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).