Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona Public Service

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. 

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.

Insurers say Arizona’s wildfire mitigation plans are not enough

Key Points: 
  • Arizona law shields electric utilities from most lawsuits if their equipment sparks a catastrophic wildfire
  • Insurers and trial lawyers criticize the law’s wildfire mitigation plans as sparse and lacking detail
  • Arizona utilities’ wildfire mitigation plans are under review by the state Forestry Department

A 2025 law shielding Tucson Electric Power, Arizona Public Service and other electric utilities from most lawsuits if their equipment sparks a catastrophic wildfire had just one requirement: The power companies must create comprehensive plans to minimize the risk of fires.

But insurers and trial lawyers who initially argued against the law and negotiated changes to remove their opposition are rebelling now that the plans are being rolled out. They call them sparse, lacking detail and an exercise in “check the box” bureaucracy that will do little to boost protection while leaving homeowners and other Arizonans on the hook if they lose everything in a fire.

In exchange, the utilities will be shielded from lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars if a town like Payson or Prescott is wiped out by a wildfire caused by their power lines.

The insurers and trial lawyers are also highly critical of the state agency charged with reviewing what are called “Wildfire Mitigation Plans.”

They say that, despite explicit authority in the law, the Department of Forestry and Fire Management failed to write detailed administrative rules requiring the plans written by TEP, APS, and other companies to lay out the specifics of the actions they would take to limit fires. 

Instead, the agency charged with reviewing the plans basically restated the general provisions in the 2025 law in 3 pages of rules it published last month. And despite telling lobbyists for insurance companies, their national associations, and trial lawyers in October that it would consult with them on potential rules and hold a public comment period before they were published, the agency never did so.

Tom Torres, director of the Forestry Department, said the legislation contained a series of details on what the wildfire mitigation plans must contain and the agency essentially adopted those so utilities had them before they filed their plans.

“Our approach to rulemaking was to describe what was required from the legislation. And as we receive the plans and we learn about what is submitted—we’ll learn from that,” Torres said in a Monday interview. “This isn’t to say that our rulemaking won’t be modified in the future, but we felt that the descriptions that were in … the bill were sufficient for us to get started.”

The public will have a chance to weigh in on the plan submitted by APS at an informal public meeting on Wednesday; APS serves about 1.4 million business and residential customers in 11 of Arizona’s 15 counties. Forestry officials will review the plan submitted by TEP’s parent company, Tucson-based UNS Energy, on April 7. Besides 458,000 Tucson-area customers, UNS provides electric services to 105,000 customers in southern and northwestern Arizona through Unisource Energy Services. 

The agency is under a tight timeline to review and approve the plans. Under the new law, if it requests no changes, it must OK one just four months after it is submitted. If it requests changes, the utility gets 90 days to respond, then the Forestry Department is allowed two months to review and approve the modified plan. 

APS’s plan was filed on Feb. 1, meaning it could be approved and the company given the massive liability shield by June 1 if no changes are requested. TEP’s most recent version was filed on March 2, so its plan could win approval by early July.

Torres said the review process has just started and as his staff pores through the plans, they will listen to comments made during the public meetings.

“We’re going to take public comment seriously, and that includes the stakeholders (like insurers). It includes the affected towns and counties, as required by the bill,” he said.

“We are not anywhere near complete with the review of the submitted plans, and we’re taking that responsibility seriously,” he added. “So if stakeholders have comments, and I know that stakeholders will have comments, I encourage them to provide them to us for consideration as we move through the review process.”

Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, added the provision specifically authorizing the Forestry Department to write rules detailing what specifics needed to be included in the utilities’ wildfire mitigation plans. Such administrative rules are frequently needed to put flesh on the bones of legislation that, by its very nature, is general and requires rules to implement legislative intent, but are time-consuming without the exemption Mesnard inserted in the bill.

Mesnard was surprised to learn that the agency had not done so, since the law outlines the agency’s review responsibilities and allows it to charge whatever fees it needs to cover employees’ and others’ review costs.

“I guess I assumed that there would be some level of detail, but figured that the oversight from DFFM would add to what is outlined in the statute itself,” Mesnard said.

The insurance and trial lawyer lobbyists were never told the “rules” had been published and didn’t learn about them until a Capitol Media Services reporter spotted them at the bottom of the agency’s utility mitigation plan website. 

“We consider this to be strikingly insufficient substantively,” Lee Ann Alexander, vice president for policy for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said in an email on Monday.

APS pushed hard for the liability shield bill, joined by TEP and other Arizona utilities, because they were worried that a wildfire sparked by their power lines could expose them to massive liability. Utilities in California, Oregon and Colorado have faced major lawsuits after their equipment was found or suspected of causing forest fires that, in some cases, consumed entire communities. 

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in California was forced to seek bankruptcy protection a year after a hook holding up a transmission line broke in 2018, sparking a fire that destroyed the northern California town of Paradise and killed 85 people.

In 2025 alone, Arizona and seven other states passed laws limiting utilities’ liability for wildfires, according to the insurance association. 

Alexander pointed out that the rules adopted by a California agency for utilities creating wildfire mitigation plans run to 255 pages. Her group pushed for specific, detailed items to be included in the Forestry Department’s rules, but most were not adopted. 

A spokeswoman for APS, Yessica del Rincon, said the company has a “rigorous and comprehensive” wildfire mitigation strategy that includes modern technology like artificial intelligence and high-definition remote cameras to detect smoke to monitor its system. 

The company’s wildfire mitigation team includes former wildland firefighters, foresters and meteorologists.

“The plan shows APS’s commitment to proactive, industry-leading wildfire risk management, and we look forward to demonstrating our thoughtful approach during its review by the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management,” said a company statement provided by del Rincon.

The filed plan outlines ongoing efforts by APS to trim back trees and other vegetation, upgrade power line equipment such as fuses and automatic shutoff switches, and to shut off power to vulnerable lines during high wind events. Those so-called “Public Safety Power Shutoffs” are required elements of the plans that must be included in the 2025 law.

Despite research showing they are highly effective in preventing fires, most utilities view Public Safety Power Shutoffs as a last resort, since they are highly disruptive to customers and carry their own risks, according to a research paper from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy facility.

The wildfire mitigation plans filed by APS and TEP both discount the use of PSPS’s, saying they’d rarely be used.

“The Companies use a backstop approach where only under the most severe drought and extreme wind conditions would PSPS be triggered,” the plan filed by TEP and Unisource says.

Joseph Barrios, corporate communications manager for Unisource and TEP, said the companies work year-round to reduce wildfire risk. 

“The companies’ wildfire mitigation plan describes the standards and significant measures we use to reduce wildfire risks through robust operations, maintenance, system hardening, public safety preparation and prevention programs,” Barrios wrote in a statement provided to Capitol Media Services. 

APS’s plan notes that its “wildfire mitigation toolkit” includes widespread grid modernization, distribution system hardening, feeder coordination studies, hazard tree risk assessment and defensible space around poles programs, among others

“We rely on all these tools first and only use a PSPS when the conditions in certain areas of our system warrant this intervention,” its plan says. “If APS needs to initiate a PSPS, efforts are made to limit the number of customers affected and the amount of time they are without power.”

In a lengthy interview last week, Alexander said administrative rules that fill legislative gaps are critical, especially because homeowners and businesses, as well as insurance companies, are losing their ability to recover damages from electric companies.

Insurers opposed the bill because it prevents them from recovering what they pay their clients for losses from utilities. Alexander noted that means everyone’s premiums could rise after a major wildfire, to say nothing of the large number of uninsured people — both homeowners and those who own businesses – who will lose as well.

That means getting the wildfire mitigation plans right affects everyone.

“It will not necessarily stop fires to have a robust wildfire mitigation plan,” Alexander said. “But you’re sure going to get a lot closer to a place that people should feel comfortable if it’s robust and is detailed, and gives dates and timelines and specific processes, rather than just what may appear to be a ‘check the box’ plan that complies with the specific items outlined in the statute.”

She said that by comparing the size of the APS documents to those filed by utilities in other western states “it seems hard to imagine” that they will hold the power companies to account. Once a plan is approved by the Forestry Department, it becomes nearly impossible to sue a power company for sparking a fire under the 2025 law.

“To us, it does look very thin, and it proves the point to us you need to have a rulemaking,” she said. “You’ve got to have some very strict standards.”

The plans created by APS and TEP are strikingly lacking in detail when compared to those written by utilities in other states. APS’s plan runs 69 pages and contains no details on investment in new equipment, details of its inspection programs or other items contained in plans for Utah and California utilities. TEP’s runs just 26 pages. 

But Barrios said comparing the two is not reasonable, noting that each utility has “unique risk mitigation considerations” based on location and other factors. 

And he noted that while California utilities are required to list all their internal processes and procedures in their plans, “our plan complies with Arizona’s statutory requirements and the Department of Forestry and Fire Management has raised no concerns.”

PG&E, a utility that serves much of California, has a wildfire mitigation plan that runs 593 pages, plus a 66-page appendix. Rocky Mountain Power, which supplies 1.2 million customers in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, uses 153 pages to detail its 2023-2025 plan — and notes it planned to invest $446 million over that time to replace fire-prone equipment and trim vegetation to help protect its customers.

The plans filed with DFFM by APS and TEP contain no details on how much money they might need to spend and only general outlines of how they plan to upgrade their systems. 

Barry Aarons, a lobbyist who represented trial lawyers who opposed the bill as it moved through the Legislature, said the final bill’s definition of the mitigation plans left a lot of wiggle room for utilities.

“This is what our worst nightmare was — they were going to decide what a ‘reasonable plan’ was, and DFFM was just going to hold some hearings and tell them what a great group of people they are for filing their reasonable plan,” Aarons said.

“And it’s not enough,” he said. “They have to have stakeholder meetings. They have to actually sit down with all the interested parties and go over their plans, line by line, and determine whether the plan is enough to make sure that they are living up to their part of the agreement that was made.”

The initial bill contained not only the sweeping liability protection for utilities but limited the ability of homeowners or business owners to recover anything but actual damages, things like use of a destroyed car or lost business. 

Facing strong opposition, Mesnard crafted an amendment that took those items out, making the bill more palatable, if not tasty for the opponents. People or businesses can still join in a class-action lawsuit to recover incidental damages — but only if the utility doesn’t follow its approved mitigation plan.

Christian Slater, spokesman for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said she stood up for ordinary Arizonans by fighting for the changes that eventually made it into the bill. Those included ensuring the wildfire plans were reviewed by experts at the Forestry Department rather than by the Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees regulated utilities like APS and TEP, or by the boards of publicly owned utilities like the Salt River Project.

“The administration will continue working on a common-sense approach that ensures corporations are doing their fair share to prevent wildfires and protects Arizonans from potential negligence,” Slater said in a statement.

Aarons said it is critical for the Forestry Department, part of Hobbs’ administration, to ensure that his group and others who represent homeowners and others who are losing the right to sue are heard as they were promised during talks on the bill.

“There’s a lot more work that needs to be done, and their promises need to be kept,” Aarons said. “You’ve got to do rule making, got to have stakeholder meetings, got to do all of that — or else this whole thing was a sham.”

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. 

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. 

Hobbs and Shope clash over ethics reform and lobbyist-funded meals

Key Points:
  • Gov. Hobbs launches political attack on Sen. T.J. Shope over government contracts
  • Shope received over $4,900 in meals and entertainment from lobbyists last year
  • The attack is a response to Hobbs’ own reform proposal being rejected by Senate

Upset by his refusal to accept her plan for accountability in government contracts over his, Gov. Hobbs is launching a political attack on Sen. T.J. Shope.

Gubernatorial staffers have prepared a list showing that the Coolidge Republican was the beneficiary of more than $4,900 in meals and other entertainment last year from lobbyists. That number comes from reports that lobbyists are required to file.

And press aide Liliana Soto, when sending that report to the media, pointed out that none of that showed up in the annual financial disclosure statement that Shope and all elected officials are required to file. That statement specifically requires the disclosure of all gifts with a cumulative value of more than $500.

Soto, however, refused to say whether any of what Shope failed to list actually runs afoul of state financial disclosure laws.

“Whether that’s a violation is up to the appropriate authorities to decide,” she said.

But if Shope is violating the law, as Soto suggests, he is hardly alone.

Capitol Media Services has reviewed annual financial disclosure reports filed by Hobbs back to 2011, as a legislator, then as secretary of state, and now as governor. And none of them lists any meals.

Instead, her list of “gifts” includes only travel expenses — just as does Shope.

Soto did not immediately respond to questions about the governor’s own disclosure forms.

Shope, for his part, told Capitol Media Services he has filled out the forms every year he has been a legislator.

What seems to be driving the attack is a dispute between Hobbs and Shope over the best way to address the fact that it is often impossible to determine whether a company has been awarded lucrative state contracts because of its donations to the governor and her allies.

What is known is that Sunshine Residential, a company that provides group homes for children in the state’s foster care system, donated $400,000 to Hobbs and the Arizona Democratic Party. And it was later rewarded with more money for the same services.

It was Shope who then called for an inquiry into what he called a “pay-to-play” scheme, with probes launched by Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell.

Shope also separately proposed what he said is a method to make such dealings more public: Every company or individual seeking state business would have to report, up front, any donations they made in the prior five years to the governor or any of her political entities.

Hobbs nixed that plan last year.

In her veto message, she said the current procurement and award processes for the state’s Medicaid program “are consistent with Medicaid industry best practices.” But she did not address that the scope of what Shope has proposed went far beyond Medicaid and affected all state contracts.

Hobbs finally said in November she would propose her own alternative. That was finally made public last week, what she dubbed the “largest ethics reform package in modern Arizona history.”

Her plan involves setting up a searchable database of the people who control companies that do business with the state. But it would take a second step to link them to any political contributions: People would then have to plug those names into a separate database, this one run by the Secretary of State’s Office, to find out to whom they had donated.

Shope contends the governor’s plan, aside from being more complex, has loopholes.

Most notably, the system fails to provide public access to donations that a state contractor might have made to entities not in the database maintained by the Secretary of State’s Office — such as an inaugural fund or a legal defense fund.

Hobbs has created both.

So he reintroduced his original plan — the one Hobbs vetoed last year.

Soto won’t address those gaps in what the governor’s plan would make readily available. Instead, she is criticizing Shope because his plan does not address something else the governor wants: the elimination of lobbyist funded dinners, travel, speeches, lodging and outings. 

And that is why Soto alleges that Shope is acting improperly by omitting any mention of those meals from his annual personal disclosure statement. She contends that none of this would be necessary if he and other lawmakers would agree that there can no longer be free meals from lobbyists.

Shope is far from being the only lawmaker, from either party, who has been taken to lunch or dinner by a lobbyist. But Soto admitted she is singling him out because his conflicting plan doesn’t address the question of lobbyists paying for lunches, dinners and drinks.

And Soto did not respond to questions about what Hobbs included or did not include in her own reports going back more than a decade — and whether the governor was as culpable as Shope.

Hobbs, seeking a second term as governor, has been on the political defensive since it was first revealed that Sunshine Residential gave $100,000 to her 2023 inaugural fund. Only the $250,000 donation by Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, was larger.

Close to $1.7 million was raised for the event. But the governor’s campaign said it actually cost less than that to put it on. That meant Hobbs could set aside the balance for political purposes, including electing Democrats.

Other reports found that Sunshine also gave $300,000 to the Arizona Democratic Party.

All this came as the state was deciding whether to increase the amount of money the Department of Child Safety, run by a Hobbs appointee, was paying Sunshine for out-of-home cases for foster children. Sunshine eventually got a 60% boost, with DCS officials saying they needed the beds that Sunshine could provide.

It was those reports that led Shope to introduce his legislation last year to require contractors to disclose donations to the governor and any campaign committees. When Hobbs vetoed it, Shope then asked for an investigation, angering Christian Slater, the governor’s communications chief.

“Just like past investigations instigated by radical and partisan legislators, the administration will be cleared of wrongdoing,” he said at the time. Slater said it should be no surprise that a company involved in children’s welfare would want to contribute to Hobbs, citing her background as a social worker.

So far, neither Mayes nor Mitchell has released any findings.

More recently, House Republican lawmakers hired an attorney to serve as an investigator into their own probe, with no report on that, either.

Gov. Hobbs faces probe over alleged ‘pay-to-play’ scheme with Sunshine Homes

Key Points:
  • Arizona lawmakers hire out-of-state attorney for probe
  • Investigation focuses on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ alleged “pay-to-play” scheme
  • Gov. Hobbs promises ethics reform plan, but offers no timeline

State lawmakers have hired an out-of-state attorney who has defended Republican interests to act as an independent investigator in the long-standing probe of what they contend is a “pay-to-play” scheme by Gov. Katie Hobbs.

In a Feb. 2 press release, an all-Republican “advisory team” of the Arizona House analyzing the situation concluded that it was time to proceed to the next step in their work to find the link between political donations to the governor by the owner of Sunshine Residential Homes and a decision by her Department of Child Safety to grant a large increase in what it was paying to house children in the residential facility.

This is separate from an ongoing probe of the Democratic governor by Attorney General Kris Mayes seeking the same link and the fact that lawmakers have asked Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and the state Auditor General’s Office to also investigate.

None of those inquiries, launched in 2024, has reached any conclusion.

The announcement also comes nearly a year after Hobbs vetoed legislation that would have required companies seeking state contracts or grants to disclose “anything of value” they have provided to the governor, a gubernatorial campaign, or other entities that have supported the governor’s election or inauguration in the past five years.

In exchange for that veto, the governor promised to work with state lawmakers to craft a measure to ensure the kind of transparency that Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, sought.

On Monday, Hobbs echoed that same commitment, saying she’s still “willing to talk to legislative leaders about how we can make changes to increase transparency and accountability.”

But the governor balked at both questions: when the public would see her plan and when she would comment on the investigation.

“I don’t have an update on that,” she said.

Christian Slater, the governor’s press aide, was no more specific, saying only that his boss is “engaging with legislators” and “hopes to pass a bipartisan, common-sense ethics reform plan to bring greater accountability and transparency to state contracts.”

All this traces back to Sunshine giving $100,000 to a committee seeking donations for the governor’s 2023 inaugural. Only Arizona Public Service, at $250,000, was a larger contributor.

Even before the election, Sunshine contributed $200,000 directly to the Arizona Democratic Party. And there was another $100,000 donation in 2023.

DCS spokesman Darren DaRonco said an initial bid by Sunshine in 2023 for more money was rejected.

But in May, the agency agreed to raise the standard rate from $140 per bed to $195, a 39.29% increase.

DaRonco said Sunshine made the case that unless it got more money it would transfer more of its beds to the federal government to house immigrant children. He said such a move — the feds were paying $225 — would have meant fewer places for DCS to place its foster children.

Then Sunshine got a new contract boosting its rate to $234.

Mayes opened her own probe in June 2024, the same one an agency spokesman said remains “ongoing” on Monday.

Meanwhile, there was the June 2025 veto of Shope’s bill — and the November 2025 promise to find ways to shed more light on who is doing business with the state.

“I can say we’re in support of transparency in government,” Hobbs said at the time. “And we’re going to put forward a package that does that.”

That same month, House Speaker Steve Montenegro put together an advisory team — composed only of Republican lawmakers — to probe any link between the donations and the contract which was first reported by The Arizona Republic.

Slater, however, called all this “a shameless publicity stunt from partisan actors who are desperate to score political points.”

And now the team has hired Justin Smith of the James Otis Law Group in Missouri. According to the press release, he will review records, conduct interviews, and report his findings to the team and to House GOP leadership.

This isn’t the first time Republican lawmakers in Arizona have entered into contracts with the firm for which Smith works.

Smith is also representing GOP efforts to block legal challenges to state abortion laws mounted by two physicians who perform the procedure and the Arizona Medical Association. They contend voter approval in 2024 of Proposition 139, inserting a “fundamental right” to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability makes the restrictions, like a 24-hour waiting period, illegal.

He also was retained by Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen to try to overturn a federal court ruling that voided a state law that says transgender individuals can get an amended birth certificate only if they first undergo surgery. Smith also is handling separate litigation over the enforceability of a state law that bans anyone born male from participating in girls’ sports.

Separately, Smith is trying to get a federal appeals court to conclude that a federal judge erred in holding that Montenegro and Petersen lack legal standing to challenge the Biden administration’s decision to create the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni–Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument.

And the James Otis Law Group, for which Smith works, was founded by James Sauer, who, after successfully getting the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that President Trump is entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution, was named by the president as the solicitor general of the United States.

Montenegro defended the choice.

“Justin Smith has the experience and integrity this investigation demands,” the speaker said. “He has no interest other than uncovering the truth.”

Correction: This article has been updated to correct a numerical error quantifying the increased payment rates provided to Sunshine Residential Homes.

This Republican wants Arizona’s residential utility agency to focus on rural customers, not large utilities

Key Points:
  • Rep. Teresa Martinez wants the Residential Utility Consumer Office to reprioritize
  • RUCO declined to intervene in a rural water rate case at the Arizona Corporation Commission
  • Martinez says the agency needs to focus on small utility customers, not large ones like Arizona Public Service

A Republican lawmaker wants the state agency tasked with advocating for residential utility customers to reprioritize after it declined to assist the customers of a rural water utility. 

Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, introduced House Bill 2113 to require the Residential Utility Consumer Office to intervene in rate cases at the Arizona Corporation Commission if a utility company attempts to increase rates by 100% or more. Martinez’s bill comes after RUCO was unable to intervene in the Picacho Water and Sewer Company rate case, which originally proposed a 125% increase in water rates and a 188% increase in sewer rates.

Martinez sent a letter to RUCO Director Cynthia Zwick in September regarding the rate case, after hearing from constituents that the agency had declined to intervene. Since then, Zwick said she has met with Martinez to discuss RUCO’s caseload and resource constraints, but Martinez still believes the agency should refocus its efforts. 

“RUCO is prioritizing the number of people rather than the amount of the proposed rate hike, leaving rural Arizona behind,” Martinez said in a statement. “Instead of fighting for the little guy facing 200 or 300 percent rate hikes, RUCO is concentrating its attention on larger population centers where proposed increases average around 15-20 percent. This is a fairness issue.”

Zwick told Martinez in an October letter that RUCO has the resources to intervene only in the largest utility rate cases that affect the most utility customers in the state, such as those for Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power. After reviewing the Picacho cases, Zwick decided the agency did not have the bandwidth to get involved.

“It’s kind of been historic, but it’s certainly a decision that I’ve made independently and continue to support, which is we need to look at the large cases that have the most impact on the most customers,” Zwick told the Arizona Capitol Times. “(Those cases) require an incredible amount of time and attention.” 

A spokesperson for House Republicans said Martinez was not available for an interview, but in an October letter to Zwick, she criticized the agency’s decision to only take on large utility rate cases.

“If you did not prioritize rate cases by utility class alone, then your agency might have some additional time and resources available to dedicate to other, smaller utilities which may not require as many pages of testimony, as many days of hearings, or as many billable hours from consultants,” Martinez wrote.

RUCO has also received criticism from the Robson Ranch Task Force, created by the residents of the Robson Ranch retirement community in Eloy to oppose the Picacho Water and Sewer rate increases. Its leader, Raul Salmon, told the Arizona Capitol Times in December that he and other residents struggled to reach RUCO staff and were disappointed by the agency’s response.

“They go, ‘Well, you’re 1,800 houses this is small fry,’ but it’s not small fry to us,” Salmon said. “They’re going to double our rates and you’re looking at us like ‘What?’” 

The Robson Ranch Task Force instead pooled money to hire a Phoenix-based attorney to represent them in the rate case, which is still ongoing at the Corporation Commission. Small water and sewer companies often come into the commission asking for triple-digit rate increases, an issue that commissioners have been working to combat for decades. 

RUCO is not typically an intervenor in smaller water and sewer cases; instead, it intervenes in rate cases for larger companies like EPCOR and Global Water. Currently, RUCO is a party in five ongoing rate cases and anticipates intervening in two more this year, according to documents provided to Martinez. 

Zwick said RUCO would not be able to manage the workload created by Martinez’s bill, but she and her staff are still evaluating its impact on the agency. RUCO currently has nine employees and operates on a budget of nearly $1.6 million. 

“We would love to be able to enter into every case and represent every residential customer, but the reality is, we’re just simply unable to do that,” Zwick said. 

Manufactured outrage: The woke mob’s latest assault on American enterprise

Rev. Jarrett Barton Maupin Jr.

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 

Arizona governor defends utility financing bill despite APS clean energy setback

Key Points:
  • Arizona Public Service walks back plan to exit coal energy by 2031
  • Advocacy groups say the company’s delayed exit from coal defeats the purpose of bill
  • APS said the securitization legislation can still be used on other assets, including those damaged by natural disasters

Gov. Katie Hobbs and Arizona Public Service are defending a controversial utility financing bill set to take effect in September after advocacy groups say the company’s delayed exit from a coal-fired power plant defeats the purpose of the bill. 

On August 7, APS announced it would roll back its clean energy commitments — including its plans to use zero coal by 2031 — in favor of energy affordability and reliability. That move sheds new light on the utility’s efforts earlier this year to lobby for securitization legislation, citing the need for state assistance in the upcoming closure of the coal-burning Four Corners Generating Station. 

Securitization allows utility companies to transfer debt into low-interest bonds that can be sold to recoup funding from aging assets, like decades-old coal plants. But advocacy groups say APS should not have pushed for House Bill 2679, signed in May, if the company knew its coal exit would be delayed. 

“It wasn’t a good bill, and it won’t be a good law,” said Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club. “… we said ‘you should not push this through this session … have real stakeholder meetings, a real process so we can hash out these issues.’ And APS basically made it seem like they needed it right away.”

Christian Slater, Hobbs’ spokesman, said the governor disagreed with APS’ decision to walk back its clean energy goals, but said securitization is still a necessary tool for utility companies. 

“The securitization bill signed by Governor Hobbs still helps Arizona build more clean energy while guaranteeing lower costs and delivering even more energy,” Slater said in a statement. “The latest announcement has nothing to do with the merits of securitization.”

Some lawmakers said they were led to believe APS needed the legislation sooner rather than later because of its planned 2031 exit from Four Corners. But now, the company says it plans to exit the plant “no later than 2038,” when its lease on Navajo Nation land is up.

Mike Philipsen, a spokesperson for APS, echoed Hobbs’ defense of the bill, saying it could be used to recoup costs in other situations. He also noted that APS has not yet decided whether it will operate Four Corners past 2031. 

“HB 2679 enables utilities to save customers money by refinancing costs across a range of circumstances,” Philipsen said in a statement. “While some of those circumstances involve infrastructure retired before all investment costs have been fully recovered, other circumstances are forward-looking or address facilities that may be damaged or destroyed by natural disasters, such as wildfires or extreme storms.  APS will carefully examine opportunities to use this tool to maximize bill savings for customers while ensuring continuous, reliable service.”

Groups like Chispa Arizona, the Arizona Public Interest Research Group and the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association criticized APS for rolling back its clean energy commitments. Some groups said the company misled lawmakers about the need for securitization legislation and even encouraged Hobbs and the Legislature to repeal it. 

HB2679 faced intense opposition from Democrats, environmentalists and consumer advocacy groups during its journey through the Legislature. The bill was written by APS and given to Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, to sponsor without any stakeholder involvement or input from the Arizona Corporation Commission during drafting. 

Attorney General Kris Mayes even argued that the bill could violate the state’s constitution, and is currently reviewing its legality as part of a formal attorney general’s opinion. 

Despite the concerns, Hobbs signed the bill, noting that it had gone through a significant amendment process and was made better by her office’s input.

APS has not said whether its plan to exit Four Corners will include decommissioning the two remaining generators or selling the plant to another company or group that will keep it online. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan attempted to limit HB 2679 to retired assets in the amendment process for that reason, but was unsuccessful. 

Four Corners is the last coal-fired plant operated by APS after the closure of the Cholla Power Plant earlier this year. It has stakes in coal plants operated by other utility companies in Arizona, but some of those plants could be transitioned to natural gas in the future. 

HB 2679 won’t become law until late September, and it is currently unclear when any of Arizona’s utility companies will use it. 

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