Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona Corporation Commission

APS settles with attorney general over alleged heat-related death

Key Points: 
  • Attorney General Kris Mayes secures settlement with APS after heat death
  • Agreement requires temperature-based disconnection rules, customer assistance
  • Mayes urges statewide reforms, clashes with ACC  on oversight failures

Attorney General Kris Mayes is calling on the Arizona Corporation Commission and the Legislature to make utility disconnection policies permanent after announcing a settlement with Arizona Public Service following a customer’s heat-related death.

Mayes accused the commission of not doing enough to investigate Katherine Korman’s 2024 death and APS’ disconnection policies. Both the commission and APS took issue with the attorney general’s claims about the May 13, 2024, disconnection of service that allegedly contributed to Korman’s death.

The settlement announced by Mayes on April 15 ensures APS abides by both a temperature and seasonal shut-off system, improves customer notification and safety net programs and pays $800,000 to cover costs for customers facing service termination this year. 

“Utilities have an obligation to, at a minimum, keep their customers alive,” Mayes said. 

Under ACC rules, utility companies in Arizona cannot disconnect electric service during periods of extreme weather.

The ACC gives companies two options for complying with those rules. Companies can either impose a disconnection moratorium between June 1 through October 15 or they can forgo disconnections if the temperature is above 95 degrees or below 32 degrees. 

At the time of Korman’s death, APS had opted for the disconnection moratorium option and had recently ended its voluntary participation in the temperature-based disconnection moratorium. Under the settlement agreement, APS will now implement both disconnection holds to ensure customers do not lose power when extreme temperatures occur outside of the typical summer months. 

APS will also be charged with updating its notification process for informing customers of past-due bills or potential disconnections. In a statement, APS disputed Mayes’ characterization of its policies and denied any wrongdoing. 

“While we have chosen to resolve this matter by adopting enhancements that benefit our customers, APS rejects the Attorney General’s assertions regarding our existing disconnection policies and customer communications, which already meet or exceed all applicable state laws and regulations,” the statement read. 

Now, Mayes is urging the ACC to update its disconnection rules to subject the rest of the state’s public power utilities, like Tucson Electric Power and UNS Electric, to the higher disconnection standards APS has agreed to. She’s also urging the Legislature to codify those standards, since the current disconnection rules could be repealed by the commission at any time. 

“This is a gap in oversight that should not exist, and it should not persist,” Mayes said. “The Commission has the authority to make temperature based disconnection protections permanent and universal across every utility in this state, the legislature has the authority to write them into law.”

In a statement, the commission’s Executive Director Doug Clark disagreed with Mayes’ claim that commissioners did not investigate the disconnection that led to Korman’s death.

“It is notable that nothing in the consent agreement contradicts the Commission’s own findings. We have investigated this matter and found no rule violation,” Clark said. “If APS wants to spend additional shareholder funds, it is free to do so. The consent agreement makes it clear that this payment is outside the regulatory framework and will not be passed on to ratepayers.”

Additionally, the all-Republican members of the commission seemed uninterested in revisiting the disconnection rules when Korman’s death made headlines last year. Commission Chair Nick Myers went so far as to get into an online spat with Korman’s sons, telling them they “failed to protect your own mother.”

“I refuse to tell utilities that they have to provide power to people that do not pay their bills,” Myers wrote in one post in April 2025. “To be honest, I’m not even happy about many of the programs that they have in place to help, but I understand the need for them.”

Still, Mayes sees a failure to act. 

“Protecting Arizonans from having their power cut off in life-threatening heat is not a novel or complicated idea,” Mayes said. “It is a basic obligation of utility regulation, and yet here we are with my office having to step in through a consumer fraud investigation to secure protections that the Commission and the Legislature could have mandated years ago.”

On May 10, 2024, APS discontinued its policy to keep services on for customers when temperatures eclipsed 95 degrees.

On May 13, APS disconnected services to Korman’s residence due to nonpayment. Temperatures reached a high of 99 degrees. Six days later, with electricity still disconnected, Korman was found dead.

Mayes alleged APS’s decision to discontinue its 95-degree policy and its failure to inform Korman and customers like her of more economical utility rate plans violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. 

In a resulting settlement, APS admitted no wrongdoing or liability for Korman’s death. 

But the utility agreed to a list of monetary and policy stipulations. 

APS is now required to reinstate the voluntary 95-degree hold on power disconnections and agree not to disconnect services when temperatures fall below 32 degrees due to nonpayment. The company must also encourage other utilities to do the same. 

And APS must expand upon its Safety Net Program, in which a friend or family member receives alerts for any bills due. The settlement directs APS to make sure its program functions as an emergency notification system to third parties on past-due notices, disconnection warnings and outage notifications. 

As far as financials, APS pledged to funnel $1 million into the Arizona Consumer Assistance and Education Program, with at least $800,000 applied directly to bill credits for customers facing service shut-offs before September 1. 

The company must pay $3.4 million to improve consumer outreach, with a requirement for customer notification by text messages. 

And, finally, APS owes the Attorney General’s Office $2.75 million in shareholder funds to be put to the state’s Consumer Protection Consumer Fraud Revolving Fund and to cover up to $250,000 in attorneys’ fees. 

The settlement announcement comes amid a period of tension between Mayes and the commissioners. The Attorney General’s Office is challenging several recent commission decisions, either in court or at the commission itself.

Mayes’ office is also participating as an intervenor in APS’s ongoing rate case, in which she argues the company’s request for a 14% rate increase for customers could be whittled down to a 3% increase. 

Diane Brown: Promoting pragmatism over partisanship with PIRG

Diane Brown has spent the past four decades advocating for consumers with the Public Interest Research Group. Twenty of those years have been spent in the Grand Canyon state, where she serves as the executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group. Brown sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to chat about her pragmatic approach to policymaking and focus on energy issues. 

The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.

Can you tell me about your career journey and how you got to Arizona PIRG?

In large part, I would say my upbringing had an influence on the path that led me to PIRG. My mom had been extremely active in my school, our church, our community, and she paid a lot of attention to state and national issues. My dad and a couple of his colleagues built and expanded an accounting firm. I think both the experiences and the responsibilities they had helped me to see the importance of doing something that you enjoy every day and being part of a community. I was involved in a lot of activities throughout school and during graduate school. PIRG was doing a massive voter registration drive, particularly geared at college students and first-time voters. And I really appreciated the focus on giving people facts and information and not hounding them on a particular position or for a particular candidate. 

How long have you been at PIRG?

Over 40 years. I started working on college campuses, helping train students to take an idea and move it along the policy process, overseeing internships and in the summertime, running door-to-door canvasses to help engage citizens on issues in the public interest. I had the opportunity to return to Chicago, where I’m from, after several years on the East Coast. I directed our Illinois offices for about 15 years, where I got into policy at a much greater scale, and also had the privilege of overseeing a lot of our offices in the Midwest, from Indiana to Missouri and points in between. And then came to Arizona a little over 20 years ago to start up Arizona PIRG, which I really enjoyed.

What does Arizona PIRG do?

Arizona PIRG is a statewide organization that conducts research, education and advocacy on issues in the public interest, with a focus on protecting consumers. To us, public interest is the greatest good for the greatest number of people over the longest period of time, and we think of ourselves as pretty unique in Arizona in that we’re the only organization we’re aware of that advocates on behalf of all consumers and not just a segment of the population. There are great organizations that focus on low income, on children, on seniors, and we really kind of span that. And so whether you are a resident in Yuma or a business in Paradise Valley, we want to make sure that you’re not getting ripped off.

What is the most rewarding part of your job?

The most rewarding (part) is having conversations with an individual or a set of individuals to find common ground and determine a path forward working together. PIRG really espouses the “no permanent friends, no permanent enemies” philosophy and there are a number of instances where we’ve been able to agree on a policy recommendation with an entity that we don’t see eye to eye with on anything else. And vice versa. There are organizations that we often are aligned on a particular policy, but we don’t always agree. To me, it’s extremely rewarding to hear from other perspectives, to absorb information, look at statistics and data trends, but at the end of the day, find a way to ensure that there are good, pragmatic policies that can withstand the politics.

What is the most challenging part of your job?
The most challenging has been this devolution of partisan politics. Too often we see rhetoric over reality and the politics playing a role more than the policy itself should. In a number of individual conversations, we can find common ground with very different perspectives from different political parties, perhaps for different reasons, but at the end of the day, oftentimes there are votes that align with that political party versus with what that individual will often tell us they’d like to see happen.

You’ve been with PIRG for so long. What keeps you coming back year after year?

With PIRG, I’ve had an opportunity to be responsible in a variety of different facets of the organization. No two days are alike. It is extremely rewarding to see progress being made. To us, progress doesn’t always mean a bill is getting signed or a monumental executive order has been authored, but it is seeing more people getting engaged in the political process, more people understanding the roles that the municipalities, the counties, the state, different agencies play, and paying more attention to those as a result having policymakers that then pay attention in a more significant manner to their constituents.

Looking back, can you tell me about a win from your career you still think about?

Arizona has a very successful energy efficiency standard. The energy efficiency standard that was adopted by the (Arizona Corporation) Commission has resulted in a net benefit of billions of dollars in our state, has not only reduced energy, but it’s also reduced water consumption. It has avoided the need for additional power plants that, in many instances, have created more pollution, adverse public health impacts, and it is a program that really can benefit both the ratepayer who takes advantage of a program, but also all ratepayers due to the alleviation of the need to spend more money on costly capital infrastructure.

Why does Arizona PIRG focus on the ACC?

When I first came to Arizona, it was really important to me, to not just jump into the first issue that I read in the newspaper, but to really get out there and talk to a wide variety of individuals. So after hundreds of meetings with nonprofit leaders, business leaders, elected officials from both sides of the aisle, members of the media, folks in the philanthropy community, we landed on working on energy issues at the Arizona Corporation Commission as our dominant focal point for those initial years. As anyone reading the Capitol Times knows, energy has not gone away from being a big, important issue. Many could argue it’s even more important today than it was 20 years ago, and therefore a significant part of my time is focused on energy issues, not just with the commission, but I’m also part of utility stakeholder groups for APS, SRP, TEP and UNS, bringing a consumer perspective from customer communication to resource planning decisions.

What do you wish consumers knew about the ACC?

Over the course of the last six months or so, we’ve had a team of folks that have gone across the state to talk to individuals one-on-one, as well as conduct community town halls, along with RUCO and Wildfire, and in those forums, have really tried to help people understand what the commission is, what the components of a rate case are, and how they can get involved. And across the board, it’s been really interesting to hear from folks based on their utility bill, whether it’s UNS, APS or TEP, and the questions that they have for policymakers when it comes to how they assess the decisions before them. If we ensure all consumers in the state have that information, I think we’d find that even more individuals and households would weigh in, not only on rate cases, but on other policy decisions that impact them and their bank accounts.

Attorney General Mayes sparks turf war with Arizona Corporation Commission

Key Points:
  • Attorney General Kris Mayes is challenging several recent Corporation Commission decisions
  • Commissioners say Mayes is infringing on their authority to set utility rates
  • The battle is likely to head to court as Mayes looks to reverse several policy and rate decisions

Attorney General Kris Mayes is challenging several recent Arizona Corporation Commission decisions, sparking frustration from a body often considered Arizona’s fourth branch of government. 

In the month of March alone, Mayes’ office filed three rehearing requests in three separate commission matters, accusing commissioners of violating state law, ignoring the commission’s own rules or acting contrary to the best interests of utility customers. Mayes’ office has also filed a lawsuit over the commission’s approval of a controversial data center contract and is intervening in two rate cases involving Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power.

The commission has the exclusive, constitutionally-granted authority to set rates for the state’s public utility companies. Its general counsel, Tom Van Flein, took issue with Mayes’ assertions that recent commission decisions violated any laws. 

“The Commission takes each complaint or application for rehearing seriously. However, policy disputes are not the same as legal error,” Van Flein said in a statement. “The Commission follows the statutes, the Constitution and relevant case law giving it guidance. Policy disputes are not to be resolved in court or even in a rehearing.” 

Commission Chair Nick Myers took it one step further and accused Mayes, herself a former commissioner, of wading into the commission’s jurisdiction to score points for her reelection campaign. Myers is also up for reelection this year, alongside fellow Republican Commissioner Kevin Thompson. 

“(Mayes) needs to get her name out there, and she’s using the office and using these goofy lawsuits to get her name in the public eye for campaign purposes,” Myers told the Arizona Capitol Times. 

Mayes’ communications director Richie Taylor defended the attorney general’s foray into ACC issues in a statement, noting that her office is charged with protecting Arizona consumers.

“When the commission springs 154% utility rate increases on senior citizens, or gives sweetheart deals to data center operators, AG Mayes is going to stand in their way,” Taylor said. “Chairman Myers should focus on fulfilling the constitutional obligations of the Commission on behalf of Arizonans so the Attorney General doesn’t have to step in and do it for them.” 

Former Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard, who served in the role at the same time Mayes served on the commission in the early 2000s, told the Arizona Capitol Times that his office did not intervene in ACC matters.

“But I think that’s because the commission was doing its job,” Goddard said. “I didn’t see any reason for us to get involved, (the Residential Utility Consumer Office) was, as far as I could tell, advocating for consumers and we didn’t have the same environment that AG Mayes does.” 

Currently, the commission is made up of five Republican members. Without a single Democratic commissioner, many decisions are made unanimously and tend to favor conservative energy priorities, like promoting coal and natural gas generation and ending “Green New Deal” policies.

The tension between Mayes and the ACC has been simmering for months, with tempers flaring in August as the commission was in the process of repealing its Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff Rules. The rules — which required the state’s major utility companies to get 15% of their energy from renewable sources like solar and wind — were originally adopted by the ACC in 2006, when Mayes was serving as a Republican commissioner.

Mayes called the repeal “silly and ridiculous” which led Thompson, then the commission’s chair, to take a jab at her during an August 26, 2025, hearing on natural gas plants. He facetiously referred to Mayes as the “sixth commissioner” for her public opposition to the REST rules repeal.

The commission voted unanimously to repeal the rules on March 5 and Mayes’ office filed an application for rehearing on March 30, arguing the ACC violated its own rulemaking process by finalizing the repeal before a required economic impact statement was completed.

Myers told the Arizona Capitol Times that he believes Mayes has a more personal reason to oppose the REST rules repeal.

“The policies haven’t worked as well as she wanted them to, or she claimed they would, and we got rid of them and now maybe it seems like a personal attack on her,” Myers said. “I don’t know, but that’s my gut feeling on that.”

The day after filing an application for rehearing in the REST rules docket, Mayes’ office filed another rehearing application in a rate case for two water and wastewater companies serving the Robson Ranch retirement community near Eloy. While commissioners grew irritated, residents in the area celebrated. 

“We were pleasantly surprised about the AG’s office involvement,” said Raul Salmon, the leader of a local task force formed to oppose the rate increase. “I mean, the AG’s filing, if you just read it, it vindicates what we’ve been arguing all along.”

Mayes argued the ACC erred in approving a 22% rate increase for water and 154% increase for wastewater for the Picacho Water and Picacho Sewer Companies because commissioners did not adequately consider the impact on ratepayers and did not review documents related to a stock sale of the utilities to JW Water. 

“I think it is the kind of thing that just cries out for reexamination by another party,” Goddard said. “The commission seems to be granting the big increases fairly willingly, and I think that’s a bad standard.”

Thompson and Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson voted against the rate increase, which could open the door for a potential rehearing, though the commission has yet to act on Mayes’ request. 

Mayes also requested a rehearing on the commission’s approval of a formula rate structure for UNS Gas, allowing the company to adjust customer rates annually rather than going through the typical rate case process every few years. Mayes’ office opposed the commission’s adoption of a formula rate policy statement in 2024, arguing the commission should have engaged in a rulemaking process to implement the policy. 

If the commission does not agree to take up any of the applications for rehearing, Mayes can take the issue to court. That’s exactly what she did in the case of Tucson Electric Power’s energy supply agreement with the developers behind a controversial data center project dubbed “Project Blue.”

The commission approved the contract between TEP and Beale Infrastructure Group in December and Mayes filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court in November, alleging the agreement allows TEP and Beale to adjust an agreed upon rate schedule for electricity service without review by the commission. Mayes’ office argues that the commission violated its own constitutional ratemaking authority by approving that contract provision. 

The Attorney General’s Office has also been vocally opposed to 14% rate increases requested by both Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power. Mayes’ staff attorneys have argued in filings to the commission that those rate increases could be slashed to 3% and 4% respectively, and in statements, Mayes has said approving anything more would be a rubberstamp of corporate greed. 

Those rate cases are ongoing, and a final decision isn’t expected until later this year. In the meantime, commissioners say Mayes’ efforts will not only fail, but will actually increase utility costs for customers by creating regulatory uncertainty and by filing lawsuits that taxpayers are footing the bill for. 

“As a candidate, as well as a commissioner, I am disgusted to see her doing all of this, knowing full well that there’s not a whole lot of legal (weight) to any of it,” Myers said. 

Get ready for utility rate increases every year

Amanda Ormond

Arizonans should be skeptical of anyone promising to end utility “rate shock,” especially when their so-called solution is a policy that makes onerous rate increases automatic.

Arizona Corporation Commissioner Rachel Walden recently voted for a formula rate plan for UNS Gas. Other utilities are lining up to get approval. In her recent op-ed, Walden argues these plans will smooth out utility bills and protect consumers. But the reality, backed by evidence from other states, tells a very different story.

Formula rate plans don’t eliminate rate increases. They eliminate accountability.

Walden’s central claim is that Arizona’s current system leads to sudden, painful spikes in utility bills. But those increases come after a rigorous, public process. In full rate cases, utilities must justify every dollar, under oath, with the opportunity for regulators, consumer advocates and the public to challenge them.

Formula rates replace that scrutiny with autopilot.

Instead of comprehensive reviews, rates are adjusted annually through a preset formula. That means less time, less transparency and fewer opportunities to catch errors or abuse. Oversight doesn’t just depend on whether a review happens. It depends on how thorough that review is, and under formula rates, that rigor is weakened.

Even more troubling: if the formula is flawed, those errors get baked into the system for five years until a full rate case. They can’t be meaningfully fixed in annual reviews. Consumers are stuck paying the price.

This is why the Residential Utility Consumer Office and Attorney General Kris Mayes are asking the Arizona Corporation Commission to reconsider this first of its kind rate plan and its new policy, which allows all monopoly utilities to take advantage. They point out these plans benefit the companies and shift significant risk to ratepayers. 

Make no mistake, formula rates are a gift to the utilities — one that the ACC has given without going through the normal rule development process. 

Walden points to states like Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana as success stories. But the evidence from those states doesn’t support her argument.

At the ACC’s  October 2024 workshop, an expert hired by commission staff found there are “no real-world examples nor evidence that shows ratepayers have received meaningful benefits” from formula rates. They certainly haven’t seen lower rates.

In Arkansas, regulators have warned formula rates “do little to incentivize a utility to control its costs.”  In that state capital spending by the largest electric utility — where a utility earns a profit — has nearly doubled since 2012.

In Louisiana, customers have seen average annual increases of more than 5% for nearly a decade.

That’s not stability. That’s a steady upward climb beyond most people’s income growth.

Walden also argues the current system allows utilities to “game the system” using outdated data. But formula rates don’t solve that problem.

Utilities still propose their own spending and revenue needs. The incentive to inflate those numbers doesn’t disappear. What does disappear is the time and scrutiny needed to challenge them.

And if affordability is truly the goal, there’s a far more direct solution that Walden doesn’t mention: Reduce utility profits.

Arizona’s largest monopoly utilities are thriving, and their executives and shareholders are reaping the rewards. Arizona Public Service reported more than $618 million in profit last year, with roughly 13% of customer bills going to shareholders. Tucson Electric Power brought in more than $283 million, with more than 16% of your bills becoming their profits.

These are guaranteed returns from captive customers.

If the concern is keeping bills affordable, why not start there? Why not lower the return on equity for monopoly utilities to reflect their lower risk, rather than locking in a system that virtually guarantees annual increases?

Arizonans deserve reliable service at fair prices. Fairness requires vigilance and accountability by the ACC, not less oversight of the state’s largest monopoly corporations. 

Formula rate plans don’t end rate shock. They normalize it.

And that’s a plan Arizona consumers can’t afford.

Amanda Ormond is director of Western Grid Group and founder of Ormond Group LLC. She is a former State Energy Office director for Arizona.

When oversight becomes a campaign strategy in Arizona utility regulation

Nick Myers

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.

Governor unveils state strategic energy plan

Key Points:
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs rolled out an energy report addressing data center growth, energy demand
  • The report was generated through the “herculean effort” of state energy stakeholders
  • Hobbs urged state leaders to work in a bipartisan manner to secure Arizona’s energy future

Gov. Katie Hobbs’ office is rolling out a state strategic energy plan to address data center growth, skyrocketing energy demand and high utility bills. 

The plan is part of a three-pronged report developed by Hobbs’ Arizona Energy Promise Task force, which she created via executive order in September. The 36-member group developed 31 recommendations covering myriad energy topics in what one task force member called a “herculean effort.”

Hobbs’ Office of Resiliency, led by Director Maren Mahoney, helped the task force develop the recommendations through five working groups composed of members from the private sector, state utility companies, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, universities, and more. 

The governor told reporters after an April 2 task force meeting that the work is only just beginning, but bringing together stakeholders who typically do not agree to find common ground was no small feat. 

“I’ve never heard so many people so excited about being involved in a government task force before, but I think it’s because there is the acknowledgment that we have this really big issue of needing to plan strategically for our energy future,” Hobbs said.

Some of the task force’s recommendations are likely to be rolled out sooner rather than later, according to Mahoney. There is already interest from stakeholders in creating a statewide energy efficiency campaign as outlined in the report, which could help Arizonans weatherize their homes and upgrade old appliances for energy bill savings.

But Hobbs also acknowledged that many of the recommendations will require support and decision-making efforts from the all-Republican Arizona Corporation Commission and the Republican-controlled Legislature. Despite the anticipated opposition, she said she is confident state leaders can put aside political differences to advance the task force’s recommendations.

“(It’s) about doing what’s best for Arizona, not what’s going to benefit a political party or not,” Hobbs said. “I think we’ve shown on big issues like Ag-to-Urban, like the Diamondbacks and Axon, we can work together to do what’s right for Arizona.”

State strategic energy plan

The report outlines five energy challenges the state is currently facing: load growth, supply chain constraints, federal policy changes, extreme weather and climate change, and water use implications. The recommendations offer both near-term and long-range strategies for addressing those challenges. 

Most notably, a majority of the task force’s recommendations for the state strategic energy plan revolve around transitioning the state to renewable energy sources and away from coal and natural gas. That push may come against the ACC and Republicans in the Legislature, who remain largely supportive of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to reinvigorate the coal industry and move away from solar and wind. 

The task force recommends supporting the conversion of coal plants, increasing deployment of distributed solar projects, encouraging the development of utility-scale wind and solar projects and encouraging the adoption of “low-carbon, water-use firm” technologies. 

Hobbs said the state is ready to grant permits for renewable energy projects on state land, while the Trump administration is rejecting them on federal land. But she said the state is not in a position to fully transition away from natural gas affordably, as it is currently Arizona’s largest source of energy.

“We are not in a position where we can pick winners and losers in the energy space. We have to have an all of the above approach,” Hobbs said. 

The governor also acknowledged that many of the task force’s recommendations fall within the ACC’s regulatory and ratemaking authority. One of the commission’s staff attorneys served as a task force member and Commissioner Rene Lopez served on the task force’s nuclear working group.

“The Corporation Commission is a very important aspect of all of this,” Hobbs said. “You saw them represented in the room, and I think we’ve provided some, I don’t want to say direction, but like here’s what you can take and do.”

Framework for large load growth

The task force also developed six recommendations for addressing large load growth customers like data centers and semiconductor manufacturers. Arizona is becoming a hub for both, which increases demand on the state’s energy grid and water resources.

Two of the task force’s recommendations focus on recent community backlash to data center projects. One includes requiring or incentivizing data center developers to proactively engage with communities and invest in community priorities, while another urges collaboration with local governments to inform the public about potential projects. 

“Across the United States, a lack of transparency and clear communication about large load customers and their impacts on the energy system has contributed to public concern and opposition,” the report states.

With many Arizonans concerned about data center costs being passed on to them in their utility bills, the task force recommended exploration of bring-your-own-capacity programs. BYOC programs allow data center companies to pay utility customers for the excess energy generated by their rooftop solar panels or electric vehicle batteries, a concept known as virtual power plants. 

The report also recommends revisiting the state’s tax incentives for data center projects, although the Data Center Coalition, Microsoft and Google each objected to that recommendation. Hobbs also proposed repealing the data center tax incentive in her executive budget, but the Legislature seems relatively uninterested in getting rid of the incentive. 

Advanced energy sources

The task force also explored how emerging energy resources could be used to help meet increased demand for energy. It created eight recommendations regarding preliminary steps the state could take to advance the development of geothermal and nuclear energy. 

Twenty-seven percent of the state’s energy portfolio is nuclear — all of which comes from the APS Palo Verde Generating Station. 

The task force recommended identifying potential state tax incentives, investments and grants to help reduce the costs to build new nuclear energy projects, while also streamlining environmental review and permitting processes to accelerate development. 

However, the Arizona Public Interest Research Group disagreed with the two nuclear recommendations.

“Despite numerous attempts across the country, nuclear energy has not been able to provide finance certainty nor proven affordable for ratepayers,” the public interest group wrote in the report. 

Hobbs acknowledged the cost and environmental concerns related to the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies to reporters, but said it is important for the state to stay at the table. 

“The federal government is looking to accelerate more nuclear energy and obviously there’s safety concerns, environmental concerns that we have to make sure that we’re attending to, but we’re absolutely making sure that Arizona is a part of those conversations,” Hobbs said.

The report also outlined several recommendations for advancing the development of geothermal energy resources, a currently unutilized source in Arizona. Those recommendations primarily focus on research efforts to better understand how geothermal could be deployed in the state and barriers to entry. 

Overall, the governor, her staff and the task force members emphasized the release of the report is only the beginning of the conversation.

“We’re not all going to agree, we all did not agree, but I think the process itself has been really, really, incredibly valuable,” Mahoney of Hobbs’ Office of Resiliency, told the task force. “… This is not the end. This is the beginning of our implementation process.”

Arizona’s energy reality is changing. The SRP election will shape what comes next.

Autumn Johnson

Arizona’s electricity system is entering a period of rapid change, and the decisions made in the next few years will determine whether the state can maintain affordable, reliable power while continuing to grow. Demand is rising from both population growth and large new industrial users, including data centers. Meeting that demand will require significant investment in generation, transmission and grid infrastructure, all of which will ultimately be paid for by customers.

At the same time, the range of practical resource options is narrowing. Water constraints continue to limit traditional thermal generation. Air quality requirements are tightening in Maricopa County. Natural gas infrastructure is facing delays, including constraints on pipeline capacity and long lead times for turbines. New nuclear generation is not a near-term solution, with development timelines extending well beyond a decade. These constraints mean that decisions about what to build, how quickly to build it, and who pays for it are becoming more complex and more consequential.

Clean energy resources, particularly solar paired with storage, are increasingly central to navigating these realities. They can be deployed more quickly than many alternatives, do not rely on water for cooling, and avoid many of the fuel supply challenges affecting other generation types. They also offer a path to managing long-term cost exposure in a system that will require substantial new infrastructure to meet demand.

One of the entities responsible for making these decisions is the Salt River Project (SRP). As one of Arizona’s largest utilities, SRP determines how new demand is met, how infrastructure is built, and how costs are allocated among customers. Its board makes decisions about resource planning, capital investments and rates without oversight from the Arizona Corporation Commission. Those decisions directly affect affordability, reliability and Arizona’s ability to support continued economic development.

The composition of that board is being decided through the upcoming SRP election. The structure of the election is unusual, with voting limited to landowners within the district and participation requiring voters to request a ballot by March 27 ahead of the April 7 election. Turnout is historically low, which means relatively small shifts in participation can influence outcomes in ways that would not occur in a typical election.

This year, the election has also attracted attention from outside political and financial interests. Turning Point is running a slate of candidates for the SRP board, backed by Arizonans for Responsible Growth, a political committee that has indicated it plans to spend approximately $500,000 in the race. The group has identified corporate backers tied to large commercial energy users, including data center interests that will rely on how SRP chooses to meet growing demand.

Turning Point’s involvement is not occurring in a vacuum. The organization has been explicit about expanding its political footprint in Arizona, and this election presents an opportunity to test messaging, build infrastructure, and engage voters ahead of future statewide races, including the gubernatorial election. That raises an additional concern about whether this election is being used as a proving ground for political ambitions rather than a forum for thoughtful utility governance.

The question for voters and policymakers is whether the individuals making decisions about Arizona’s energy system are prepared to navigate the constraints and tradeoffs ahead. Resource planning now requires an understanding of deployment timelines, permitting realities, system reliability and long-term cost impacts. It also requires balancing the needs of large commercial users with the interests of residential customers who ultimately bear many of the costs.

There is a clear contrast in this election. A slate of candidates focused on clean energy, affordability, and responsible long-term planning is also running. These candidates are prioritizing cost-effective resource deployment, managing growth in a way that protects residential customers from unnecessary cost shifting, and aligning investment decisions with what can realistically be built in Arizona in the near term. Voters can review these candidates and their positions at https://srpcleanenergy.org, and those priorities are well aligned with the challenges the state is facing.

Affordability, reliability and economic development are closely linked at this moment. If infrastructure does not keep pace with demand, reliability risks increase. If investments are poorly planned or delayed, costs rise. If resource choices do not reflect real-world constraints, both households and businesses will feel the impact.

Autumn Johnson is the CEO of Tierra Strategy and an energy attorney and consultant, focused on Arizona energy policy. She can be reached at autumn@tierrastrategy.com.

Arizona leaders struggle to find compromise on rising energy costs

Key Points:
  • Energy bill affordability is top of mind for Arizona leaders
  • Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature disagree on how to lower costs
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs is unlikely to sign many Republican energy bills 

In Mesa, six Arizonans gathered to tell Gov. Katie Hobbs about how utility bill assistance programs have made it easier for them to pay their bills, keep their homes and provide food for their families. 

One woman named Beverly told the governor that she received a $400 credit toward her Salt River Project utility bill with assistance from the Mesa Community Action Network. Without that credit, Beverly said she doesn’t know what she would do. 

“The prices keep going up and up and there’s nothing you can do about it except for just struggle,” she said. 

Down at the state Capitol, lawmakers and Hobbs are trying to figure out what the state can do to lower those prices as the cost of energy continues to soar. Over 50 bills have been introduced on energy issues like data centers, small modular nuclear reactors and solar and wind farms.

Hobbs tends to remain tight-lipped about legislation that is still making its way to her desk, but she told reporters she is eagerly awaiting policy recommendations from a task force she established via executive order in the fall. 

“There’s a lot of people who want to do something and so they write a bill, and the bill may or may not help,” Hobbs said. “I think framing it around what this group of experts looked at and using that to inform how we move forward is really important.”

With Arizona in a period of divided government, it is difficult for the state’s leaders to find solutions to any problem facing the state. And on a topic as complex as energy, there is no silver bullet answer that will satisfy everyone involved. 

Republicans in the Legislature want to make it easier for utility companies to build new nuclear, coal and natural gas plants, while placing additional burdens on solar and wind developments. Democrats and Hobbs want to boost renewable energy resources and rein in data center growth.

Further complicating efforts from both the legislative and executive branches is the Arizona Corporation Commission’s exclusive, constitutionally-granted authority to set utility rates. While other states have passed laws implementing performance-based ratemaking or issued executive orders allowing utility regulators to pause rate increases, only elected corporation commissioners can create policy around ratemaking in Arizona. 

But that hasn’t stopped lawmakers from nibbling around the edges of the commission’s authority this session. 

Most of the energy bills still active in the Legislature are from Republican lawmakers and target power plant regulations that can often increase utility bills for customers. One bill from Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, would allow utility companies to replace existing power plants or build new power plants next to existing plants without going through the commission’s typical environmental review process. 

Martinez said during a March 10 House floor debate on the bill that she intends to make utilities cheaper. Representatives for Tucson Electric Power noted during a March 4 Corporation Commission hearing that the review process for new power plants can be arduous and that nearly all costs the utility incurs in the process will eventually be passed on to customers. 

“(It) is a process that could cost ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to put an evidentiary hearing in front of the committee,” a TEP executive said. “… it’s logistically difficult and it’s expensive.” 

Even though most Republican bills on this topic would only forgo the review process if a plant or location has already undergone it once, environmental advocates and Democrats like Rep. Mariana Sandoval of Goodyear argue the legislation “reduces meaningful public oversight of new power plant construction.” 

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, previously served on the commission and introduced a bill that would prevent utility companies from prioritizing emission reduction goals or renewable energy sources when creating statutorily-required plans for energy generation and capacity. Olson says forcing utility companies to be “technology-neutral” will allow them to prioritize affordability, but Democrats say it will only promote costly coal and natural gas projects.

Hobbs vetoed a similar bill from Olson last year, and other attempts to kneecap renewable energy sources are also likely to face her veto pen. Hobbs wrote in a veto letter for Olson’s 2025 bill that she is not interested in bills that “work against building an energy economy of the future.” 

In the meantime, Arizonans are likely to continue facing high utility bills, as two of the state’s major electric utility companies — Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power — are both seeking 14% rate increases from the commission. After meeting with the utility bill assistance recipients, Hobbs told reporters that she believes the state’s utility companies are eager partners in the quest to lower energy costs. 

“In my conversations with utility leaders, it’s a big concern for them,” Hobbs said. “Their top priority is making sure that electricity stays affordable for households and for existing customers, and it’s a challenge that we all have to tackle together.” 

Who pays for Arizona’s AI power boom?

Abhay Padgaonkar

In the Wild West that is the AI power boom, Arizona is attracting massive data centers, requiring as much as one gigawatt of power. 

The rush to attract these facilities raises an important question: Who will pay for the enormous amount of electricity and water they require? Absent clear guardrails, homeowners — not Big Tech — will pay the price.

What the state needs is an Arizona Ratepayer Bill of Rights — ARBOR — to ensure the rapid expansion of data centers does not shift financial and reliability risks onto ordinary customers, as is happening nationwide.

The ARBOR framework will ensure that data centers build and finance their own power, transmission, and backup, stay financially separate from the public utilities, and respect local control.

Is growth really paying for growth?

As more data center projects are proposed, utilities in Arizona are reporting a sharp rise in peak electricity demand. In 2025, peak demand for Arizona Public Service reached 8,648 megawatts — about 400 megawatts higher than in 2024. 

APS reported that extra-large power users’ requests exceed 19,000 megawatts, more than double the peak demand. Massive data centers are projected to consume over 20% of Arizona’s electricity by 2030.  

That growth carries real risks for everyday ratepayers. APS is currently seeking a 16.44% rate increase for residential customers, citing unprecedented growth. Yet, aggregate household electricity usage has remained relatively flat in recent years, as APS’s 2024 and 2025 investor reports show. Over that period, commercial consumption, however, has surged by 17.4% — driven largely by energy-intensive data centers.

Despite that drastic imbalance, the average rates charged to homeowners increased about 11.2% between 2023 and 2025 — nearly double the increase faced by business customers. That is not “growth paying for growth,” as APS claims. 

Under Arizona’s regulated utility model, new infrastructure built to serve large industrial loads is typically included in the rate base, meaning the public will end up paying to supply data centers.

Safety net for ratepayers

The following ARBOR principles will protect everyday ratepayers from these cost-shift and grid reliability risks. 

First, data centers should build and finance their own power generation, dedicated transmission, and backup infrastructure, rather than relying on utility systems paid for by ratepayers. Without a public grid backup, they must also cover redundancy and black-start capabilities.

Second, public utilities must keep data center investments financially separate from assets supported by ratepayers. This means no intermingling of costs, no cost allocations, no secret agreements, and no expectation of cost recovery from residential or commercial customers.

Third, taxpayers should not subsidize the industry through unnecessary incentives. The Data Center Tax Exemption, worth roughly $38 million annually, should be revoked, and a new data center water usage fee should help fund the Colorado River Protection Fund, as proposed by Gov. Katie Hobbs. Local communities should retain control over zoning and land-use decisions, deciding whether the infrastructure needed to support data centers belongs in their neighborhoods.

Responsible and accountable growth

Arizona isn’t alone in facing cost-shifting and grid reliability challenges. Across several U.S. power markets, expert analysis shows that rapid data center growth is forcing utilities to expand infrastructure — costs that are ultimately recovered from ratepayers, raising everyone’s electricity bills. 

On the PJM Interconnection, the largest electric grid operator in the United States, capacity prices jumped tenfold after PJM failed to procure enough capacity to meet its reliability target. Experts warn data center demand could equal 20 million households in five states, risking blackouts and $163 billion in added costs from 2028–2033. 

Backup power events in Virginia’s “data center alley” required emergency action and nearly damaged the grid.

Off-grid data centers are no longer a novelty, and as several projects emerge across the country, Arizona must learn from these lessons before making decisions that could shift costs onto ratepayers.

The Arizona Corporation Commission recently approved Project Baccara, a large data center project that initially generates its own power but later connects to the APS transmission system, leaving its on-site generation to operate as backup gas peaking power — one of the most expensive forms of energy. 

Project Baccara fails to meet the ARBOR criteria — and thereby potentially shifts long-term costs to ratepayers — contrary to the commission’s determination when approving it. 

None of the common-sense ARBOR safeguards would prevent Arizona from benefiting from data center investments. They simply ensure that the cost of powering the AI economy is borne by the companies causing demand and benefitting from it — not by families struggling to pay their monthly utility bills.

Arizona’s leaders still have time to put these bipartisan protections in place. If they fail to act, voters may ultimately decide that the state needs an Arizona Ratepayer Bill of Rights at the ballot box.

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

We can barely survive, and APS wants more?

Ruthey Phillips

My husband and I have gotten used to living in the dark. We abide by a strict “one light at a time rule” in our home to keep our energy bills down. I rely on an oxygen machine to breathe, and my husband needs a CPAP machine and a heart monitor. These devices are critical to our survival and require a lot of power. To balance those needs, we restrict our energy uses elsewhere.

I was born and raised in Yuma, and my husband and I have lived here for 13 years. Arizona is our home and lately, our home here has been dark and cold. Even though we’ve been cutting back, our electricity bill was $567 last month. 

To make a bad situation worse, Arizona Public Service wants to raise our electricity rates by 14% this year. Under those rates, our bill last month would have been almost $650. My husband and I have a combined income of about $4,000 per month. When we factor in the cost of rent, gas, food and other necessities, there’s nothing left to cover APS’ proposed increase. 

My parents taught me that if I wanted to support myself and a family, I had to get up every morning and go to work. I’ve done just that throughout my life. I worked as a medical specialist that helps people, often children and seniors, access care. My job was to make sure folks were able to get what they needed to survive. Now that I need the support, there is no support out there for me and other seniors.

Already, I’ve fallen behind on my APS bill. I’ve had to skip payments in the past in order to pay for food and water for my husband and me. Last month, I paid APS a total of $900, which left 35 cents in my bank account. I had hoped my husband and I would be able to go out to dinner or do an activity to celebrate our anniversary, but we were not able to afford it. 

I’m drowning in late notices from APS, our credit cards and the hospital. Recently, everything is so expensive, and it feels impossible to keep up. It’s a struggle to put food on the table every day. I don’t understand how it got to this point. My husband and I have both worked our whole lives. We saved money. We utilized resources like WorkMoney, which helps people lower their monthly costs. We’ve played by the rules, and right now, it feels like billionaires, CEOs and politicians are not holding up their end of the bargain. What happened to the promises of the American dream?

APS’ parent company, Pinnacle West, made $600 million in 2024. The CEO of APS makes over $3 million a year. APS has already raised its rates twice in the past four years, by 8% in 2022 and 8% again in 2024. This is not a struggling company trying to keep up with the cost of business. It is a company asking Arizonans to sacrifice more food, fall behind on more bills and give more of our hard-earned money to boost their profits. 

Fortunately, Arizonans have an opportunity to fight back and speak up against the proposed rate increase. In May, the Arizona Corporation Commission will hold a public hearing where we can demand the commissioners stop the 2026 rate hike. I shared my story at a hearing in February, and APS customers across Arizona are doing the same. Just by attending a hearing or submitting a public comment online, we can make a real difference. 

I’m sure very few of us can afford the proposed rate increase. It is an added burden for Arizona families at a time when we are already struggling. I’m tired of living in the dark. That is why I am calling on the Arizona Corporation Commission to stand with the hardworking people of Arizona and oppose APS’s 14% rate hike. 

Ruthey Phillips is a long-time Yuma resident.

New nuclear projects see bipartisan support in Arizona

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. 

Eloy is counting on the Arizona Corporation Commission to protect it from foreign utility

Andrew Sutton

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.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.