The Arizona Corporation Commission reaffirmed its decision to allow Arizona Public Service to impose a grid access charge on customers who use residential solar energy, despite solar advocates calling the charge discriminatory.

Commissioners voted three to one to uphold the charge, known as a “GAC,” with Republican Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson absent from the vote due to a personal emergency. 

The GAC was included in APS’ most recent rate case. Solar advocates asked the commission to reconsider its decision to include the GAC and the regulatory body held a rehearing on the issue near the end of October. 

After over a week of rehearing testimony, administrative law judge Belinda Martin said the commission has full discretion over whether to implement the GAC. In a recommended order to the commission, Martin found that the GAC was not discriminatory to solar customers but that not including it would not be discriminatory to non-solar customers. 

APS said imposing the GAC allows it to recoup the cost it takes to serve residential solar customers. Without a GAC, those extra costs would fall to non-solar customers, according to the company. 

The three Republican commissioners who voted for the charge said they were concerned about the potential costs to non-solar customers if solar customers are not paying their fair share

“I hope we can all agree that all costs related to providing service should be equitably distributed to each class of service,” said Commissioner Kevin Thompson. “But I haven’t heard anything here today or in prior proceedings that disputes inequity exists.”

Groups like Vote Solar and the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association were joined by state entities like the Residential Utility Consumer Office and the Attorney General’s office in opposing the GAC. The intervenors argued that there was no evidence that solar customers cost more for utility companies to service, and argued that solar customers help reduce costs for companies by providing excess solar energy to the grid. 

Commission Chairman Jim O’Connor went a step further while explaining his vote to uphold the GAC by warning homeowners to be cautious when considering solar energy.

“I would ask homeowners considering solar to do their homework,” O’Connor said. “Solar is a very viable option, but it is not exclusive in its current stand alone capabilities to provide for all [of] a home’s power needs 24/7, 365 days a year.”

Commissioner Anna Tovar, the lone Democrat on the commission, cast the only vote against the GAC, saying she agreed with the intervenors that it is discriminatory.

“This unwarranted charge may have the effect of causing customers not to adopt solar,” Tovar said during the hearing.

Autumn Johnson, an attorney with AriSEIA who participated in the rehearing, said the decision was unsurprising to the parties involved but still misguided. Johnson said many aspects of the hearing “indicated it was a foregone conclusion, and probably our time would have been better spent this entire year on appeal.”

She said details of an appeal are to be determined, but she is certain that at least a few of the intervenors will file to the Court of Appeals sometime next year. The parties must wait for the order on the GAC to be filed before they can move forward with an appeal.

“I think that [the commission’s] decision is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion and that they have a very strong likelihood of losing on appeal,” Johnson said.