On May 18, I stood outside the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) with small business owners, parents, faith leaders, veterans and everyday Arizonans who had one unified message for our state’s utility regulators: Enough. Only a single speaker that day supported Arizona Public Service’s (APS) proposed rate hike, a hike that could raise electricity bills by hundreds of dollars a year for families already choosing between groceries and keeping the lights on. The hearing room filled to capacity and an overflow room had to be opened. Public comment ran past its allotted time because so many Arizonans showed up to be heard. That evening, more people, many who couldn’t attend during work hours, gathered for a rally outside the commission, refusing to leave until their voices echoed in that building. 

In case you are wondering, here is what comes next.

The May 18 session was not the end of the APS rate case. It was one milestone in a process that began when APS filed its application last June and will not conclude until late 2026 at the earliest. The evidentiary hearing of the formal proceeding where APS, commission staff, and more than 30 intervenors present witnesses and evidence to the Administrative Law Judge is scheduled to run through the end of July. The judge will then draft an opinion, outlining proposed rates and whether APS should be allowed to use a controversial Formula Rate Adjustment Mechanism, or FRAM, that would let the utility raise rates annually without a full rate case. Finally, the commission votes at an open meeting, expected later this year, where commissioners can adopt or amend the judge’s recommendation before their final vote. If approved, new rates would take effect in early 2027.

That is a long runway, and it is also an opportunity.

Every step between now and that vote is a chance for ratepayers to be heard. The commissioners are elected officials. They are supposed to answer to the people of Arizona, the ratepayers, not to APS shareholders. Yet not every commissioner was present to hear the public out on May 18. When hundreds of Arizonans take time away from work and family to show up, the people they elected to regulate their utilities should be in the room to listen. And what happened that day: the overflow room, the extended hearing, the unanimous opposition sends a message commissioners cannot ignore in the months ahead.

What I witnessed was not just opposition to a rate hike. It was a community that has had enough of being treated like an afterthought in decisions that shape their daily lives. It was business owners who understood that unsustainable energy costs threaten their livelihoods.

“Energy affordability isn’t just a utility issue, it’s an economic justice issue. At El Sagrado Galeria, every dollar that goes to an inflated APS bill is a dollar that doesn’t go back into our community. We’re calling on the ACC to protect small businesses and reject this rate hike,” said Sam Gomez, executive director of El Sagrado Galeria.

It was renters and working families who cannot absorb another bill increase when food, housing, and healthcare are already out of reach for too many. It was young people who know they will pay for APS’s expensive gas plant investments for decades if the commission does not demand better. It was veterans, faith leaders and environmental justice advocates standing shoulder to shoulder because they all live under the same Arizona sun and pay the same APS bill.

The ACC now carries the weight of what it heard on May 18. The judge will consider the information and make a recommendation. The commissioners will deliberate and vote on what to give APS. And through every step, we will be watching, speaking out, organizing, and holding the ACC accountable to the people it is supposed to serve.

Si te preguntas si tu voz importa, sí importa. It matters now more than ever.

The fight for affordable, clean energy in Arizona did not end when the hearing room doors closed on May 18. It continues!

Ylenia Aguilar is a Senior Campaign Organizer with the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign in Arizona and an elected member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District Board.

The post What happens now? The APS rate case isn’t over first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points:

• APS and TEP are seeking formula rates to allow annual adjustments instead of periodic large hikes

• Supporters say it reduces regulatory lag, critics warn of weak consumer protections and accountability

• The policy faces court challenges and strong public opposition

Formula rates are a hot topic at the Arizona Corporation Commission as the state’s two major electric utility companies seek double-digit rate increases. 

The concept of formula rates has been broached at public comment sessions, rate case hearings and even the commission’s most recent May 18 Republican primary debate. Incumbent Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson, who are seeking another four-year term, voted to enact formula rates and defended the concept on the Clean Elections debate stage.

“As part of that formula rate process, we’re requiring that they come in every single year to readjust that formula,” Myers told moderator Steve Goldstein. “Which means that if natural gas prices fall off, inflation takes a dip, whatever the case is, you actually have a chance of a rate decrease, which is something we’ve never had before.”

Myers spearheaded the adoption of formula rates, opening a docket at the commission in 2023 to explore new ways to address the regulatory lag that utility companies argued was contributing to double-digit rate increase requests. Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power are both in the process of asking the commission for 14% rate increases. 

The commission approved a policy statement in late 2024 allowing utility companies to request a formula rate mechanism. If granted, a utility would be allowed to annually adjust the rates it charges customers without the typically rigorous examination involved in a normal rate case. 

That policy statement was challenged in court by the Residential Utility Consumer Office, with the Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately determining that the commission violated rulemaking statutes in adopting it. The commission appealed that ruling, but the Arizona Supreme Court sent it back to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further review. 

Despite the ongoing litigation, the commission approved the state’s first formula rate mechanism for UNS Gas in February. RUCO appealed that decision shortly thereafter, citing the pending legal questions and the lack of consumer protections included in the mechanism. 

That didn’t stop APS and TEP, the state’s two largest electric utility providers, from filing for 14% rate increases and commission approval for formula rate mechanisms in June 2025. 

Both companies argue that a formula rate mechanism would prevent the build up of large rate increases over time by instead spreading them out into smaller rate increases annually, essentially allowing the utility companies to more quickly recover the costs incurred to serve customers.

For example, APS’ current rate application is based on what the company spent and borrowed in 2024. But by the time the commission approves the company’s new rates, those costs could be three years out of date.

Under formula rates, the commission would instead be given one year to review and vote on a rate adjustment request, and utilities would be required to come in for a full rate case every five years. 

APS President and CEO Ted Geisler testified in the company’s rate case that its proposed formula rate mechanism would also allow it to annually update the cost to serve large load customers like data centers. He argued the mechanism is critical to prevent cost shifts to residential ratepayers as more data centers come online across the state. 

“As we look to add substantial amounts of new large customers onto the grid, the costs driven by that customer class is going to change dramatically each year,” Geisler testified. “It’s going to be very, very different, and if we’re not updating that on an annual basis, you will inherently start to create a cost shift and an affordability issue for residential and small business customers.”

Additionally, both APS and TEP have proposed “deadbands” along with their rate adjustment mechanisms to prevent unnecessary adjustments. The deadbands would prevent a rate adjustment if the utility’s revenue falls within a certain range of its commission-approved rate of return.

APS is requesting a 10.7% rate of return and a 20 basis point deadband, meaning it could not seek a rate adjustment if its rate of return fell between 10.5% and 10.9%. TEP is proposing the same deadband for its requested 10.5% rate of return.

Not everyone is convinced that formula rate mechanisms will benefit Arizona’s residential ratepayers. Several of the intervenors in the rate cases for APS and TEP presented evidence and testimony urging the commission to reject the formula rates. 

Cynthia Zwick, director of RUCO, said her office would want to see far more consumer protections if the commission ultimately adopts the mechanisms. RUCO is advocating for caps on annual rate adjustments — which the utilities oppose — to ensure customers aren’t overwhelmed with increases as the cost to provide utility services shows no sign of going down. 

RUCO is also concerned with the sheer number of utility companies asking for formula rates. If a customer receives gas, water and electricity from commission-regulated utility companies, all three of those bills could increase because most of the state’s utilities are asking for or plan to ask for a formula rate. 

According to the commission, nine utility companies are currently asking for a formula rate in a rate case. That includes APS and TEP, as well as one gas utility and six water/wastewater utilities. 

Additionally, one member of the all-Republican commission has consistently voted against formula rates. Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson voted against adopting the policy statement in 2024 and voted against adopting UNS Gas’ rate adjustment mechanism in February.

Márquez Peterson argued at a Feb. 19 commission meeting that nothing in the evidentiary record for the UNS Gas rate case suggested a formula rate would benefit customers.

“A formula rate is a tool, not an entitlement,” Márquez Peterson said at the meeting. “Its use must enhance, not erode the commission’s constitutional duty to protect public interest.”

And despite claims from the commission and utility companies that formula rates will ultimately benefit customers, ratepayers themselves are vehemently opposed to formula rates. Several APS customers made that clear during a public comment hearing on May 18.

“Accountability is extremely important,” said Allan Lenefsky, a Sun City resident. “The formula will cause accountability to decrease tremendously. Consumers deserve better than that.”

The post How would APS and TEP’s formula rate adjustments work? first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The timing of APS’ “arizona. public. service.” commercial broadcast during a recent Diamondbacks game was a masterclass in corporate irony.

This branding — designed to evoke communal duty — came as APS agreed to a $7 million settlement with Attorney General Kris Mayes. The agreement resolved a consumer fraud investigation into APS’s disconnection practices during extreme heat following the death of 82-year-old Kate Korman.

APS’s assertion that it prioritizes customer safety rang hollow. “If that were true, my mom would not have died in the first place,” said Adam Korman, Kate’s son. For those watching the utility’s track record — and the Arizona Corporation Commission tasked with policing it — a more accurate tagline would be: Arizona. Public. Disservice.

‘Bad Policy’ — Now adopted by APS
The attorney general’s complaint followed the death of the Sun City West resident whose service was remotely disconnected for nonpayment on May 13, 2024. The settlement notes that APS disconnected service for nonpayment over 110,000 times in 2018, and that Korman was eligible for rate plans that could have lowered her costs.

A death like Korman’s was not only foreseeable; it was predictable. The commission had ignored heat activist Stacey Champion, who warned for years that prohibiting shutoffs only from June 1 to Oct. 15 was insufficient.

The commission failed to mandate a temperature-based rule. Worse, current Chairman Nick Myers previously called it a “bad policy” and refused to support it — despite Korman’s death occurring on a 99-degree day in May. 

Now, only after arm-twisting by the Attorney General’s Office, APS has agreed to a voluntary 95-degree hold outside the summer window and consented to encourage other utilities to do the same.

Rules followed, customer dead
Worse still is the callous conduct of those elected to oversee safety. 

Nick Myers, then-vice chairman, infamously clashed with Korman’s grieving sons on social media. He claimed the commission had “no control over the situation,” and insisted the utility went “above and beyond.” And he pointed the finger at Korman’s sons saying, “you failed to protect your own mother.”

It took the commission a full year to look into the fiasco — and only after pressure from Attorney General Mayes. Following a non-public inquiry, the commission claimed APS was in compliance, declaring “the utility followed the rules.” Even after the settlement was announced, the commission repeated its “no rule violation” finding.

Even though following those rules resulted in a death, the commission took no steps to update them. It is chilling when the body constitutionalized to oversee public health is satisfied with a status quo that the state’s top prosecutor proved was lethal.

A pattern of failure
This is not the first time APS has settled after accusations of violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. 

Former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich secured nearly $25 million from APS in 2021 for providing inaccurate information regarding rate plan comparisons. Now, Democratic Attorney General Mayes has extracted another $7 million.

The commission, authorized to enforce health and safety rules, has failed to corral powerful monopolies, leaving it to the state’s top lawyers to protect citizens. The Republican-majority commission’s recent behavior suggests they are more interested in being a shield for utilities than a sword for consumers.

They have repeatedly sided with utilities while voting against the state agency that represents the interests of consumers. They have targeted energy rules for repeal despite billions in net benefits, and they have handed a gift to utilities by authorizing annual rate increases on autopilot while bypassing standard rule-making.

By failing to demand accountability, the commission isn’t just failing to lead — it’s providing cover. 

And as long as that continues, the tagline, “arizona. public. service.” will remain nothing more than a deceptive marketing slogan.

Abhay Padgaonkar is a management consultant and longtime consumer advocate who served as an expert witness on behalf of utility ratepayers in 2018. 

The post When reality clashes with branding: Arizona. Public. Disservice. first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Arizona’s Constitution is clear. The Arizona Corporation Commission was designed to operate as an independent, elected body with exclusive authority over utility ratemaking. That independence exists to ensure decisions affecting millions of ratepayers are made through evidence, due process, and transparency, rather than political pressure.

That balance is increasingly being tested.

Over the past year, Attorney General Kris Mayes has repeatedly used her office to challenge actions of the commission in a pattern that raises serious concerns about the use of legal authority as a political tool for lawfare rather than a measured exercise of oversight.

Consider the breadth of recent actions.

The attorney general challenged the commission’s approval of an Annual Rate Adjustment Mechanism for UNS Gas, targeting a ratemaking tool that falls squarely within the commission’s constitutional authority under Article 15 of the Arizona Constitution. 

Disagreements over rate design are not unusual but elevating them into legal challenges aimed at overturning commission authority is something different entirely.

The same pattern appears in the challenge to Tucson Electric Power’s energy service agreement tied to a major data center project. That agreement was structured specifically to ensure that the data center pays its own costs rather than shifting burdens to existing customers. Yet the attorney general sought to invalidate the decision, despite the consumer protections embedded within it.

At the same time, the attorney general has taken aggressive positions in Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power matters more broadly, intervening in ways that go beyond traditional legal participation and into sustained public opposition to commission proceedings.

From litigation over the repeal of the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff rules to repeated challenges across multiple utility proceedings, the attorney general has demonstrated a willingness to escalate nearly every major commission decision into a legal or public dispute.

That is where her actions become more concerning.

Arizona law is explicit that public resources and authority may not be used for campaign purposes. Under A.R.S. § 41-752, public resources cannot be used to influence the outcomes of elections, and A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(2) defines the attorney general’s role as providing legal services to the state, not advancing political objectives. Additionally, Arizona’s conflict of interest and public office statutes reinforce that public power must be exercised for public purposes, not personal or political gain.

No one is suggesting that the attorney general should remain silent. Legal challenges, when grounded in clear violations of law, are appropriate.

But a pattern of selective, high-profile litigation combined with public messaging that mirrors campaign rhetoric raises legitimate questions about whether that line is being crossed. There is little doubt the lawsuits amount to lawfare, not advocacy for consumers or utilities. 

This concern is heightened by the fact that the attorney general previously served as a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission and understands firsthand the constitutional boundaries of ratemaking authority. That experience makes the repeated challenges to that authority all the more difficult to reconcile.

The consequences are real.

When nearly every major decision is met with legal challenge, regulatory certainty erodes. Investment decisions become more difficult. Infrastructure projects face delays. Arizona’s reputation for stability is weakened. Ultimately, those impacts are borne by ratepayers.

Equally concerning is how these actions are communicated.

Complex regulatory decisions are reduced to simplified, often alarmist claims. Nuanced policy debates are reframed as clear-cut wrongdoing. That approach may generate headlines, but it does not improve outcomes for Arizona families or businesses.

Arizona’s system was designed to balance independence with accountability. That balance depends on each constitutional office respecting its role.

If the line between lawful oversight and political use of office is being blurred, that is not a question that should be left to speculation. It is appropriate for the relevant ethics authorities or oversight bodies to review whether the powers of the office are being exercised consistently with Arizona law and longstanding principles of good governance.

The Corporation Commission must continue to make decisions based on the record and the law. The attorney general must ensure those decisions comply with the law, not relitigate policy disagreements through repeated public challenges.

Oversight is essential. But when it becomes constant, highly public, and indistinguishable from political positioning, it erodes public trust. It ceases to be oversight.

It becomes overreach.

Nick Myers is chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The post When oversight becomes a campaign strategy in Arizona utility regulation first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Key Points:

• Arizona leaders express support for new nuclear energy projects

• Corporation Commission hopes to see development by 2035

• High costs and “NIMBYism” could delay nuclear deployment

There appears to be broad, bipartisan support for new nuclear energy projects in Arizona as demand on the state’s energy grid continues to grow. 

Arizona elected officials from both parties and from multiple areas of government expressed interest in expanding the state’s energy portfolio to include more nuclear energy at an Arizona Corporation Commission workshop on Feb. 24. 

“I’m happy to see the bipartisanship of taking nuclear off the shelf and putting it back on the table as an option,” said Commissioner Rene Lopez, who initiated the workshop. 

The commission opened a docket in 2025 to explore advantages and barriers to developing new nuclear energy in Arizona. The latest workshop  marked the commission’s second on the topic. The meeting focused on financing for new projects, with presentations on potential costs, state and federal tax incentives, and grant funding. 

Representatives from the offices of Gov. Katie Hobbs, U.S. Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly and U.S. Rep. David Schweikert gave presentations to the commission on their efforts to bolster nuclear energy in Arizona by cutting red tape at the state and federal levels. 

Additionally, State Rep. James Taylor, R-Litchfield Park, outlined the Legislature’s appetite for legislation that can clear the way for more nuclear projects, while Apache County Supervisor Nelson Davis and St. Johns Mayor Spence Udall spoke about how those projects could benefit their communities. 

Currently, the state is home to one nuclear power plant: Palo Verde Generating Station. Palo Verde came online in the late 1980s, but Arizona stopped pursuing other nuclear projects as the energy source fell out of favor across the country.

Now, the ACC is hoping to bring advanced nuclear power generation to Arizona by 2035. ACC commissioners and Arizona utility companies say they’re seeing increased support for new nuclear projects from ratepayers. 

“We do hear from Arizonans all the time that they want nuclear and they don’t know why it’s not here right now,” Commissioner Rachel Walden said during the workshop. 

Hobbs’ office is in the process of developing a statewide energy strategy plan through her Arizona Energy Promise Task Force. Maren Mahoney, director of the governor’s Office of Resiliency, told commissioners that the plan will include exploration of opportunities to take advantage of technologies like advanced nuclear generation.

Mahoney said the Governor’s Office is currently focused on workforce development opportunities to help power the construction of potential nuclear projects.

“We know there are opportunities to advance a nuclear energy workforce, and that needs to be done sooner rather than later, so that they’re ready once shovels hit the ground,” Mahoney told commissioners. 

Hobbs’ office is also committed to serving as a “conduit” to bring together various federal, state, utility and private sector partners to streamline construction and deployment of new nuclear projects, Mahoney said. 

Arizona’s three major utility companies, Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project and Tucson Electric Power, are in the very early stages of developing a small modular nuclear reactor. The companies have applied for a U.S. Department of Energy grant that would assist in obtaining an early site permit for the project and are doing “initial project planning” with plans to begin a siting study this year. 

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature are eager to remove potential roadblocks to advanced nuclear generation like Small Modular Reactors, known as SMRs. Lawmakers have introduced six SMR bills this session, the majority of which focus on removing zoning hurdles for potential nuclear projects.

“There’s opportunities and potentials for pitfalls and roadblocks that we want to try and identify ahead of time and remove before we get there,” Taylor told lawmakers.

Representatives from APS, SRP and TEP said no legislation is immediately necessary to spur development, but any policies aimed at de-risking investments in nuclear energy would be welcome. Currently, nuclear projects can cost anywhere from $5 to $10 billion, making them unlikely investments for utility companies looking to keep bills affordable for customers. 

Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta are interested in investing in advanced nuclear generation to power operations that require an immense amount of energy, like data centers. Those private-sector investments could help alleviate the demand that data centers are placing on Arizona’s energy grid without passing costs on to residential customers. 

However, aside from the high cost of nuclear projects, almost every stakeholder involved in the Feb. 24 meeting acknowledged that the “Not In My Backyard” or NIMBY philosophy is the greatest hurdle for development. 

“I think one of the challenges every state faces is NIMBYism,” Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson said. “Nobody wants anything in their backyard, whether it’s transmission or utility-scale solar or a nuclear power plant. So how we propose this and educate the public is key.”

Whether Arizona sees a new nuclear energy project in development by 2035 depends on who you ask. While the ACC, lawmakers and even the Governor’s Office are eager to pursue the opportunity, Arizona’s utility companies are currently focused on lower cost natural gas plants. 

In the meantime, the commission will continue to hold workshops on nuclear generation, with a third workshop focused on workforce development and community outreach. 

The post New nuclear projects see bipartisan support in Arizona first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

I just finished reading with disbelief a recommendation by a judge employed by Arizona’s utility regulator that asks the Arizona Corporation Commission to put the interests of a $230 billion Dutch investment firm over the citizens of my city. As mayor of Eloy, I am disappointed to see a judge recommend a 100% increase in the amount our citizens will have to pay for water and sewer service, and I am calling upon the respected members of the Arizona Corporation Commission to do something about this when they consider this item on March 4. 

I am not a utility regulator, but to me the judge’s position seems to be that the ACC cannot do anything about the proposed increase. This cynical position undermines the authority of the commission and suggests that rate cases are nothing more than performative. This cannot be right.     

The thing that is most disappointing is that the staff of the ACC admitted under oath during an earlier hearing that no member of staff even considered the impact this rate increase would have on the residents of Eloy. Something is terribly broken if the regulator charged with protecting ratepayers only considers the interests of the utility it regulates and flatly ignores the people. This isn’t just my opinion. In fact, for more than 100 years Arizona’s courts have repeatedly found that the regulator is required to make certain that rates are fair to both consumers and the utilities. In this case, staff admitted it never gave the ratepayers a single thought.     

Believe me, I understand how the government can get in the way of business in ways that are damaging, and I know the ACC has made great strides to make sure Arizona has thriving utilities that are financially sound and can make proper investments to support our infrastructure. Nevertheless, supporting a constructive regulatory environment for utilities is very different than just giving them whatever they want. 

It is important to keep in mind that my neighbors in Eloy and I are only facing this unprecedented increase because of the actions of the utility itself.  For 27 years, the utility never raised its rates. Not because we asked them not to, rather because the ownership group from the Robson family decided not raising rates was good for them. They were sophisticated and wealthy and managed the utility well. Then, in November of 2024, Robson sold control of our tiny utilities to a massive Dutch investment firm that touts over $230 billion in assets. 

It has become clear that this multinational investment firm purchased our utilities with the immediate goal of implementing a massive rate increase and proceeded from Day One as if it was an entitlement. Now, after 27 years without seeking a rate increase, the utility’s new ownership seeks 27 years of rate increases all at once. They have refused to make even a single concession that could help lower rates for customers. 

This massive foreign company bought this utility after performing due diligence. If they bought a company that required a 100% rate increase to make their investment work, that is their fault, and the ACC should not force the people of Eloy to subsidize Dutch investors so that they can make a speedy ROI.    

Luckily, it’s the corporation commissioners and not this judge that has the final say. Ignoring ratepayers isn’t fair and it isn’t right. The people of Eloy are willing to face a rate increase, but it must be fair, and doubling our rate simply isn’t right. 

Andrew Sutton is the mayor of Eloy.

The post Eloy is counting on the Arizona Corporation Commission to protect it from foreign utility first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

When family and friends gather over the holiday season, energy efficiency isn’t typically a hot topic. Perhaps this year it should be.

With conversations likely to include affordability, notably the increased cost of groceries, gas and everyday products, energy efficiency provides more than talk. Energy efficiency programs via utility offerings, such as smart thermostats and more efficient A/C units, help combat rising electricity costs and reduce the need to build capital-intensive power plants — saving ratepayers energy and money, year after year after year.

Whether the energy and cost-saving programs continue to provide substantial financial benefits for ratepayers is in the hands of the Arizona Corporation Commission. In early December, the commissioners will be faced with deciding whether to support the APS proposed energy and cost-saving programs. And soon after, action is expected on Arizona’s very successful Energy Efficiency Resource Standard. The commission should extend and expand Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard and approve the APS Demand-Side Management Plan, which incorporates energy efficiency and demand response programs.

Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard

Since the inception of Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard, over 2,000 MWs in cumulative peak demand energy savings by APS, TEP, and UNSE customers have contributed to the capacity and reliability of the grid. As such, Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard has reduced the need for costly expenditures on additional generation, resulting in lower bills for ratepayers and more than $1.7 billion in net economic benefits.

Prepared at the commission’s request, Elliott D. Pollack & Company’s Economic, Small Business and Consumer Impact Statement (EIS) largely makes the case for extending and expanding Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard. Pollack & Company concluded that without it “residential customers may face higher consumption and long-term utility bill increases”; “low-and moderate-income households – especially in rural areas could be disproportionately affected”; “higher peak demand may require additional infrastructure investment”; and “the loss of regulatory guidance may create uncertainty around how energy efficiency is treated in resource planning and cost recovery proceedings.”

Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard not only contributes to reliability and economic benefits, including for ratepayers, it also provides regulatory certainty, peak energy load reduction, job creation, benefits to local economies, transparency, and meaningful opportunities for public participation.

APS Demand-Side Management Plan

Over the years, APS has developed and implemented programs proven to save energy and money for its customers. Through publicly accessible plans and compliance reports, as required by the commission, APS ensures that specific information on programs, energy savings, expenditures, and other key data points can be scrutinized. Along the way, measures have been updated and/or changed as necessary to accommodate grid impacts, new technology, and ratepayer interest.

At a time when too many Arizonans are struggling to pay their monthly bills, and another significant rate increase is being considered, APS’s energy efficiency offerings can provide relief for all its ratepayers through avoiding additional strain on an increasingly overstretched and expensive grid. The utility’s latest proposed energy and cost-saving programs have been vetted by stakeholders and established as cost-effective by commission staff.

Commissioners are often faced with difficult choices. Fortunately for them, saving money for ratepayers by extending and expanding Arizona’s Energy Efficiency Standard and approving the APS Demand-Side Management Plan should be no-brainers.

Diane E. Brown is executive director of the Arizona PIRG (Arizona Public Interest Research Group) Education Fund. She also serves as a consumer advocate on APS, SRP and TEP stakeholder groups.

The post Energy efficiency programs save ratepayers money first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Try asking the boss for a raise this year. Seems a lot to ask for since you just asked for a raise last year but start with this number — about 500% more than the Tucson inflation rate for last year. Be sure to let the boss know that this is not some number you just pulled out of thin air; you’re only asking for about the same percentage raise that Tucson Electric Power (TEP) now wants in its latest rate filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Let me know how that goes. 

Still, I have to give TEP some credit here — that is one ballsy move — asking for a 14% raise from each and every residential customer in its service area at a time of never ending summer heat and choking air. You say TEP doesn’t really care at all about you, that they’re some kind of inherently evil corporation? No, they are just a run of the mill for profit corporation doing what they are supposed to do: maximize shareholder revenue. And they’re doing a bang up job of it! The CEO of TEP’s parent company Fortis only earned a salary of $1,700,000 in 2024, but thanks to his bonuses he ended up earning about $16,000,000. Yes, that’s probably an unconscionable amount of money, but we have to give the CEO some props for giving credit where credit was due for all that bonus money. In a recent shareholder letter he singled out TEP’s Tucson base for its bottom line contributions to Fortis’ record profits.

Hey Tucson, we couldn’t have done it without you.

If TEP can squeeze more profit out of its residential customers, it will. It makes no economic sense not to do so. Really, no hard feelings, it’s just business. But what a good business it has turned out to be! The more TEP spends on ACC approved expenditures the more profit TEP makes — as of now, 9.55% of those expenditures, and soon to be 10.55% per TEP rate filing for next year. The more gas, oil and coal TEP burns to make your electricity — and the more water it uses up to cool those processes — costs you more. What a business model! It’s akin to the cigarette/nicotine model: TEP creates an ever escalating need and then charges you for the ever escalating prices — not only an endless loop of rising costs for all TEP customers but also for anyone anywhere near TEP’s climate busting exhaust — per Security Exchange Commission filings in 2024, 86% of TEP’s delivered electricity came from burning fossil fuels. 

It’s a lockdown monopoly utility business model. No way out. Just pay through the nose or else.

So kudos to Mayor Romero and Council for standing up to TEP and filing as an intervenor with the Arizona Corporation Commission on TEP’s 14% increase rate filing. It’s like that old cartoon character Popeye used to say before he righted all the wrongs by downing that can of spinach and clobbering his enemies: “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more.” With the current ACC members routinely drawing down on the world’s rubber supply by giving their stamp of approval on just about every TEP rate hike and expenditure request, the city of Tucson deserves our thanks and support for standing tall in that headwind and saying enough is enough. 

Please pass the spinach.

Rick Rappaport is a volunteer with the Arizonans For Community Choice Energy, the Citizens Climate Lobby, and the Greater Tucson Climate Coalition.

The post Tucson Mayor Romero and council stand up for ratepayers first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

When the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) speaks clearly, utilities should listen. Time and again, the ACC has affirmed a foundational principle of regulatory fairness: contracts made in good faith must be honored. Yet in the current Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) rate case, members are watching their utility attempt to sidestep this longstanding policy, threatening the stability of existing distributed solar agreements and undermining trust in the ACC itself.

This is not a hypothetical concern. In October 2023, during the Value of Solar docket (E-00000J-14-0023), the ACC drew a bright line between existing solar customers and future ones. Commissioner Myers opened that meeting with unequivocal words: “At this point I am interested in exploring possible changes to the RCP 10-year lock in period and the annual 10-year reduction cap only as it pertains to future rooftop solar members.” He emphasized, “any changes we should make should be prospective only. Just to be very clear, I am sensitive to small business and members who entered agreements already and I do not wish to discuss grandfathered contracts and I believe they should be left as is.”

Chairman O’Connor echoed that clarity: “Those homeowners that have solar panels currently will not be touched. Nothing this Commission will investigate in the new docket will change anybody’s deal. A contract is a contract and it will be honored as written.”

The message could not have been more direct. The ACC explicitly protected grandfathered solar customers from retroactive changes. That same principle must apply now in the SSVEC case. Members who entered into 20-year agreements did so with the ACC’s assurance that their investment decisions would not be upended after the fact. To strip those protections now would not only be unfair — it would contradict the ACC’s own precedent.

It is also worth noting that when the issue of the RCP lock-in period resurfaced in Docket No. AHD-00000J-23-0273, the process confirmed what stakeholders already knew: there was no appetite for change. No stakeholders recommended altering the 10-year lock-in period. Both ACC Utilities Division Staff and Hearing Division Staff recommended that no changes be made. The matter has not been further addressed by the ACC, leaving the 10-year lock-in intact and undisturbed. There is no factual or legal basis for SSVEC to unilaterally sidestep that policy now.

We also need to look at what has happened in parallel proceedings. In the Trico Electric Cooperative rate case (Docket No. E-01461A-24-0244), both the utility and ACC Staff agreed on key principles: grandfathering should be preserved; avoided cost should serve as the floor for export rates; and customers should have a fair transition period — six months — to adjust if net metering was ending. That grace period was essential to protect members already in the installation process, who could not have known when the ACC’s decision would land or take effect.

The contrast could not be starker. Trico and ACC Staff embraced fairness, predictability, and respect for existing commitments. SSVEC, on the other hand, is attempting to carve a special exception that would treat its members differently — less fairly — than customers of other Arizona utilities. Such inconsistency undermines confidence in ACC rules and penalizes the very Arizonans who did what policymakers asked of them: invest their own capital in distributed energy with the understanding that their contracts would be honored.

The ACC should not reward this attempt to rewrite the rules midstream. The precedent is clear:

• In the Value of Solar docket, Commissioners Myers and O’Connor promised existing members would not be touched.
• In the RCP lock-in review docket, stakeholders and Staff agreed no changes were needed.
• In the Trico case, Staff and the utility affirmed that grandfathering, avoided cost floors, and transition periods are essential to fairness.

SSVEC members deserve the same protections. Anything less would signal that contracts are conditional, promises are fleeting, and that some utilities can bend ACC rules to their liking. That is not how regulation is supposed to work.

The ACC has an opportunity in this case to reaffirm its credibility and consistency. A contract is a contract, no matter the utility. Uphold the 20-year grandfathering protections, enforce the 10-year lock-in period, and send a clear message that Arizona will not tolerate retroactive changes that penalize families and businesses who acted in good faith.

Arizona’s energy future depends on trust — trust that when people invest in solar, the rules will not change behind them. For the sake of fairness, stability, and integrity, the ACC should reject SSVEC’s proposal and stand by its word. Readers can submit comments about this matter to the ACC in Docket No. E-01575A-24-0246 here.

Patrick Murphy is a Sulphur Springs customer and solar owner. 

Autumn Johnson is the Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industry Association (AriSEIA).

The post “A Contract is a Contract”: Why the ACC must uphold existing solar rules in the Sulphur Springs rate case first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

After two years on the Arizona Corporation Commission, Kevin Thompson stepped into the chair role this year. He sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to talk about what he’s learned so far and why he wants four more years at the ACC.

Answers have been slightly edited for clarity. 

What led you to run for the Commission?

I started out (at Southwest Gas) in operations as an engineer, worked my way up to regional manager over the new business department, moved over to government relations, did that for about five years, and then fell in love with local government. (At Southwest Gas) I was the liaison between local government and the company. And so that’s where I really started working with local governments, and fell in love with how cities operate and how close they were to the people. So I decided to run for Mesa City Council, and got elected in 2015 as a council member, and served for eight years on the City Council. I was coming off of the City Council and thought I was done with politics. I was sure I was done with politics. And then a couple of legislators asked me if I would run for this seat because of my utility background and how I voted on the city council. They thought that I had made some really good votes. They wanted me to bring that to this position and asked if I would run. And then Nick (Myers) recruited me to run with him – and the rest is history.

How did your roles with Southwest Gas and the Mesa City Council prepare you for this role? 

Working on the gas side, I understood test years, I knew the operations, and I knew what the Corporation Commission was responsible for. So I didn’t come in completely blind. I came in with eyes wide open, so I knew sort of what was expected of me. I didn’t know necessarily the ratemaking process as the commission does it. I knew the ratemaking process as the city does it. And the City of Mesa owns its own gas, electric, water, wastewater, totally night and day different from how we do ratemaking. So it was new for me in that respect, and the level of intensity and the depth of the ratemaking and how technical it is. And when I came in, electricity was new to me. I knew the water side, I knew the natural gas side, but the electric side is so complex.

What do you wish people knew about the Corporation Commission?

I wish they knew more about what the Commission does and how we do it. When you go out and talk to people, they don’t even know what the Commission does. So you’re constantly reminding people … The other thing is, people don’t realize that the utilities are allowed to recover their costs by the (Arizona) Constitution. It’s written into the Constitution and people just think that, as a commissioner, you have the ability to say, “We’re not going to give you a rate increase this year.” So anytime that they’re putting money into poles, wires, pipelines, fuel, just inflation alone, it’s going to increase their cost. And the Constitution says that they’re allowed a just and reasonable return on that investment. So what we tell people is, if you don’t like the fact that the utilities are getting an increase, then rewrite the Constitution. Because we’re following the Constitution, we’re following the law, and our job is to make sure that it’s just and reasonable. 

You’re up for reelection next year. What about your time in this role made you want to serve for another four years?

I’m still smiling. I love this job. At the end of the day, I love serving the people. I did eight years in the Air Force. I served for eight years on a city council. I’ve done four years in this position. And to me, it’s about serving the people, and I enjoy doing that. So long as I’m smiling, I’ll continue to try to serve the people, as long as the people want me here serving them. I like to say that God gave you two ears and one mouth, so you should be listening twice as much as you speak. So listen to what’s going on, listen to your constituents and be a better person and try to follow the law and do what’s right. And that’s what I’m about.

You stepped into the chair position at the Commission this year. How has that changed your work?

It’s funny, because people would ask me, “So what’s it like being the chair?” And I was like, it’s the same as being a commissioner, but they paint a larger target on you. I look at the chairmanship differently than I look at just being a commissioner. Because as the chair, you’re the face of the organization. So I think it’s my job to defend this organization, to protect this organization, and to really help steer this organization. We have phenomenal employees who are here every single day to do the best that they can do. We’re trying to make Arizona a better place and trying to help people live that American dream. So in this position, I know (my staff’s) workload went up by three times because we have to put the agendas together, and you’re meeting with all the different offices and so forth. But I think what we do on a day-to-day basis is really try to represent this organization in the best light that we can.

What do you do in your free time to unwind so you’re able to continue doing this work?

I got into this again knowing what was going to be asked of me. It always upsets my wife, but I always tell her I’ll rest when I die. She’s like, “Well, you don’t have to get there early.” But for me, my disconnect is I ride dirt bikes on the weekend when it cools off. I do a lot of dirt bike riding because it really clears your mind when you’re in your zone. When I get on a dirt bike, as soon as the engine starts, I don’t think about work, I don’t think about family. I’m listening to my bike, and I’m looking at the trail 50 feet ahead trying to pick my lines. And then, as soon as you’re done, all of that comes rushing back because, at the end of the day, you still have a job to do. 

What legacy do you hope to leave on the commission?

My goal is to leave the organization and the state in a better position than it was when I found it. I tried to do the same thing in Mesa. I’d like to say that I left district six, and I left Mesa in a better position than it was when I found it. And that’s all I want to do with this. When you run for office, you should not be doing it to get rich, because you don’t, and you shouldn’t be doing it to get famous. You should be doing it because you love your community, you love your state, you love your county, and you want to leave it better at the end of the day. I just want to be remembered as the guy who tried his best to make Arizona a better place for everyone.

The post Kevin Thompson: Still smiling as chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.