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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AriSEIA filed joint comments with Vote Solar and Solar United Neighbors today calling on the ACC to not undertake the annual 10% RCP decrease as requested by TEP, APS, and UNSE. There are too many other policy changes at the state and federal level that have negatively impacted the solar industry to further erode it now. 

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Response to Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement; IRP Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
AriSEIA is a member of both the TEP/UNSE and APS Resource Planning Advisory Councils (RPAC). We have been engaged with the last two TEP and APS Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). In addition to being on the RPACs, regularly attending the meetings, submitting detailed comments on the plans, presenting at the IRP workshop and IRP open meeting; we also participated in the modeling process last time.
 
AriSEIA filed comments on the original Staff recommendation on October 4, 2024.[1] AriSEIA continues to maintain that it is a mistake to require stakeholders to pay for their own modeling licenses. AriSEIA also filed comments refuting utility statements at the IRP workshop that stakeholders had not properly utilized their licenses on August 27, 2024.[2] AriSEIA filed comments on the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024 as required. That filing was 142 pages long.[3] AriSEIA also filed 263 pages of joint comments with Vote Solar and Advanced Energy United as to the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024.[4] That filing included 124 slides as to RMI’s analysis of TEP and APS’ IRPs, based on their use of the modeling licenses. RMI was our consultant in that matter. AriSEIA filed joint comments in the same docket supporting the need to move the IRP deadline due to modeling delays on May 2, 2023.[5] AriSEIA filed a letter to the docket expressing concerns that APS and TEP were violating the 2020 IRP Order in delaying the release of the modeling tools on April 28, 2023.[6] We note these filings now to draw attention to our robust participation in IRP dockets, but also to highlight that issues with the modeling licenses plagued all of 2023. AriSEIA does not recommend changing the process yet again, as we had just barely worked out the issues with the prior process.
 
Nevertheless, we highlight the following concerns with the Utilities Division Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement filed on May 9, 2025.[7] First, it is important this issue is addressed as soon as possible. It was very clear last time that waiting until the calendar year in which the IRP is due is too late to obtain the modeling licenses and corresponding NDAs, etc. This resulted in significant delays last time, which resulted in the IRP deadline having to be postponed. Second, it is important that the utilities are negotiating down the price of the licenses and provide that price imminently. It is not clear how many licenses we need, how much they cost, or how long we would need to forgo recouping that deposit.
 
It is still unclear what problem this policy is trying to solve. It has been stated that “some” stakeholders, apparently including AriSEIA, did not do enough work to “deserve” a modeling license, despite all of the work described above. However, there were no articulated requirements we failed to meet. The Commission could simply set requirements and not require stakeholders to upfront the cost. There is no articulated reason that small nonprofits need to expend tens of thousands of dollars in advance to provide an essential service to this Commission (i.e., critical review of portfolios that cost ratepayers billions of dollars). That being said, if the Commission proceeds on its current course the requirements should be a floor. It is very strenuous to require stakeholders to run three separate portfolios just to be reimbursed for the licenses.
 
RECOMMENDATION 1: Require One Model
 
AriSEIA recommends the policy require a stakeholder to run the base case scenario or one (not two) distinct portfolio. Staff’s concerns about ability to hire consultants, Staff capacity as to time, and their lack of any modeling in the 2023 IRP process highlight how onerous this work is. There is no substantiation as to why stakeholder need to run three models. One should be the floor. If a stakeholder has the time or resources to run more, then there is nothing stopping them from doing that.
  
RECOMMENDATION 2: Create a Data Request Process
 
Further, there were data limitations from the utilities last time that would not have even allowed stakeholders to run the base case as required by the policy. Stakeholders should not have to forgo their deposit due to a failure on the part of the utility. Not only should the policy be clear what the utilities must provide and by when, it should allow for a discovery like process. If you have issued a Letter of Intent, you should also be able to issue data requests that the utilities have to comply with in 10 days, just like in a rate case.
 
RECOMMENDATION 3: Honor Reciprocity as to Any Deadline Delays
 
Any delays by the utilities to meet their deadlines in the IRP process should correspond with an equal delay in the requirements for stakeholders to meet their subsequent deadlines. A delay on the part of a utility should not require a stakeholder to forfeit their deposit.
 
RECOMMENDATION 4: Allow Stakeholders to Jointly Complete the Framework Requirements
 
“Stakeholder” in this policy should not be singular. Stakeholders should be able to work collaboratively with one Letter of Intent and be able to share the data and responsibility for the requirements articulated in this policy, even if only one person is actually allowed to run the model (i.e., maintains the license). Stakeholders should be able to work together to fund one consultant. A consultant that does capacity expansion modeling likely exceeds $100,000. That number will go up if more modeling runs (like three) are required. Even with model license reimbursement, the Commission is making this process so onerous that most stakeholders, like AriSEIA, will not be able to participate absent working collaboratively with other stakeholders.
 
RECOMMENDATION 5: Reimbursement Must Occur within 60 days of October 30, 2026
 
Reimbursement should happen within 60 days of the stakeholder filing its analysis on October 30, 2026 and should not require a subsequent vote of the Commission and should, certainly, not have to wait until a vote of the Commission on the actual IRPs, which is typically one to two years after the IRPs are filed. A stakeholder being out >$30,000 for two to three years is not reasonable. The utilities will know what the requirements are and reimbursement should happen seamlessly after filing. If there is any kind of dispute, a stakeholder can notify Staff and that can be taken up by a vote of the Commission. But all stakeholders should not need a vote on something that a) you will have voted on already before the process commences and b) is not likely to be controversial. Note, should any of the deadlines be moved, the 60 days should run from the due date for filing the analysis.
 
RECOMMENDATION 6: Create a Scholarship Option
 
The Commission should consider a scholarship process for stakeholders that can demonstrate a financial hardship. The Commission should put parameters in place to make sure only qualified stakeholders qualify for the scholarship. If a stakeholder does qualify, they should be required to complete the requirements set out in this policy, but without paying for the license themselves. Suggested parameters may include: being a member of the RPAC, attending a certain percentage of RPAC meetings, demonstrated participation in the last IRP process, being a not for profit entity, and financial hardship either by 990 or other means. Penalty for obtaining a scholarship and not completing the requirements as set forth in this policy could be disqualification from any such similar program in the next IRP cycle.
 
RECOMMENDATION 7: Spread Out When the Fees are Due
 
Finally, entities should not have to upfront the entire cost of the license at the outset. Perhaps half is paid at the beginning and half is paid in Q1 2026 or some other date. Being out >$30,000 for multiple budget cycles could be very difficult for many nonprofit organizations.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.