Tag: Arizona Corporation Commission

This week, attorneys general from across the country will gather in Scottsdale for the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) Policy Conference — offering an opportunity to discuss the challenges people are facing nationwide. As the top enforcement authorities for their respective states, the convening will provide a space to host conversations on topics ranging from the need to protect consumers and hold powerful interests accountable for wrongdoing to strategies for keeping their states competitive in a rapidly changing economy. However, for many Arizonans, one issue stands at the center of all three concerns: the need for access to affordable and reliable energy.

Across the state, Arizonans are facing an affordability crisis, and as seemingly everything else has gotten more expensive, new surges in energy costs have become a top concern. At the same time, the need for abundant, reliable, and affordable energy has never been more critical. As states across the country compete for massive investments from growing sectors like the tech industry and advanced manufacturing, having the power needed to fuel that opportunity is vital. 

Amid this push and pull over energy, the state’s largest utilities have seemingly acted without the best interests of Arizonans in mind. Take, for example, APS, our largest utility, which this summer filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission to raise rates on Arizonans by an astonishing 14% after an additional 16% increase the past two years. In an attempt to justify the increase, they worked to explain the spike by casting blame on data centers, manufacturing, and other industries, despite the significant role these sectors play in generating localized economic growth and job creation statewide. 

In calling their bluff, Attorney General Kris Mayes filed and was later granted a motion to intervene on behalf of Arizona’s ratepayers, arguing that the move would raise APS’s NET revenue by more than $580 million annually, “directly from the pockets of Arizona consumers and businesses.” All the while, APS’s holding company, Pinnacle West, recorded over $600 million in NET revenue just last year. 

As this plays out and Arizona’s energy prices grow increasingly unpredictable, we risk losing our competitive edge in the race for investment. Whether it’s the semiconductor boom, electric-vehicle manufacturing, or the growth of artificial intelligence and cloud computing, companies are making choices about where to expand based on access to stable, predictable power. Without it, we could see opportunities quickly move elsewhere, and, in this moment of national economic uncertainty, we cannot afford to let that happen. 

What’s more, the idea that new advanced industries are to blame simply doesn’t hold up. Recently released national research commissioned by the Department of Energy highlights that the three main factors driving energy prices today are extreme weather events, an aging grid, and the energy transition. In fact, in Arizona, the very industries that the largest utilities seek to scapegoat are the same ones investing in grid resilience and affordability.  

With Attorney General Mayes set to host a panel at DAGA on protecting consumers amid an evolving energy policy landscape, it’s opportune that we recognize the importance of this moment. Arizona’s regulators should hold utilities accountable for price gouging consumers and scapegoating residential customers. I applaud AG Mayes for her work, and I hope to see her peers take a similar approach to ensure that they protect both consumers and the economic growth powering the next chapter for their communities.

Lauren Kuby is an Arizona state senator representing parts of Tempe, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Mesa and SRP-MIC. 

In the aftermath of the sweltering heat of Arizona’s summer, where the mercury danced perilously above 110 degrees more often than not, one might expect a chorus of reason from those purporting to champion the downtrodden. Instead, we are treated to the cacophonous bleatings of Vanessa Perez and her so-called Solar for All Coalition, a cadre of self-anointed activists who, in their latest op-ed, decry Arizona Public Service’s proposed rate adjustment as nothing short of corporate armageddon. This is not advocacy; it is theater, a manufactured outrage orchestrated by a woke mob perpetuating the grand con of leftist, Marxist, socialist, communist dogma that is as anti-American as it is anti-capitalist. These are not activists but actors, poverty pimps and profiteers, feasting on the grievances they amplify while offering naught but ideological slop in return.

Let us dissect this charade with the scalpel of truth. APS seeks a modest 14% rate increase, amounting to roughly $20 per month for the average household, deferred until no earlier than July 8, 2026, to fund the sinews of our modern existence: reliable electricity that powers homes, businesses, and the very air conditioners these doomsayers claim will be sacrificed on the altar of greed. Pinnacle West’s profits? A testament to capitalist success, not sin. As the Apostle Paul admonishes in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” Capitalism rewards labor and innovation; socialism, by contrast, devours both.

Yet Perez and her ilk, ensconced in their coalition of segregated racialist silos, wield identity as a bludgeon against free enterprise. They paint vignettes of elders sweltering with open windows, families forsaking groceries for lights, and immigrants teetering on the brink of debt. Poignant, perhaps, but perilously detached from reality. These tales are the currency of professional victims, who thrive not on solutions but on sustaining the myth of systemic oppression. They are in league with the remnants of the dying Democrat Party, desperately administering CPR to the corpse of a political movement that has long since expired under the weight of its own contradictions. 

The border is sealed, the nation has had its fill of unchecked influxes, and Black Americans, my community, whom I have helped lead as one of Arizona’s most high-profile civil rights leaders, have abandoned the left in droves. Why? Because we weary of their godless, pointless crusades against all things white, normal, or productive. As Proverbs 14:23 declares, “In all labor there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury.” The left’s lips flap ceaselessly, yielding only more poverty.

This is all that immigrant activists and leftists have left: the hollow echo of class warfare, a relic of Marxist fever dreams that history has repeatedly put to rest. They decry APS’s formula-based mechanism for annual adjustments as a dangerous policy shift, bypassing full public input. Nonsense. Efficiency is the hallmark of progress, not a license for plunder. Without such mechanisms, utilities languish in bureaucratic quagmires, delaying the very infrastructure upgrades that prevent blackouts and ensure affordability in the long term. Attorney General Kris Mayes, in her vigorous opposition, merely parrots the socialist siren song, labeling it corporate greed. But greed? Nay, it is stewardship. As stewards of God’s creation, we must invest in the grids that sustain life, not sabotage them in the name of equity theater.

Far from the greedy monolith portrayed, APS has long been a pillar of community reinvestment, pouring millions into programs that uplift Arizona’s families, including Black Phoenicians. Through its community impact initiatives, APS has supported food security efforts providing over 6.8 million meals via partnerships with local food banks, invested in heat relief programs serving vulnerable populations with cooling stations and emergency AC repairs, and funded scholarships and STEM grants benefiting thousands of students from underrepresented communities. Notably, APS serves as presenting sponsor for the African American Leadership Institute (AALI), facilitated by the State of Black Arizona, fostering leadership in Phoenix and Southern Arizona cohorts. It backs Impact AZ 2025, a business accelerator for minority-owned enterprises through the Black Chamber of Arizona, and has championed the Black Changemaker Series to promote equity and opportunity. These efforts, detailed in APS’s annual community reports (https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Community/Community_Impact_Report_2024.pdf), reflect a commitment to reinvestment that belies the critics’ caricature.

Moreover, APS’s legacy in advancing civil rights in metro Phoenix is profound and enduring. The company played a pivotal role in establishing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in Arizona, not merely in rhetoric but in practice, designating it as an off-peak day in service plans to ease financial burdens on customers, while promoting days of service in Dr. King’s memory (https://www.instagram.com/p/DFDd1D7O5ny/). APS was instrumental in supporting the Phoenix 40, a coalition of business and civic leaders that championed racial equality and economic opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s, fostering integration and empowerment. Leaders like Keith Turley, former President and Chairman of APS, forged alliances with civil rights icons, including an early and life-long partnership with my grandmother, Opal Ellis, a trailblazing activist whose sit-ins and community organizing paved the way for desegregation in Phoenix. 

Turley, alongside figures like Martin Shultz, APS’s longtime Vice President of Public and Government Affairs, invested in community alliances that uplifted Black Phoenicians, from scholarships and workforce development to support during crises. APS also empowered figures like Monsignor Robert Donohoe, a Catholic priest and social justice advocate, whose work through the Catholic church was bolstered by APS’s community partnerships, including support for initiatives addressing poverty and discrimination. When Black churches fell victim to arson in decades past, APS’s broader human services programs, providing aid through partnerships like the Salvation Army and faith networks, offered solace and resources to rebuild. These millions invested in programs for Black upliftment alone stand as a rebuke to the profiteers’ narrative.

The Arizona Corporation Commission, tasked with safeguarding public interest, must not capitulate to this hysteria. Reject the calls for endless hearings and comments that serve only to inflate the egos of these actors. Instead, affirm the capitalist ethos that built this nation: innovation rewarded, responsibility upheld. Arizona families are indeed resilient, but resilience flourishes under free markets, not the yoke of redistributionist fantasies. As Ecclesiastes 5:19 reminds us, “Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.”

Ya basta? Enough, indeed, of this anti-American, anti-capitalist drivel. The commission serves the people by fostering prosperity, not pandering to the poverty profiteers. Let us pray for wisdom in our regulators, that they might discern the wolf in activist clothing. For as Matthew 7:15 warns, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Rev. Jarrett Barton Maupin Jr., a Republican and Baptist Minister, is one of Arizona’s most high-profile civil rights leaders, advocating for faith, family, and free enterprise. Follow him on X: @ReverendMaupin 

Key Points:

• A judge ruled the Arizona Corporation Commission lacked authority to reverse a decision from the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee

• The decision revolved around a plan from UniSource Energy to expand natural gas plant Black Mountain Generating Station 

• Judge Dewain Fox ruled in favor of Attorney General Kris Mayes and advocacy groups

The Arizona Corporation Commission lacked authority when it reversed a decision of the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee last year, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled. 

In June 2024, the ACC voted to reverse an order from the Line Siting Committee that deemed that a UniSource Energy power plant expansion project was a new plant in need of a certificate of environmental compatibility. The ACC argued that UNSE’s project was exempt from obtaining the necessary certificate because it was an expansion of an existing plant, not a new plant meeting the megawatt threshold for review.

Attorney General Kris Mayes, the Sierra Club and Western Resources Advocates filed suit in September 2024, arguing that the ACC misinterpreted a statute outlining which power plant projects require environmental review. On Oct. 21, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dewain Fox ruled in favor of Mayes and the advocacy groups — but not because the ACC misinterpreted statutes.

In his decision, Fox wrote: “What did Arizona’s Legislature mean in 1971 when it defined the word “plant” in (statute)? That is the ultimate issue before the court in these consolidated appeals. But before the Court can answer that question, the Court must decide whether the Commission even had the authority to review the Committee’s decision.”

Fox said the ACC did not have authority to review the Line Siting Committee decision because the commission’s own rules only allow it to review written decisions where the committee issues or denies a certificate of environmental compatibility. The committee is charged with evaluating applications to build power plants and transmission projects throughout the state.

While Fox sided with the plaintiffs in the case, he chose not to weigh in on the original question regarding the definition of “plant” as used in state statute. 

Mayes’ office celebrated the ruling in a statement provided by her spokesman, Richie Taylor.

“Judge Fox’s decision affirms what Attorney General Mayes has said all along: that the Corporation Commission is not above the law, and it cannot make up the rules as it goes,” Taylor said. “Now, Unisource Energy will need to get a siting certificate to build its new power plant — just as the Legislature required.”

The case stems from UNSE’s planned expansion of its Black Mountain Generating Station near Kingman. The project will add four natural gas generating units, each with a rating of 50 megawatts, to the existing generating station.

State law requires power plants with a megawatt rating of 100 or more to obtain a certificate of environmental compatibility from the Line Siting Committee. UNSE asked the Line Siting Committee to approve a disclaimer of jurisdiction in April 2024, arguing that the 50 megawatt rating of the new generating units did not qualify as a plant under the statute’s definition.

The Line Siting Committee denied the disclaimer of jurisdiction, but did not issue or deny UNSE the appropriate certificate. Before the committee could decide on a certificate of environmental compatibility, UNSE asked the ACC to review the committee’s decision. Commissioners ultimately sided with UNSE.

Fox’s ruling determined that the ACC does not have the authority to review decisions from the Line Siting Committee on disclaimers of jurisdiction. Under the ACC’s own rules, it can only review a Line Siting Committee decision related to the issuance or denial of a certificate of environmental compatibility, Fox wrote.

“Neither UNSE nor the Commission cites any other authority empowering the Commission to review the Committee Order,” Fox wrote. “And the Court’s independent research did not reveal any such authority. Because the regulations promulgated by the Commission do not provide for the Commission to review an order by the Committee denying a request to disclaim jurisdiction.”

Fox deliberately left the question over the definition of “plant” open, saying the commission’s review of the Line Siting Committee decision was premature. He ordered the committee to consider UNSE’s request for an issuance of a certificate of environmental compatibility and said the issues surrounding the definition of “plant” in statute could be addressed after that decision is made. 

Emily Doerfler, an attorney for Western Resource Advocates, applauded Fox’s ruling and encouraged the ACC to defer to the Line Siting Committee in the future.

“The Line Siting Committee has decades of expertise in carefully reviewing applications like the Black Mountain expansion,” said Doerfler. “Moving forward, the Commission should rely on that expertise for similar applications.”

A spokesperson for the ACC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Like many Arizonans, this Arizona Corporation Commission is tightening utility spending. Like a family cutting extra expenses to prioritize necessities, commissioners are tasked with regularly assessing unnecessary costs that impact ratepayer bills and cutting the fluff. Whether it’s eliminating outdated mandates, reducing surcharges, or prioritizing policies that keep the lights on and electricity affordable, this commission has consistently acted.

You may have heard that the commission recently voted to repeal both the Renewable Energy Standards and Tariffs (REST) and the Demand Side Management/Energy Efficiency (DSM/EE) mandates, which were established over 15 years ago. Unsurprisingly, there’s been a lot of doom and gloom from some.

REST and DSM/EE set baseline standards and deadlines for major regulated utilities to deploy renewable sources and promote energy efficiency, which have been exceeded. They have also cost Arizona ratepayers over $3.6 billion in extra fees since their implementation. It turns out you’ve been helping pay for your neighbors’ “free” shade trees, thermostats, light bulbs, EV garage chargers, and rebates for weatherization and solar water heaters. One utility collects $10 million in annual fees alone to provide incentives to homebuilders to install energy efficient appliances in new homes.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We recently learned that REST mandates pushed APS into a 30-year contract requiring them to pay over-market prices for the solar energy generated at the Solana plant in Casa Grande. APS continues to pay about $0.15 per kWh for this energy, with more than a decade remaining in the contract. That same equivalent energy can be procured today for between $0.025 and $0.030 per kWh. With a facility that produces more than 700,000 MWh of electricity each year, that’s hundreds of millions in unnecessary additional customer costs each year. 

Fortunately, this commission makes decisions based on affordability and reliability. It’s not surprising that many of the groups fighting the REST and DSM/EE mandate repeal also pushed the 50% renewable mandate. That’s important because the late August dust storm had a huge impact on solar production in our state. APS lost about 50% of its utility solar fleet, and SRP lost 45% of its fleet between the hours of 3 p.m. and 5 pm. Roughly 1,600 MWs dropped offline in the dead of summer because of dust. That’s one nuclear reactor at Palo Verde, or approximately enough electricity to power 350,000 homes. 

Thankfully, our utilities were able to quickly pivot and dispatch natural gas generators to make up for the electricity loss. But imagine if 50% of our power was dependent upon renewables. We could have faced real possibilities of rolling brownouts or even catastrophic grid failure due to a dust storm. 

Unsurprisingly, the usual hyperbole about Arizona turning its back on renewables has resurfaced, seemingly implying renewables can’t survive without subsidies and the forceful hand of government. Nevermind that large scale private equity funded renewable projects that sell power to our utilities are often the cheapest form of new generation. Thankfully, this commission requires utilities to issue all source RFPs when they procure new generation so customers pay the lowest rate available and aren’t stuck with inflated costs.

The commission must now conduct the required public hearings and follow the rulemaking process. But if history has taught us anything, the rhetoric will ramp up. The attorney general is already threatening to sue. That’s not surprising, as she played a pivotal role in originally forcing these costly mandates onto utilities and ratepayers. But that’s not going to deter our resolve to do what’s right for ratepayers and our grid. 

Critics view repealing the mandates as a backslide — a threat to an industry apparently dependent on subsidies. If you believe their hyperbole, renewables will seemingly come to a screeching halt in Arizona. But I see it as removing perverse financial incentives for utilities, taking the government’s hand off the scale, enabling all generation technologies to stand on their own., and pragmatically pursuing projects that prioritize affordability and grid reliability. 

The initial policy objectives were achieved. It’s time to eliminate cost shifts from ratepayer bills and focus on necessary expenses that will actually keep the lights on and reduce bills. 

Kevin Thompson is chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The Arizona Corporation Commission was created with a simple mission: to look out for everyday Arizonans. It was never meant to be a tool for utilities or special interests, but rather a safeguard for the people who pay their bills each month and depend on affordable, reliable energy.

So why did the commission just vote unanimously to move forward with repealing Arizona’s energy efficiency standards? Whose money are they really trying to save?

Energy efficiency has always been one of the smartest investments we can make. It lowers utility bills, reduces wasted energy and saves real dollars for ratepayers, Republicans and Democrats alike. Families and small businesses benefit directly when their homes, schools and workplaces use less energy to do the same job. Efficiency programs are consistently ranked among the cheapest resources available, far less expensive than building new fossil fuel plants or passing on higher costs to ratepayers.

But instead of strengthening these programs, the ACC is dismantling them. The repeal process is not yet final, but by voting to begin formal rulemaking, the commission is signaling a willingness to strip away policies that save Arizonans money and improve our quality of life. It’s hard to square this with the commission’s constitutional mandate to protect the public.

This is not a partisan issue. Republicans want to save money just as much as Democrats or independents. Energy efficiency has nothing to do with political ideology, it’s about common sense. A more efficient air conditioner or water heater saves families hundreds of dollars a year. Weatherizing a home can cut energy waste and keep people cooler during deadly heat waves. Small businesses depend on efficiency programs to lower operating costs and stay competitive.

By moving to repeal, the commission is effectively saying: saving money for who? For utilities, which profit when we use more energy. Not for the average Arizonan, who is already facing rising bills and record heat.

The good news is this decision isn’t final. The commission will hold public comment hearings on December 2 at 9 a.m. and on December 4 at 1 p.m. Those hearings are our opportunity to push back and remind commissioners who they are supposed to serve. When Arizonans speak with a united voice, it makes a difference.

The ACC was created to be a watchdog for the people. It’s time to hold it accountable to that mission. I invite you parents, students, business owners, retirees and anyone who cares about saving money and protecting our communities to show up in December and make your voice heard.

Because at the end of the day, efficiency saves money. The real question is: saving money for who?

Ylenia Aguilar is a member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation Board and serves as the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Organizer in Arizona.

Correction: This story has been updated with the correct public hearing dates of Dec. 2 and Dec. 4.

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).

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.

Key Points:

• The Arizona Corporation Commission hosted a workshop on natural gas

• The all-Republican panel indicated it is in favor of expanding natural gas generation

• Only one workshop presenter spoke in opposition to new gas infrastructure

The Arizona Corporation Commission indicates it is in favor of new natural gas infrastructure and storage as utility companies say natural gas will be crucial to supporting the state’s increasing demand for energy.

During an Aug. 26 workshop on natural gas, commissioners heard from Arizona utility companies, pipeline companies, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the American Gas Association about the need for new projects to deliver and store natural gas in Arizona. Currently, most existing natural gas pipelines are at capacity and no utilities store natural gas within Arizona.

“Expanding natural gas infrastructure is definitely critical to ensuring Arizona’s energy reliability into the future,” Commissioner Nick Myers said. “And this workshop has confirmed my belief that we’re headed in the right direction.” 

The other four commissioners echoed Myers’ sentiments throughout the meeting and gave enthusiastic support for increasing natural gas generation in the state. 

The workshop came just a few weeks after Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project, Tucson Electric Power and UniSource Energy Services announced they would join in on Transwestern Pipeline’s Desert Southwest expansion project. The pipeline expansion will bring new natural gas to the state from Texas, starting in late 2029, at a cost of approximately $5.3 billion. 

APS stated that the new pipeline will enable it to serve its customers more affordably, while SRP and TEP indicated that they are both considering converting existing coal plants to natural gas with the construction of the pipeline. 

Danny Seiden, CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also informed commissioners that natural gas expansion is a significant selling point for businesses considering relocation to the state. 

“Perhaps most importantly for Arizona’s future, natural gas is essential to the success of our advanced manufacturing sector,” Seiden said.

He highlighted how natural gas will support semiconductor companies like TSMC and the increasing energy demand from data center companies that are already approaching Arizona’s utilities with proposals for new facilities. 

Beth Hickey, a representative for Transwestern Pipeline Company, thanked commissioners for their warm reception to new natural gas infrastructure.

“It’s really refreshing to come into a room and have so much love for natural gas,” Hickey said. “It’s actually a really welcome change to some of the rooms I’ve been in.”

The workshop did not focus entirely on the benefits of natural gas, despite the overwhelming support for it from commissioners and utilities. Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit group focused on climate change and clean energy, urged commissioners to consider the risks associated with new natural gas generation.

“I may be the lone voice you hear today that is not telling you that we need new gas in Arizona,” said Alex Routhier, a senior policy adviser with WRA.

Routhier said natural gas generation poses financial, reliability, safety, and health risks to Arizona and advised commissioners to instead lean into clean forms of energy, such as solar and wind. All of the commissioners pushed back on Routhier’s concerns.

“To think that you’re just going to shut off the coal plants and natural gas plants and go 100% renewable is a false hope,” said Chair Kevin Thompson. 

Other commissioners emphasized that they are in favor of an “all-of-the-above approach” to energy supplies, which includes natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and coal. But one member of the public accused the commission of holding a “one-sided” workshop that only touted the benefits of natural gas with very little discussion of the risks. 

Of the 14 stakeholder groups that presented at the workshop, Western Resource Advocates was the only presenter not in favor of bringing more natural gas generation to the state. Thompson and Myers both denied that the discussion was one-sided.

“You’ll notice we did have WRA on our agenda,” Myers said during his closing comments. “We did not intentionally exclude one side or the other. There just happens to be a lot of support for natural gas. It’s that simple.”

Several other stakeholders, including the Arizona Public Interest Research Group and the Sierra Club have expressed concern about the expansion of natural gas in the state, but neither was invited to present at the workshop. 

The commission did not take any votes on natural gas expansion at the workshop and is unlikely to vote on approvals for any new natural gas projects this year. 

Key Points:

• Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill are running together for two seats on the Corporation Commission in 2026

• Republican Commissioners Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers up for reelection and  facing primary challengers

• Democrats have faced an uphill battle in Corporation Commission elections in recent years

Democrats officially announced their slate of candidates to challenge two Republican incumbents on the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill will run as a team to unseat Commissioners Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers in November 2026. Both tout lowering costs for utility customers as their campaign focus, while also pledging to increase transparency, expand rural representation and invest in renewable energy if elected. 

“Democrats get utility bills. Republicans get utility bills. Independents get utility bills,” Hill said in a statement. “No matter who you are, this Commission has allowed your rates to skyrocket every year, and I’m tired of it. I’m running because Arizona needs someone to put everyday people first.” 

Two other Democrats, Derrick Espadas and Vincent Salazar, have also filed statements of interest to run in the August 2026 primary, but neither has made a formal campaign announcement. If Pratte and Hill succeed next August, they will face the winners of a contentious Republican primary, in which state Reps. David Marshall and Ralph Heap are challenging Thompson and Myers.

Hill ran for the Corporation Commission in 2024 on a slate with two other Democrats vying for three open seats. All three lost to Republican incumbent Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson and newcomers Rachel Walden and Rene Lopez — cementing a 5-0 Republican majority on the Commission. 

Democrats have struggled in Corporation Commission elections in recent years, even as Democrats in other races succeeded. In 2022, former Commissioner Sandra Kennedy and now-Sen. Lauren Kuby lost their bids against Thompson and Myers, despite wins for Democrats in the races for governor, secretary of state and attorney general. 

In 2020, only one of three Democratic candidates running, Anna Tovar, was able to secure a seat on the Commission. Tovar decided not to run for reelection in 2024. 

Hill is a researcher at Arizona State University, where he works in the Mars Space Flight Facility. He has a doctorate in geological sciences and a master’s in aerospace engineering, both of which he says make him uniquely qualified to serve on the Corporation Commission. 

Pratte is a member of the Navajo Nation and currently runs a professional services firm. She is also the executive director and chair of Navajo Power, a public benefit corporation that promotes renewable energy development on tribal land. 

Pratte also has extensive experience working for the federal government and tribal governments. She worked at the Small Business Administration and U.S. Department of Commerce under three U.S. presidents. 

Both Hill and Pratte have pledged to run as Clean Elections candidates, forgoing funding from political action committees and special interest groups.

Key Points:

• Policy statements from Arizona Corporation Commission have been challenged

• Commission argues it is entirely exempt from governing agency regulations

• Two agencies disagree, and are fighting against the commission

The Arizona Corporation Commission is facing challenges from two state agencies attempting to invalidate its policies, raising questions about the body’s authority and self-oversight. 

The all-Republican commission has spent the first part of this year fending off litigation and administrative review from the Residential Utility Consumer Office and the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. Both entities allege the commission has been using policy statements in lieu of formal rulemaking processes to enact controversial regulations.

The commission argues it is exempt from statutes governing how state agencies create policies and has the authority to impose sweeping changes to ratemaking and utility oversight with little input from the public or stakeholders. That argument held up in a Maricopa County Superior Court, but it did not pass muster with the members of the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council.

The rulemaking process

Arizona’s Administrative Procedures Act requires that state agencies must submit rules governing the implementation of state statutes to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) for approval. GRRC reviews state statutes, public comment, economic impact reports and any other materials provided by the agency to determine whether a rule or rulemaking package should be approved.

The act specifically exempts the Corporation Commission from submitting its rules to GRRC due to its constitutionally granted ratemaking authority, but requires the commission to develop a “substantially similar” process for reviewing rules. 

State agencies, and the commission, can also issue policy statements that provide clarifications or guidance on statutes, but do not impose requirements. If a policy statement imposes requirements on individuals, businesses or regulated communities, it can be invalidated by GRRC until it is adopted as a rule through a formal rulemaking process.

The commission does not have a formal process in place for reviewing its policy statements to ensure they do not constitute rules. In fact, attorneys for the commission have argued that it is entirely exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act. 

“The Commission is an independent Constitutional entity not part of the Arizona Executive Branch, the Arizona Court system, or the Arizona Legislature,” commission attorneys argued in a May 12 court filing. “By virtue of its independent and broad constitutional charter, it is vested with the exclusive power to create its own rules and its own policies, particularly when it is engaged in ratemaking.” 

But RUCO, GRRC and stakeholder groups disagree, and they are using several avenues to challenge that assertion.

Formula rate policy statement

In December 2024, the commission approved a controversial policy statement allowing utility companies to use formulas to adjust their rates annually, rather than solely using rate cases to ask for adjustments.

While many stakeholders, including RUCO, disagree with the use of formula rates, the most objections came from the way the commission implemented the idea: a policy statement. RUCO filed suit over the policy statement in March, arguing the commission chose to “illegally implement a sea change in public service corporation regulation.”

The commission asked Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Susan Pineda to toss out the lawsuit, which she did on June 13. Pineda sided with the commission’s interpretation of its authority, saying RUCO’s claim was based on “the erroneous premise that the Commission’s actions are subject to the APA.” 

Commission Chair Kevin Thompson praised Pineda’s ruling in a statement released after it was handed down.

“Today’s ruling is a significant win for the commission and Arizona,” Thompson said. “The court unequivocally affirmed our constitutional authority to set policy and rules in our ratemaking capacity.”

Autumn Johnson, an attorney who often represents solar industry groups before the commission, said she disagrees with the notion that the APA does not apply to the commission at all. 

“It is just patently absurd that the Corporation Commission is completely exempt from the entire Administrative Procedures Act,” Johnson said. “They’ve never argued that before. Courts have never found that before. That’s not what the APA says.”

An attorney for RUCO told the Arizona Capitol Times on June 13 that the office is considering other options to challenge the policy statement after the judge’s ruling. 

Undergrounding policy statement

In October 2023, the commission approved a policy statement that discouraged burying utility transmission lines underground in favor of above ground lines due to costs. Underground Arizona, a nonprofit based in Tucson, requested that the commission reconsider the policy statement in September 2024, but the commission rejected the request.

In November 2024, Dan Dempsey with Underground Arizona, filed a petition to GRRC asking it to review the policy statement. Although state statutes specifically exempt the commission from submitting rules to GRRC, Dempsey said that commission staff directed him to statutes regarding GRRC review when he inquired about options for appeal. 

The commission requested that Dempsey’s petition be denied due to a lack of jurisdiction from GRRC and noted that attorneys for the commission were unable to find a single instance of GRRC review of an ACC policy since the commission was established in 1912. 

Dempsey argued that the policy statement in question was not a ratemaking issue, but a line siting issue, therefore making review by GRRC possible. After giving both parties an opportunity to state their cases at a May 28 meeting, GRRC voted on June 3 to invalidate the policy, with council members saying they felt confident that it was actually a rule. 

A week later, the commission voted to send a letter to GRRC informing it that commissioners still recognize the policy statement as valid, given the June 13 ruling from Judge Pineda confirming its exemption from the APA. 

“In light of the law governing this issue, and in response to GRRC’s unauthorized assertion of jurisdiction over commission rules and policies, the commission unanimously voted to affirm its previous position,” wrote Tom Van Flein, the commission’s general counsel, in a June 16 letter. 

The Department of Administration, which houses the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, reiterated in a statement on June 20 that the council declared the policy “void.” 

Neither agency appears ready to acquiesce to the other, and it is unclear where things go from here.

“We’re going to treat the GRRC decision as valid,” Dempsey said. “We’re not going to accept the ACC’s interpretation.”

Johnson said she doesn’t believe the commission can enforce the policy statement after it was deemed void.

“If they have a problem with the decision, then they need to seek a declaratory action in the courts, or some kind of special action to the Supreme Court,” Johnson said. “They don’t just get to say ‘no thanks.’”

Johnson said she thinks both issues will continue to play out and hopes both agencies press the commission on its claims to broad authority with virtually no oversight.

“(These cases) provide a really important accountability function and really important checks and balances and a really important rule of law function,” Johnson said. “You cannot just have an agency or one branch of government that’s just completely run amok and isn’t beholden to anyone else.” 

Key Points:

• Reps. David Marshall and Ralph Heap are running for the Corporation Commission

• They will challenge Republican  incumbents Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers

• Challengers are latest in Freedom Caucus bids for statewide offices

Two Republican state representatives announced their plans to challenge two incumbent Corporation Commissioners in 2026, saying the two commissioners have not done enough to support President Donald Trump’s energy agenda and protect ratepayers. 

Reps. David Marshall, R-Snowflake, and Ralph Heap, R-Mesa, were recruited by Arizona Freedom Caucus Chair and state Senator Jake Hoffman to run against Republican commissioners Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers. The two commissioners were first elected in 2022 and are eligible to run for a second term next year.

“The American people in November 2024 gave President Donald Trump a mandate, and this mandate translates down to the city, translates down to the states, with the expectation that President Trump’s agenda, especially regarding energy, will be implemented here in Arizona,” Marshall said during a press conference on Tuesday. “Unfortunately, President Trump’s agenda is not being implemented right now through the Corporation Commission.”

The Corporation Commission oversees the state’s public utility companies, business and security registrations, railroads and transmission lines. It is composed of five commissioners who are elected statewide to serve two four-year terms, and it currently has an all-Republican majority, with Thompson serving as chair and Myers as vice chair. 

Neither Marshall nor Heap have utility-specific experience. Marshall is a retired cop turned pastor who lives in Snowflake, while Heap is an orthopedic surgeon based in Mesa. 

“I think it’s actually an advantage, not a disadvantage, to be a little bit disconnected,” Heap said. “And so I think we’re excited about that part of it, and we’re very capable of learning whatever we need to do the jobs.”

Thompson and Myers have denied they are standing in the way of Trump’s energy agenda or harming ratepayers by approving utility rate increases. 

“The beauty of our electoral process is voters have a choice,” Thompson and Myers said in a joint statement. “And that choice will be between incumbents who have kept their campaign promises of ensuring we have one of the most reliable grids in the country while maintaining affordability for ratepayers, and special interest proxies who have been recruited to return politics to ratemaking.” 

Thompson is a former Mesa City Council member and president of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, where he dealt with city utilities. He spent 12 years working in business development at Southwest Gas, a utility company regulated by the Corporation Commission. 

Myers previously worked as a software engineer for various companies before starting his own company in 2013. He previously owned and operated a dog boarding facility with his wife. 

Prior to becoming a commissioner, Myers worked as a policy advisor at the commission between 2021 and 2023, while he was running for office. 

In recent weeks, the Freedom Caucus and Turning Point USA have accused the all-Republican Corporation Commission of not upholding Trump’s plans to reinvigorate the nation’s coal industry. The commission faced criticism for allowing Arizona Public Service to close its Cholla Power Plant on March 17.

Thompson and Myers doubled down on the closure, explaining in both a public hearing and a statement that it was too late to reopen Cholla because Trump’s executive order deregulating the coal industry came weeks after the plant had closed. They noted that the executive order was a step in the right direction, but too many environmental protections prevented Cholla from being profitable.

Thompson said in a statement on May 30 that it would cost ratepayers almost $2 billion to reopen the coal plant. He criticized lawmakers who signed onto a letter encouraging the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to reactivate the plant, saying, “This demonstrates just how far they are removed from the realities of ratemaking.”

The two have also been criticized for not pushing back against environmental, social, governance and diversity, equity and inclusion policies implemented by utility companies. Both commissioners have said they do not believe the Corporation Commission has the authority to govern the internal policies of public service companies. 

Republican public relations consultant Barrett Marson said that, despite the criticism from the Freedom Caucus, Myers and Thompson are “certainly among the most conservative Corporation Commissioners that have ever been elected.”

However, Marson also noted that the “power of incumbency” is not as strong for an office like the Corporation Commission, where candidates often have to explain what the commission does before making their pitch to voters. None of that necessarily gives Marshall and Heap a leg up in the election. 

“I think Heap and Marshall are just going to find it a very difficult slog,” Marson said. “Running a legislative race is one thing, running a statewide race for an office that no one’s really ever heard of? It’s gonna be pretty difficult.” 

Myers and Thompson are only the latest statewide Republican elected officials to get the Freedom Caucus primary treatment. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne will face a challenge from term-limited state Treasurer Kimberly Yee. 

The Freedom Caucus is also running candidates for governor and secretary of state, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs and state Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, respectively. Hoffman told reporters on June 10 that he isn’t concerned about how Freedom Caucus candidates would fare in a general election if they succeed in their primaries. 

“The grassroots are on fire for these candidates, the grassroots are on fire for Congressman Biggs to be the next governor of Arizona, they’re on fire for Kimberly Yee to be the next superintendent of public instruction, they’re on fire for Alex Kolodin to be the next secretary of state,” Hoffman said.

While the stage is set for the Republican primary, it remains unclear whether any major Democratic challengers will step up to the plate. Three Democrats have filed statements of interest with the secretary of state: 2024 candidate Jonathon Hill, Tucson business owner Derrick Espadas and Phoenix marketing consultant Vincent Salazar.

Key Points:

• Bill would allow utility companies to move debt into low-interest bonds 
• Critics say the process can be good, but lacks safeguards to protect residential utility customers
• Utility companies say it will save customers money in the long run

Democratic lawmakers, former members of the Arizona Corporation Commission and other advocates continue to sound alarm bells over a bill that would allow public utility companies to securitize assets as the possibility of significant amendments or a veto remains uncertain.

At a press conference on April 29, Democratic Sens. Priya Sundareshan and Lauren Kuby were joined by former commissioners Sandra Kennedy and Bob Burns in calling on Gov. Katie Hobbs to veto the controversial House Bill 2679. The bill allows utility companies to transfer debt into low-interest bonds that can be sold to recoup funding from aging or inefficient assets, such as old coal-fired power plants.

The bill has been a point of contention since its introduction in January, with Republicans and Democrats alike raising issues with its provisions. It also created tension between the Legislature and the Corporation Commission after commissioners said they were not consulted by Arizona Public Service or Rep. Gail Griffin, the drafter and sponsor of the bill, before it was filed. 

Currently, the commission’s official position on the bill is neutral, even after it passed through amendments in the House. Critics say the bill lacks sufficient guardrails and oversight to ensure utility companies are not securitizing unsuccessful assets that rate payers are still footing the bill for. 

Kennedy, a former Democratic commissioner, called the bill in its current form “a Ponzi scheme.”

“Older debts are paid off with new charges, yet locking rate payers into decades of payments without addressing the root causes of debt, while guaranteeing profits for the utility companies and Wall Street investors and leaving the distressed rate payers to pick up the tab,” Kennedy said at the April 29 press conference.

APS and Republicans have billed the proposal as a cost-saving measure for utility companies and rate payers while pushing it through the House, despite a letter from the all-Republican ACC detailing its concerns with it. The bill is currently awaiting amendments and final passage in the Senate before it can head to the governor’s desk.

Burns, a former Republican commissioner, urged lawmakers to hold the bill so that the ACC can conduct an evidentiary hearing and allow stakeholders to weigh in on the concept. He also called on Hobbs to veto the bill if it reached her desk. 

“My ask would be for the governor to veto the bill with the provision that it be sent back to the ACC for evidentiary hearing and be refiled next session,” Burns said at the April 29 press conference. “The big point is, it needs to be thoroughly investigated with a very critical eye before it’s passed, with the potential to harm so many people that are relying on APS for their electrical services.”

Hobbs’ office declined to comment on the bill. 

Sundareshan, the Democratic Senate minority leader, said she has communicated her problems with the bill to the Governor’s Office and told Hobbs’ staff that the bill would only be palatable if it limited securitization to retiring infrastructure and included a sunset provision, allowing lawmakers to review its use. She said APS rejected that proposal, but is working with Republicans on other amendments.

Many opponents of the bill say securitization can be a good thing, but that the current bill is unworkable, rushed and possibly even unconstitutional. Attorney General Kris Mayes, a former member of the Corporation Commission, sent a letter to lawmakers last month saying the legislation in its current form could interfere with the constitutionally prescribed duties of the ACC.

“To create the legal certainty required for securitization, the Bill necessarily infringes on the Commission’s exclusive, constitutional authority to set utility rates,” Mayes wrote.

That could put the state at risk of lawsuits if the bill is signed as currently written. And several Democrats are cosponsoring the bill, which could sway Hobbs to sign it. 

Democratic Reps. Seth Blattman, Janeen Connolly, Alma Hernandez, Consuelo Hernandez, Lydia Hernandez, Myron Tsosie and Kevin Volk joined Sens. Flavio Bravo, Brian Fernandez and Catherine Miranda in signing on to the bill after it was introduced. 

Sundareshan, an environmental attorney by trade, said she believes some of her fellow Democrats have not had time to read the 40-page bill and understand its complexities. She said she is working with lawmakers to change their votes. 

“There was not a lot of transparency or stakeholder input,” Sundareshan said. “So I think what occurred was there was not a lot of time for those conversations to be had, these alarms to be raised when it went through the House the first time. So when it comes back to the Senate, we will absolutely be talking to our colleagues about the dangers it poses.”

For now, critics will have to wait and see whether amendments in the Senate will assuage their concerns or if they’ll have to take the fight to the Governor’s Office.