commission-regulated electric utilities follow the timeline set forth in Table 2, Table 2 itself is drafted using APS-specific references, including "APS Files IRP" and "APS Response to Stakeholder Comments." As a result, it is not clear that the February 10, 2027 deadlines for stakeholder comments and stakeholder deliverables apply to all Commission-regulated electric utilities required to file IRPs. Because stakeholders submit comments to each utility's IRP, AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Commission expressly clarify that stakeholders may submit comments and stakeholder deliverables for each Commission-regulated electric utility's IRP on or before February 10, 2027.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA respectfully requests that Ordering Paragraph 1 be revised as follows:
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Decision No. 80699 is hereby amended to adopt the Integrated Resource Plan timeline for all Commission-regulated electric utilities that are required to file an Integrated Resource Plan as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6, Table 2. The February 10, 2027 deadlines for stakeholder comments and stakeholder deliverables shall apply to each Commission-regulated electric utility required to file an Integrated Resource Plan.
 
Subject to that clarification, AriSEIA supports Staff's recommendation.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: RE-00000A-24-0025 Exceptions to the June 11, 2026 Recommended Order
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") respectfully submits these comments in opposition to the Recommended Order ("ROO") recommending repeal of the Electric Energy Efficiency Standards Rules ("EEE Rules").

The record developed in this rulemaking does not support the conclusion that repeal of the EEE Rules is reasonable, necessary, or in the public interest. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that energy efficiency ("EE") and demand-side management ("DSM") programs continue to provide significant benefits to Arizona utilities, Arizona ratepayers, and the electric grid. The record further demonstrates that affected utilities continue to rely on EE and DSM as valuable planning resources and continue to achieve measurable energy savings, peak demand reductions, and reliability benefits through those programs.

The issue before the Commission is not whether the EEE Rules have been successful. The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that they have. The ROO’s own data shows that APS recorded DSM program costs of $941,563,758 and DSM net benefits of $1,432,000,000 from 2005 through 2024. ROO ¶ 40. Staff itself stated at the oral proceeding that it did not believe EE programs would cease after repeal because “the programs offer many benefits, so utilities and their customers will want the programs to continue.” ROO ¶ 40. Nor is the issue whether individual provisions of the rules could be improved or modernized. Rather, the question is whether the record supports eliminating the EEE Rules in their entirety. The ROO does not identify substantial evidence demonstrating that repeal of the EEE Rules is preferable to amendment, modernization, or replacement of specific provisions. Instead, the ROO largely relies upon policy preferences expressed by Commissioners during Open Meetings while failing to adequately address the substantial evidence demonstrating the continued value of EE and DSM programs.

For these reasons, the Commission should reject the ROO and decline to repeal the EEE Rules.
 
I. The Commission Should Update the EEE Rules Rather Than Repeal Them
AriSEIA does not contend that the EEE Rules are incapable of improvement. The electric industry has changed significantly since the rules were adopted in 2010. New technologies, new customer programs, and new grid needs have emerged. As a result, certain provisions of the EEE Rules may warrant revision or modernization.

The existence of potential improvements, however, does not support repealing the rules in their entirety. The question before the Commission is not whether the EEE Rules should remain frozen in their 2010 form. Rather, the question is whether the record supports eliminating the entire regulatory framework governing EE and DSM programs. The record does not support that conclusion.

One of the most significant consequences of repeal would be the elimination of the existing framework governing DSM implementation plans. The EEE Rules currently establish requirements for utilities to file implementation plans and annual reports and provide a structure through which the Commission reviews and oversees DSM programs. See A.A.C. § R14-2-2405; R14-2-2407.

The ROO does not explain what framework will replace those requirements if the EEE Rules are repealed. Nor does the ROO explain how utilities will be expected to propose future DSM programs or under what standards the Commission will evaluate those filings. The absence of any replacement framework creates unnecessary uncertainty for utilities, stakeholders, and the Commission itself.

This concern is particularly important because the Commission continues to recognize the value of DSM programs. In recent years, the Commission has repeatedly approved DSM programs and has specifically approved and reaffirmed Virtual Power Plant ("VPP") programs. The Commission's recent approval of VPP and other demand-side programs demonstrates that DSM resources remain an important component of Arizona utility planning and resource management. These programs are increasingly important tools for reducing peak demand, improving grid reliability, and providing value to customers and the electric system.

Indeed, the Commission has recently approved VPP programs on multiple occasions and utilities continue to include VPPs and other DSM resources within their DSM portfolios. Yet the ROO would eliminate the very rule framework through which those programs are planned, proposed, reviewed, and monitored. The ROO does not explain how future DSM plans containing VPP programs will be filed, reviewed, or evaluated if the existing rules are repealed.

The ROO repeatedly characterizes the EEE Rules as having "expired" in 2020. See, e.g., ROO ¶ 4. The ROO itself, in footnote 19, acknowledges that this characterization is “potentially misleading” and that the EEE Rules “are still in effect.” Staff confirmed at the December 4, 2025 oral proceeding that the rules have not expired, and Staff was required to correct the record in writing on this point. ROO ¶ 71.  That characterization conflates the expiration of the numerical EE savings target with the remainder of the rule. While the original savings target concluded in 2020, the provisions governing DSM implementation plans, reporting, program review, cost-effectiveness requirements, monitoring, evaluation, and Commission oversight remained in effect. Utilities continue to file DSM plans and the Commission continues to review and approve DSM programs pursuant to that framework. The expiration of a single target does not establish that the remainder of the framework should be repealed.

The continued development of VPPs and other innovative DSM programs requires regulatory certainty. Utilities need to understand what information must be included in their filings. Stakeholders need to understand how proposed programs will be reviewed. The Commission needs a consistent framework through which it can evaluate program performance and determine whether proposed programs are in the public interest.

Repealing the EEE Rules would eliminate that framework without replacing it with an alternative. Nothing in the record demonstrates that such uncertainty would benefit ratepayers or improve regulatory outcomes. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that DSM programs continue to play an important role in utility planning and grid operations.

If the Commission concludes that revisions to the EEE Rules are warranted, the appropriate course is to amend and modernize the rules rather than repeal them. At a minimum, the Commission should preserve the provisions governing DSM implementation plans and related reporting and oversight requirements. Doing so would allow the Commission to modernize outdated provisions while maintaining a clear framework for continued development of DSM and VPP programs.

II. The Record Demonstrates That EE and DSM Programs Continue to Provide Significant Benefits
The record developed in this proceeding demonstrates that EE and DSM programs continue to provide substantial benefits to Arizona utilities, customers, and the electric grid. While the ROO recommends repeal of the EEE Rules, the evidence cited throughout the record largely confirms the continued value of the programs and resources developed under those rules.

The Commission originally adopted the EEE Rules after finding that EE is a reliable and cost-effective resource that reduces load growth, improves system reliability, lowers costs for customers, reduces the need for additional infrastructure investment, and assists the Commission in ensuring safe, adequate, and reliable service at just and reasonable rates. Decision No. 71819 at 11-15. The ROO acknowledges those findings and reproduces them at length. ROO ¶¶ 24-30.

Importantly, the ROO does not identify evidence demonstrating that those benefits no longer exist. Nor does the ROO conclude that EE and DSM programs have failed to produce the outcomes that the Commission anticipated when it adopted the rules.

To the contrary, the record demonstrates that EE and DSM programs continue to produce measurable results. The updated Economic Impact Statement ("EIS") reports that APS has achieved more than 1,740 MW of cumulative peak demand savings through EE programs since 2005. The EIS further reports that TEP's DSM programs have delivered approximately 604.78 MW of capacity savings and 1.73 million MWh of energy savings since 2015. Exhibit C, Updated EIS at 3.

These are not theoretical benefits. They are measurable reductions in energy usage and peak demand achieved through programs implemented under the framework established by the EEE Rules. The EIS further recognizes that these investments contribute to utility resource planning, grid reliability, and peak demand reduction. Updated EIS at 3.

The EIS also acknowledges that utilities continue to view EE and DSM resources as valuable components of their planning portfolios. TEP's Smart Rewards program reportedly provides between 20 MW and 30 MW of first-hour peak demand reduction, while the utility has also launched a Storage Rewards program designed to leverage customer-sited battery storage to support grid reliability. Updated EIS at 3. These programs reflect the evolution of DSM resources and demonstrate why a regulatory framework governing DSM planning and oversight remains important today.

The record further demonstrates that repeal carries risks. The EIS concludes that repeal may result in reduced investment in EE programs, uneven program availability among utilities, diminished access to programs for low- and moderate-income customers, and higher long-term utility bills resulting from reduced energy savings opportunities. Updated EIS at 5. The EIS further recognizes that customers will continue to benefit from EE improvements already installed through programs developed under the existing framework. Id.

Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that EE and DSM programs continue to provide meaningful benefits and continue to serve many of the same purposes identified by the Commission when it adopted the EEE Rules. The record therefore does not support the conclusion that the framework should be repealed in its entirety. Rather, the evidence supports updating and modernizing the rules to reflect current technologies and utility needs while preserving the benefits that EE and DSM programs continue to provide.

III. The ROO Fails to Demonstrate Why Complete Repeal Is Warranted
A central flaw in the ROO is that it never adequately explains why complete repeal of the EEE Rules is warranted based on the record developed in this proceeding.

Throughout the rulemaking, concerns were raised regarding the structure of the EEE Rules, the expiration of the original EE standards, the design of certain programs, and the costs associated with particular program offerings. Even assuming those concerns are valid, they do not establish that the entire rule should be repealed. Rather, they suggest that certain provisions may warrant amendment or modernization.

The ROO acknowledges that the original EE standards expired in 2020 and that utilities may continue to pursue EE and DSM programs even in the absence of those standards. ROO ¶ 4. Yet the ROO never explains why the expiration of the original savings targets requires elimination of the remainder of the regulatory framework.

As discussed above, the ROO incorrectly conflates the expiration of the numerical EE savings target with the continued operation of the remainder of the EEE Rules. The expiration of the original savings target does not establish that the remainder of the framework should be repealed.

The existing rules address far more than annual savings targets. As the ROO itself recognizes, the EEE Rules establish requirements relating to DSM implementation plans, Commission review of DSM programs, cost-effectiveness standards, reporting requirements, monitoring and evaluation, and related oversight mechanisms. ROO ¶ 22. The ROO does not explain why these provisions should be eliminated or identify evidence demonstrating that they are no longer serving a useful purpose.

Similarly, the ROO repeatedly references statements made during Commission Open Meetings expressing concern regarding particular EE programs, rebates, incentives, or implementation practices. ROO ¶ 33. However, concerns regarding individual program designs do not establish that the entire regulatory framework should be repealed. If certain programs are not cost-effective, the Commission can reject them. If certain provisions require revision, the Commission can amend them. The record does not demonstrate why repeal of the entire Article is the appropriate response.

When the Commission adopted the EEE Rules, it found that EE reduced costs, improved reliability, reduced infrastructure needs, lowered adverse environmental impacts, and was reasonably necessary to help ensure safe, adequate, and reliable service at just and reasonable rates. Decision No. 71819 at 11-15; ROO ¶¶ 24-30. The ROO does not identify comparable findings demonstrating that these conclusions are no longer valid. Nor does the ROO identify changed circumstances sufficient to justify eliminating the framework rather than updating it. The ROO’s sole explanation is that its “changed position… is rational based on the factual conclusions made herein, and the Commission’s action in repealing the EEE Rules is neither arbitrary nor capricious based on its conclusions.” ROO ¶ 62. A bare assertion that agency action is not arbitrary does not substitute for reasoned explanation of why prior findings are being reversed. Where an agency departs from prior factual conclusions, it must provide more than a conclusory statement that its new position is rational.

The Commission is not limited to a choice between preserving every aspect of the existing rules and eliminating the rules entirely. Indeed, rulemaking exists precisely because regulations may be amended as circumstances change. Yet the ROO contains little discussion of whether targeted amendments could address the concerns identified during this proceeding while preserving the portions of the rules that continue to provide value.

The absence of such analysis is particularly notable given the substantial evidence demonstrating that EE and DSM programs continue to provide measurable benefits. As discussed above, the EIS acknowledges ongoing energy savings, capacity savings, peak demand reductions, and reliability benefits associated with these programs. Updated EIS at 3. The EIS also identifies potential negative consequences associated with repeal. Updated EIS at 5. The ROO never adequately explains why those benefits should be disregarded or why the identified risks are outweighed by the benefits of repeal.

The Commission may reasonably conclude that the EEE Rules should evolve to reflect current market conditions, emerging technologies, and changing utility needs. The record, however, does not support the conclusion that complete repeal is the only available option or the option most consistent with the public interest. The record instead supports updating and modernizing the rules while preserving the portions of the framework that continue to provide meaningful benefits to utilities and ratepayers.

For these reasons, the Commission should reject the recommendation for complete repeal and instead pursue targeted revisions to the EEE Rules.

IV. The ROO Relies Heavily on Policy Preferences and Extra-Record Public Statements While Failing to Address Contrary Evidence
The ROO devotes substantial discussion to Commissioner statements, Commission press releases, and a guest commentary published in the Arizona Capitol Times. ROO ¶¶ 33, 35-39, 45-46. Those materials include broad policy statements regarding subsidies, cost shifts, “free” programs, “slush funds,” “special interests,” and the asserted need to repeal outdated mandates. ROO ¶¶ 35-39, 45-46.

Those materials are not a substitute for record evidence demonstrating that complete repeal of the EEE Rules is reasonable, necessary, or in the public interest. AriSEIA does not dispute that Commissioners may express policy views regarding EE and DSM programs. The problem is that the ROO appears to give substantial weight to press releases, public statements, and opinion commentary rather than grounding the recommendation in the evidence developed through this rulemaking.

That distinction matters. The purpose of a rulemaking record is to provide a transparent basis for agency action and to allow stakeholders to review and respond to the information on which the agency relies. Press releases and opinion commentary are advocacy materials. They are not evidence demonstrating that the EEE Rules should be repealed in their entirety.

The record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that EE and DSM programs continue to provide measurable benefits, including energy savings, peak demand reductions, reliability benefits, and customer savings. Updated EIS at 3; ROO ¶¶ 40, 43-44. The ROO also acknowledges that the Commission has recently approved DSM programs, including programs related to demand response and Virtual Power Plants. ROO ¶¶ 45-47. The ROO further relies on data drawn from APS and TEP Annual Progress Reports, the Commission’s own EIS, and utility IRP filings — yet Finding of Fact ¶ 89 states that “the Commission did not rely on or consider any study in its evaluation of or justification for the proposed repeal.” This is internally inconsistent. The Commission’s own Rules Review Procedure requires that the preamble “includes a reference to any study relevant to the rules that the Commission considered and either did or did not rely on.” Decision No. 78544 at 6 (Att. A). The Commission cannot simultaneously build its factual record on program data reports and claim to have considered no studies.

The ROO further acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of comments filed in this proceeding opposed repeal. Staff reported that 1,891 individuals filed or signed comments opposing repeal, while only 6 individuals filed comments supporting repeal. ROO ¶ 11. Numerous businesses, local governments, educational institutions, consumer advocates, environmental organizations, health organizations, utilities, and other stakeholders likewise opposed repeal. ROO ¶¶ 11, 19. While the Commission is not obligated to follow the majority view expressed in public comments, the volume and consistency of opposition demonstrates that significant concerns were raised regarding the consequences of repeal. Yet despite the volume of comments and evidence submitted, the ROO ultimately does not explain why the documented benefits of EE and DSM programs are outweighed by the asserted benefits of repeal.

The existence of widespread opposition does not require the Commission to reach a particular result. However, where the record contains extensive evidence and stakeholder input supporting continued EE and DSM programs, the Commission should meaningfully address that evidence and explain why it is unpersuasive. Simply cataloging comments, then relying on public statements and press releases favoring repeal, does not adequately explain why complete repeal is warranted.

Several of the concerns repeated in the ROO relate to particular program designs, incentives, rebates, or implementation decisions. ROO ¶¶ 33, 35-39, 45-46. Those concerns may support revisions to specific rules or greater scrutiny of individual DSM programs. They do not support eliminating the entire regulatory framework, particularly where the same ROO recognizes that DSM and VPP programs continue to provide value and should continue to be available. ROO ¶¶ 45-47.

For these reasons, the Commission should not adopt a ROO that devotes substantial attention to press releases, public statements, and opinion commentary while failing to adequately address contrary evidence in the record. The appropriate course is to update and modernize the EEE Rules, not repeal them.
 
V. The Commission Cannot Bypass Attorney General Certification on the Contested Claim That This Repeal Is Wholly Authorized by Its Exclusive Ratemaking Authority
The ROO concludes that this repeal “is wholly authorized by the Commission’s exclusive and plenary constitutional ratemaking authority under Arizona Constitution Article 15, § 3” and on that basis declines to submit the rulemaking to the Office of the Attorney General for review and certification under A.R.S. § 41-1044. ROO ¶ 61, 94-95; Conclusions of Law ¶ 3. That determination is legally untenable and exposes the repeal to challenge.

The ROO itself acknowledges the problem. In Finding of Fact ¶ 52, the ROO states that the Arizona Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Johnson Utilities, L.L.C. v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 249 Ariz. 215 (2020) (“Johnson”), “suggests that the Arizona Supreme Court, if asked, may not view the EEE Rules as having been wholly authorized by the Commission’s constitutional ratemaking authority.” ROO ¶ 52. The ROO further acknowledges that the Johnson Court characterized as “flawed” the prior holding in Arizona Corporation Commission v. State ex rel. Woods, 171 Ariz. 286 (1992), on which the Commission had previously relied for the proposition that its ratemaking authority empowered it to adopt broad regulatory programs like the EEE Rules. ROO ¶ 52. The Johnson Court also expressed disapproval of Court of Appeals decisions, including Miller v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 227 Ariz. 21 (App. 2011), which had upheld the REST Rules under this same theory. Id.

Despite this frank acknowledgment of legal uncertainty, the ROO presses forward and claims the exemption from A.G. review. That is precisely backwards: where the constitutional basis for a rulemaking is genuinely contested in light of intervening Supreme Court authority, the cautious and legally sound course is to obtain A.G. certification, not to skip it. The original EEE Rules were submitted to the Attorney General for certification “out of an abundance of caution,” notwithstanding the Commission’s position at the time that they were wholly authorized by ratemaking authority. Decision No. 71819 at 17; ROO ¶ 30. No principled basis exists for applying less caution now, when the Supreme Court has cast additional doubt on the underlying constitutional theory.

The Attorney General of Arizona filed comments in this very docket opposing the repeal and stating that it “jeopardizes the Commission’s core responsibility to power Arizona’s future safely, reliably, and affordably, and is unlawful.” ROO, Exh. D at 6 (A.G. Comment). The ROO’s response to the A.G.’s comment never meaningfully addresses the A.G.’s argument that the Commission lacks an adequate evidentiary basis for repeal and never explains why A.G. certification is unnecessary given the uncertainty identified in Johnson. The Commission should not bypass A.G. certification on the basis of a legal claim its own Recommended Order concedes may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
 
VI. Repeal Creates an Unresolved Conflict Between Eliminating the Mandate and Preserving the Surcharges That Fund It
The ROO acknowledges a significant unresolved consequence of repeal: when the EEE Rules are eliminated, “there will no longer be even an illusory DSM/EE mandate (such as the expired EE standard that currently appears in the EEE Rules) to support the concept of the LFCR.” ROO Ƃ 49. The Lost Fixed Cost Recovery Mechanism (“LFCR”) is the surcharge mechanism through which APS and TEP customers pay for the revenue reductions caused by DSM programs reducing volumetric sales. ROO ¶ 49.

The ROO, however, does not order the elimination of the LFCR. Instead, the ROO states that the surcharges “will continue unless and until specific Commission decisions eliminate them.” ROO, Exh. C (EIS) at 5. This creates a direct conflict with the Commission’s own ratemaking obligation. If the Commission has determined that the EEE Rules are no longer in the public interest and that the mandate underlying the LFCR has expired, continuing to collect LFCR surcharges from ratepayers without a corresponding regulatory obligation raises a serious question under Article 15, § 3 of the Arizona Constitution as to whether those rates remain “just and reasonable.” The Commission cannot simultaneously declare the mandate that justifies the surcharge to be contrary to the public interest and continue charging ratepayers for it without explanation.

The ROO’s failure to resolve this conflict is an independent ground for rejection. If the Commission intends to repeal the EEE Rules, it should simultaneously address the continued collection of LFCR surcharges and provide ratepayers with a clear and lawful basis for any ongoing charges.

VII. The Economic Impact Statement Does Not Support Complete Repeal
The Economic Impact Statement ("EIS") provides further evidence that complete repeal of the EEE Rules is unwarranted. Exhibit C.

An EIS is intended to evaluate the probable costs and benefits associated with a proposed rulemaking. Here, however, the EIS repeatedly identifies benefits associated with EE and DSM programs and acknowledges potential adverse consequences associated with repeal.

The EIS reports that APS has achieved more than 1,740 MW of cumulative peak demand savings through EE programs since 2005. It further reports that TEP's DSM programs have delivered approximately 604.78 MW of capacity savings and 1.73 million MWh of energy savings since 2015. Updated EIS at 3. The EIS also recognizes that EE investments contribute to utility resource planning, grid reliability, and peak demand reduction. Id.

The ROO further acknowledges substantial net benefits associated with DSM programs. According to the ROO, APS reported DSM program benefits of approximately $1.432 billion compared to costs of approximately $941 million. ROO ¶ 40. These figures reflect substantial net benefits to customers and undermine the assertion that the existing framework has failed or no longer provides value. Notwithstanding these figures, the ROO concludes in Finding of Fact ¶ 84 that “the probable benefits of the proposed repeal of the EEE Rules in Arizona outweigh the probable costs.” The ROO offers no analysis reconciling that conclusion with the documented $490 million net surplus in ratepayer benefits, nor does it explain why a program generating a greater-than-1.5:1 benefit-to-cost ratio should be eliminated in the public interest.

The EIS further notes that TEP's Smart Rewards program has consistently delivered between 20 MW and 30 MW of first-hour peak demand reduction and identifies newer programs, including battery storage programs, that are intended to further support grid reliability. Updated EIS at 3. These findings demonstrate that DSM programs continue to provide measurable value and continue to evolve in response to changing grid needs.

The EIS likewise identifies several potential adverse consequences associated with repeal. The EIS states that reduced investment in EE programs may increase customer energy consumption and contribute to higher long-term utility bills. Updated EIS at 5. The EIS further concludes that repeal may result in inconsistent program availability across utility service territories, reduced access to EE programs, and disproportionate impacts on low- and moderate-income households. Id.

Importantly, the EIS does not conclude that EE or DSM programs have failed. Nor does it conclude that the framework established by the EEE Rules has been ineffective. To the contrary, the EIS repeatedly acknowledges the benefits associated with EE and DSM programs and identifies risks associated with eliminating the regulatory framework that supports those programs.

The EIS therefore raises the same question left unanswered elsewhere in the ROO: if EE and DSM programs continue to provide measurable benefits, and if repeal carries identifiable risks, why is complete repeal preferable to amendment?

The EIS does not answer that question. Instead, the EIS supports a more measured approach. If the Commission believes portions of the EEE Rules require revision, those provisions can be amended. If the Commission believes the expired EE savings standards should be updated, those standards can be revised. The EIS does not support the conclusion that the entire Article should be repealed.

Accordingly, the Commission should give substantial weight to the EIS findings recognizing the ongoing benefits of EE and DSM programs and should pursue modernization of the EEE Rules rather than their elimination.

VIII. Recommendations and Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, AriSEIA respectfully recommends that the Commission reject the ROO's recommendation to repeal the EEE Rules. The record demonstrates that EE and DSM programs continue to provide substantial benefits to Arizona utilities, ratepayers, and the electric grid. The record further demonstrates that DSM programs continue to evolve and play an increasingly important role in resource planning, peak demand reduction, grid reliability, and customer participation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that those benefits have disappeared or that the regulatory framework governing such programs should be eliminated.

AriSEIA recognizes that portions of the EEE Rules may warrant revision. The electric industry has changed considerably since the rules were adopted in 2010, and the Commission may reasonably conclude that certain provisions should be updated to reflect current technologies, market conditions, and utility needs. The existence of potential improvements, however, does not support complete repeal of the rules. Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends that the Commission update and modernize the EEE Rules rather than repeal them.

At a minimum, the Commission should preserve the provisions governing DSM implementation plans. The ROO does not identify any replacement framework through which utilities will file future DSM plans or through which the Commission will review and oversee those filings. Eliminating those provisions would create substantial regulatory uncertainty for utilities, stakeholders, and the Commission.

This concern is particularly significant because the Commission has repeatedly approved DSM programs, including VPP programs, and utilities continue to rely on DSM resources as part of their planning portfolios. If the Commission intends for DSM and VPP programs to continue, a regulatory framework governing those programs must also continue.

The record supports modernization. It does not support elimination. AriSEIA therefore respectfully requests that the Commission reject the ROO and pursue amendments to the EEE Rules in lieu of repeal.
​
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
​
PHOENIX, Ariz. – June 16, 2026 – The Arizona Court of Appeals has vacated the Arizona Corporation Commission's decision approving Arizona Public Service's (APS) solar-specific charges, including the Grid Access Charge (GAC) and the Legacy Solar Rate Increase (LSRI), marking a significant victory for Arizona's rooftop solar customers and the rule of law.

The Court concluded that the Commission's decision cannot stand and remanded the matter for further proceedings after finding that the process used to adopt the charges deprived affected parties of a meaningful opportunity to challenge them.

Importantly, the Court recognized that APS never proposed the solar-specific charges in its rate application and instead sought a uniform residential rate increase. The solar charges were introduced only after the evidentiary record had closed, leaving customers and stakeholders without an opportunity to fully address the proposal.

"This decision confirms what AriSEIA has argued from the beginning: Arizona's rooftop solar customers should not be singled out for discriminatory charges that were never properly proposed or supported," said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. "The Court has now vacated those charges, and the Commission should act quickly to eliminate both the Grid Access Charge and the Legacy Solar Rate Increase in the pending APS rate case."

The Commission itself previously found that APS had not demonstrated that rooftop solar customers impose unique costs warranting separate treatment. In this appeal, the Court further recognized that APS did not seek approval of the solar charges in the underlying case and that affected parties lacked meaningful notice that such charges were under consideration.

Rather than continue to defend charges that have now been vacated by the Court of Appeals, AriSEIA urges the Arizona Corporation Commission to use the ongoing APS rate case to permanently eliminate the use of a site load cost of service study and the GAC and LSRI and restore a fair, transparent, and evidence-based approach to ratemaking.

"The Commission has an opportunity to put this issue behind it," Johnson said. "Arizona should encourage customer investment in rooftop solar, not burden it with unlawful and discriminatory charges that have now been rejected by the courts."

For more than four years, AriSEIA has worked alongside its members, national partners, fellow appellants, and Arizona solar customers to challenge these charges and advocate for policies that are lawful, transparent, and support customer choice.

About AriSEIA
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a statewide nonprofit trade association representing the solar, storage, and electrification industry. AriSEIA's mission is to develop and support policies that create opportunities to advance Arizona's economy through solar energy, storage, and electrification. AriSEIA advocates for sustainable job creation in the deployment of solar and complementary technologies and collaborates with stakeholders to encourage utilization of Arizona's greatest natural resource: the sun.
​
Media Contact
Autumn Johnson
520-240-4757
[email protected]