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. 

AriSEIA, along with the Attorney General's Office, Western Resource Advocates, and the Sierra Club, filed an Application for Rehearing today in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) case. In this case, UNSE asked the ACC to "disclaim jurisdiction" over essentially all new gas plants in the State. The Line Siting Committee voted against them 9-2 after a two day hearing, but the ACC voted along party lines to overturn that decision. AriSEIA asked for rehearing, which is a necessary next step to appeal.

UNSE continues to call for a Motion to Dismiss on AriSEIA's complaint against them for violating Arizona's Line Siting statutes for nearly two decades. AriSEIA argues that position is premature given the likely rehearing or appeal on the underling disclaimer of jurisdiction docket.

The Arizona Corporation Commission sent AriSEIA a letter regarding our UNSE press release, requesting changes. AriSEIA filed the request along with a letter objecting to the inappropriate request in the docket and declined to make the requested changes.

The administrative law judge has imposed a stay on AriSEIA's complaint against UNSE pending the outcome of the UNSE CEC docket, which AriSEIA does not oppose at this time.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Autumn Johnson
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ - Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted 4-1 along party lines to overturn the 9-2 decision of their own Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee. The ACC's vote will eliminate environmental review of new gas plants in Arizona going forward. It reverses 53 years of consistent application of Arizona law regarding the siting of new thermal power plants.

UNE Electric (UNSE), the sister company of Tucson Electric Power (TEP), plans to add 200 MW of new gas at Black Mountain Generating Station in Mohave County. Plants greater than 100 MW are required to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) from the Line Siting Committee. UNSE argued that A.R.S. 40-360(9) should be reinterpreted to only require a CEC for turbines that are greater than 100 MW, regardless of how many there are or the overall size of the plant. This loophole will now mean that no utilities in Arizona will need ACC review of any new gas (or nuclear) plants as long as the individual units are smaller than 100 MW.

"The ACC overturned their own Line Siting Committee and 53 years of legal precedent today to achieve the policy goal of making it as easy as possible to build more gas generation while simultaneously stating that the legislature should require additional regulation of renewables," said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA). "We had a 2 day hearing in front of an 11 member Committee and UNSE lost overwhelmingly because they did not prove their case. And yet, we can now expect that every utility in Arizona will start building new plants with no environmental review. This is a major setback for the clean energy transition."

The intervening parties have 20 days to ask for a rehearing before they can appeal to Superior Court. The full docket can be found here.

About AriSEIA

AriSEIA is the leading voice of the solar industry in Arizona, dedicated to advancing solar energy through advocacy, education, and collaboration. With a commitment to promoting sustainable energy solutions, AriSEIA serves as a catalyst for the growth and development of Arizona's solar industry.

On June 11th, the Arizona Corporation Commission will be reviewing a very significant decision from its own Line Siting Committee. In the decision, the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee rejected a request by Unisource to waive its own authority to review new thermal power plants in the state. To do so, the ACC would have to interpret Arizona law differently than it has for the last half century.

The Line Siting Committee is made up of 11 members. Six of those members are appointed by the corporation commissioners themselves. All six of the ACC-appointed members were appointed last year at this time. Roman Fontes representing the counties, David Kryder representing agriculture, Toby Little representing the general public, and Scott Somers representing the cities were appointed by the ACC on May 1, 2023. The appointments of Kryder, Little, and  Somers were unanimous. Fontes was appointed 4-1 with Commissioner Tovar voting no. Dave Richins representing the general public and Jon Gold representing the general public were appointed on July 12, 2023 unanimously.

Five of those six appointees voted no on Unisource’s request after a two-day hearing that resulted in a 463 page-transcript. Richins, Fontes, Little, Somers, and Gold all voted against Unisource. Here are comments taken from the transcript.

Richins questioned Unisource stating, “so you don’t consider a CEC [certificate of environmental compatibility] would be part of the right thing to do, then, in this instance?” Little pointed out that “one of the important parts of the law says that the CEC would provide a single proceeding to which access will be open to interested and affected [persons].”
​
Unisource is attempting to reinterpret A.R.S. § 40-360(9) in a way to absolve them of needing environmental review by the ACC. To do that, they have to prove that the turbines are separate from one another. Richins asked “that natural gas feeds into the whole facility from one location into that plant, into that generating station?”  Fontes asked, “Is it one single gas contract or is it separate gas contracts, because you’re characterizing these as separate units that are operating independent and dispatching.”

Little explained her vote against Unisource saying, “I believe that as a representative of the public, I have a responsibility to assure that the public has the right to express their voice in the siting of environmental impact for generation and transmission, and I think that clumping a bunch of smaller units all in one place does that. And I vote no.”

Richins made the motion to deny Unisource’s request, which was seconded by Fontes. Explaining his vote, Gold said, “I too represent the people of the state of Arizona and while I believe you should build this plant, I believe a CEC in this case is necessary…. I don’t foresee you not getting one. But I have to say, this Committee is here for a reason.”

The committee voted 9-2 to deny Unisource’s request. The committee then issued a written decision including its legal analysis denying Unisource’s request on May 2, 2024. The decision stated, “[Unisource’s] interpretation of A.R.S. § 40-360(9) would circumvent the manifest purpose of the line siting statutes and deprive the people of Arizona who are affected by the construction of these major facilities of their ability to participate in the process to mitigate the adverse impacts on the environment and their quality of life.” Pg. 6.

The ACC commissioners should uphold the overwhelming decision of the committee they just appointed last year – the committee that listened to two days of testimony and oral arguments and reviewed dozens of exhibits. The committee got it right and the ACC should deny Unisource’s request. Doing anything else would needlessly cede half of the authority of the ACC’s own Line Siting Committee.

AriSEIA filed exceptions in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) certificate of environmental compatibility (CEC)) case in which they have asked the ACC for a "disclaimer of jurisdiction." UNSE asks the ACC to interpret AZ law differently than it has for the last 53 years and in a way that would basically waive ACC authority over all new gas plants in the state. AriSEIA also put forward an amendment to improve ACC Staff's Sample Order No. 2 denying the request. The Line Siting Committee already voted 9-2 against UNSE. This is on the June 11th open meeting agenda.

UNSE filed an Answer to AriSEIA's complaint that they have been operating Black Mountain Generating Station since 2007 in violation of Arizona's Line Siting statutes. UNSE asked for the complaint to be dismissed or stayed (i.e. put on hold) pending the outcome of the Black Mountain Expansion Project CEC (certificate of environmental compatibility) matter. AriSEIA has objected and you can read that filing above.

AriSEIA filed a formal complaint today against Unisource Energy Company (UNSE). UNSE has been violating Arizona's Line Siting statutes for 16 years by operating Black Mountain Generating Station (a 122 MW gas plant) without a certificate of environmental compatibility (CEC). The complaint asks for UNSE to be required to obtain a CEC right away and pay punitive damages.