Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona

When oversight becomes a campaign strategy in Arizona utility regulation

Nick Myers

Arizona’s Constitution is clear. The Arizona Corporation Commission was designed to operate as an independent, elected body with exclusive authority over utility ratemaking. That independence exists to ensure decisions affecting millions of ratepayers are made through evidence, due process, and transparency, rather than political pressure.

That balance is increasingly being tested.

Over the past year, Attorney General Kris Mayes has repeatedly used her office to challenge actions of the commission in a pattern that raises serious concerns about the use of legal authority as a political tool for lawfare rather than a measured exercise of oversight.

Consider the breadth of recent actions.

The attorney general challenged the commission’s approval of an Annual Rate Adjustment Mechanism for UNS Gas, targeting a ratemaking tool that falls squarely within the commission’s constitutional authority under Article 15 of the Arizona Constitution. 

Disagreements over rate design are not unusual but elevating them into legal challenges aimed at overturning commission authority is something different entirely.

The same pattern appears in the challenge to Tucson Electric Power’s energy service agreement tied to a major data center project. That agreement was structured specifically to ensure that the data center pays its own costs rather than shifting burdens to existing customers. Yet the attorney general sought to invalidate the decision, despite the consumer protections embedded within it.

At the same time, the attorney general has taken aggressive positions in Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power matters more broadly, intervening in ways that go beyond traditional legal participation and into sustained public opposition to commission proceedings.

From litigation over the repeal of the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff rules to repeated challenges across multiple utility proceedings, the attorney general has demonstrated a willingness to escalate nearly every major commission decision into a legal or public dispute.

That is where her actions become more concerning.

Arizona law is explicit that public resources and authority may not be used for campaign purposes. Under A.R.S. § 41-752, public resources cannot be used to influence the outcomes of elections, and A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(2) defines the attorney general’s role as providing legal services to the state, not advancing political objectives. Additionally, Arizona’s conflict of interest and public office statutes reinforce that public power must be exercised for public purposes, not personal or political gain.

No one is suggesting that the attorney general should remain silent. Legal challenges, when grounded in clear violations of law, are appropriate.

But a pattern of selective, high-profile litigation combined with public messaging that mirrors campaign rhetoric raises legitimate questions about whether that line is being crossed. There is little doubt the lawsuits amount to lawfare, not advocacy for consumers or utilities. 

This concern is heightened by the fact that the attorney general previously served as a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission and understands firsthand the constitutional boundaries of ratemaking authority. That experience makes the repeated challenges to that authority all the more difficult to reconcile.

The consequences are real.

When nearly every major decision is met with legal challenge, regulatory certainty erodes. Investment decisions become more difficult. Infrastructure projects face delays. Arizona’s reputation for stability is weakened. Ultimately, those impacts are borne by ratepayers.

Equally concerning is how these actions are communicated.

Complex regulatory decisions are reduced to simplified, often alarmist claims. Nuanced policy debates are reframed as clear-cut wrongdoing. That approach may generate headlines, but it does not improve outcomes for Arizona families or businesses.

Arizona’s system was designed to balance independence with accountability. That balance depends on each constitutional office respecting its role.

If the line between lawful oversight and political use of office is being blurred, that is not a question that should be left to speculation. It is appropriate for the relevant ethics authorities or oversight bodies to review whether the powers of the office are being exercised consistently with Arizona law and longstanding principles of good governance.

The Corporation Commission must continue to make decisions based on the record and the law. The attorney general must ensure those decisions comply with the law, not relitigate policy disagreements through repeated public challenges.

Oversight is essential. But when it becomes constant, highly public, and indistinguishable from political positioning, it erodes public trust. It ceases to be oversight.

It becomes overreach.

Nick Myers is chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Trump admin. sues Ariz., Con.., Ill. over prediction markets

Key Points:
  • All three states have taken action against Kalshi or Polymarket
  • Prediction market operators say they should be regulated by the CFTC
  • There are at least 30 lawsuits between state regulators and industry operators

The Trump Administration is suing three states in an attempt to push back on a wave of lawsuits from state gaming regulators who say prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket are violating their state gambling laws.

Kalshi and Polymarket, which are both based in New York, say they should be regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission since they are registered with the agency as contract markets where users can buy contracts on the outcomes of games.

The operators maintain they are not gambling sites and users are not betting on the outcome of sports games, but rather operate more like derivatives markets, which are overseen by the CFTC.State regulators disagree, saying the companies should be beholden to the same state gaming laws as any other betting company.

The Trump Administration on Thursday filed lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois seeking to override the state statutes.

The majority of state lawsuits have involved Kalshi, which has been sued by state gaming regulators and attorneys general. Kalshi is facing lawsuits from eight states and two tribal governments: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Washington, and the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin and three tribes in California.

The company has sued 10 state regulators: Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Utah. The total number of cases is at least 30, not including class action lawsuits.

Polymarket, by contrast, currently only faces lawsuits against gaming regulators in Nevada and Massachusetts but also faces several class action suits in states including California and New York, as well as scrutiny from federal lawmakers over questions of insider trading.

Courts have been split in the legal fight between state regulators and prediction market operators, but states have mostly had the advantage to date. Judges for the most part have sided with state regulators and have refused Kalshi’s attempts to have the cases moved to federal court, ruling that the issue pertained to state law.

The Trump administration in recent weeks has grown more aggressively vocal in backing the nascent industry.

Historically, the CFTC has been reluctant to approve markets that resemble sports betting or gambling. That posture remained true at the beginning of the second Trump administration as well, though the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has long been a proponent of the industry and serves as an adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket.

In his confirmation hearing, CFTC Chair Mike Selig said he believed it best to leave the issues to the courts but has since changed his tune. Last month in a video, Selig announced the CFTC would be filing a friend-of-the-court brief “to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over these derivative markets.” He followed it with an opinion piece published by The Wall Street Journal.

In a statement Thursday announcing the lawsuit, Selig said his agency would continue to “safeguard its exclusive regulatory authority over these markets and defend market participants against overzealous state regulators.”

“This is not the first time states have tried to impose inconsistent and contrary obligations on market participants, but Congress specifically rejected such a fragmented patchwork of state regulations because it resulted in poorer consumer protection and increased risk of fraud and manipulation,” Selig said.

A spokesperson for Kalshi declined to comment on the lawsuit to State Affairs.

A spokesperson for Polymarket told State Affairs in a statement: “Prediction markets are federally regulated financial instruments, and we applaud the CFTC for taking action to defend these important markets.”

A spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Gaming said the agency is aware of the lawsuits filed by the CFTC but could not provide any additional information beyond that. A spokesperson for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes also declined to comment.

Arizona took the unprecedented step last month of filing criminal charges against any prediction market platform when it charged Kalshi. Mayes filed 20 counts against the company, with four related to election wagering. Kalshi previously said in a statement to State Affairs the charges were founded on “paper thin arguments.”

The Illinois Gaming Board referred comments to the governor’s office. A spokesperson for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker told State Affairs the Trump Administration is “carrying water for companies driving well-documented and lucrative insider trading schemes.”

“These firms are making record profits while exposing Illinoisans to gaming products with no basic consumer protections or oversight,” the spokesman said. “This is a blatant attempt to sidestep the State’s jurisdiction and put profits ahead of consumers. Illinois isn’t backing down — we will continue to fight to protect Illinois consumers.”

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, which oversees gaming in the state, declined to comment on pending litigation. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong in a statement to State Affairs said the Trump Administration was “recycling industry arguments that have been rejected in district courts across the country.”

“These contracts are plainly unlicensed illegal gambling under time-worn state law, and we will aggressively defend Connecticut’s commonsense consumer protection laws,” he said.

Update: This article has been updated to include a statement from the Connecticut Attorney General.

Emma Kinery is a State Affairs national reporter covering state politics and policy out of our Washington, D.C. office. Contact Emma Kinery at ekinery@stateaffairs.com or on X @EmmaKinery.

RELATED

CFTC sues Mayes in turf war over Kalshi gambling lawsuit

Washington joins states suing Kalshi over gambling claims

Court grants Nevada two-week restraining order against Kalshi

Kalshi vs. state regulators: State of play

A bad bet? Mayes wagers against Kalshi prediction markets

High court sets timeline in Kalshi sports ‘contract’ case

Federal judge rules Kalshi must adhere to state sports betting law

Nessel sues ‘prediction market’ company, alleges violation of gaming laws

Tennessee bill would make influencing a prediction market event a felony

Prediction markets face legal challenges as Super Bowl bets surge

Prediction markets form coalition amid scrutiny from state regulators

State AGs call on DOJ to crack down on illegal gambling websites

Proposed Arizona dental law may leave some students in limbo

Key Points:
  • A law passed last year to help the dental health care professional shortage, but has excluded some students
  • Students who graduate from non-accredited dental assistant schools have to take extra courses and exams
  • An oral preventive assistant can perform more dental care than a dental assistant

Arizona is not alone in its need for dental professionals, but how the shortage gets addressed has become a difficult pathway for some. 

The Grand Canyon state has about 34% of its dental health needs met, according to a 2026 quarterly summary from the Health Resources and Services Administration at the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

The 2022 report by several dental and dental hygienists’ groups also cited inadequate benefits, compensation challenges, poor communication, a lack of professional fulfillment, and a negative workplace culture as factors in the shortage, in addition to retirement and effects from the pandemic.

Last legislative session, Senate President Pro Tem TJ Shope, R-Coolidge, filed Senate Bill 1124, which created the Oral Preventive Assistant program. Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill in March 2025. 

An oral preventive assistant is an expanded function dental assistant who provides preventive dental care to patients under the supervision of a dentist or dental hygienist. Preventive care includes removing plaque and stains with scalers or ultrasonic scaling devices on patients who have already received an evaluation from a dentist or hygienist. 

Dental assistants who want to advance to an OPA can complete a training course that includes 120 hours of classroom and clinical instruction. The dental assistant must hold a current CPR certification, board-approved certification in teeth polishing and radiography, and national board certification in dental assisting, or have completed an accredited dental assistant program. 

The accreditation provision is the part that has caused frustration for dental assisting schools that are not accredited. 

Bryan Hastings, chief operating officer for the American Institute of Dental Assisting, said students at schools like his would not be able to take the course immediately after they graduate because his school isn’t accredited under the Commission on Dental Accreditation, which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the sole agency to accredit dental and dental-related education programs. Hastings’ family has owned and operated the school in Phoenix for 25 years, and they have a Mesa campus. 

“They need to have the skill set and the knowledge and training of how to be a dental assistant,” he told the Arizona Capitol Times. “That’s where our program has become so effective. We teach our students with that real life experience and that training and (it) allows them to go out and quickly get employed into a position.”

To enter the OPA course, Hastings’ students must become certified dental assistants and take additional tests, whereas students from accredited programs can take it right away. 

He brought his concerns to Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, who filed a strike-everything amendment on House Bill 2910 to repeal the OPA program, effectively hitting the “undo” button and starting over. 

The bill died in the Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee in March, where both sides presented their case, but committee members did not vote on it because the majority party wouldn’t have had a majority of votes to move it out of committee, Bolick told the Arizona Capitol Times. 

Bolick said she took on the issue because she felt not everyone’s voice had been heard and she wouldn’t want someone’s ambition for their future livelihood to be pushed aside. 

“I wouldn’t want it to be precluded from potentially some sort of oversight or potentially not having the right stakeholders in the meeting or behind a bill,” she said. “Once someone starts investing money into a future job, I don’t want the government getting in the way of them having that right to earn a living in Arizona.”

She also told both sides to work on the bill in the interim. If that happens and they come to an agreement, she’d be open to carrying the bill in the future, she said. For now, she didn’t want to be the intermediary. 

“I feel like I’m an arbitrator. I’m a judge whenever they come in and everybody’s upset still, and it’s supposed to be something beneficial, but it doesn’t seem like it actually is moving in that direction,” Bolick said. 

Shope said in a text message he didn’t support the effort to overturn a negotiated and agreed upon bill that passed with wide bipartisan support and only took effect less than a year ago. 

Senate Bill 1124 went through many amendments before the final version last year. The accreditation provision was added at the last minute, but Hastings’ and other schools like his weren’t included in those discussions, he said. 

Dr. Regina Cobb, the executive director of the Arizona Dental Association, said Hastings was invited to the stakeholder meetings and was informed of their dates. She said he didn’t respond until after the bill had been signed into law. 

Cobb said the original draft of the bill didn’t include the accreditation, but after a few stakeholder meetings, it was added. The governor might not have signed the bill without that piece, she added. 

She took issue with repealing the entire law because the program hasn’t started yet. 

“I think this is very anti-competitive,” Cobb told the Arizona Capitol Times. She wants the Legislature to wait and see how the programs do in their first year before expanding it. “We haven’t even had a first program started yet, and he’s trying to repeal it before the program even starts.”

The effort is supposed to help the workforce shortage. One dentist can supervise three OPAs and one hygienist can supervise one OPA, according to the law. The effort allows dentists and hygienists to focus on more difficult cases, Cobb said. 

“There are a lot of patients that don’t need periodontal treatment, that don’t need subgingival scaling, that they only need what we call supragingival scaling, which is above the gum line,” Cobb said. “So there are a lot of patients, especially children that don’t necessarily need to go to that type of cleaning. So these dental assistants that have extra training can actually do those kinds of cleanings.”

Hastings said it was a last-minute change that he and other schools didn’t know about, leaving hundreds of students in limbo. They’ll have to either take more education and clinical hours to enter the OPA course or wait until the law changes. 

“It’s a system that benefits certain schools while shutting out thousands of Arizona graduates,” he said. “The law is steering students away from private dental programs and towards programs that the law has favored.”

House Bill 2326, filed by Rep. Laurin Hendrix, R-Gilbert, would have added schools like Hastings’ to the law, but it died before it got a hearing in House Health and Human Services.

Beyond accreditation, others raised additional concerns. 

Kiara Ortega, owner of Desert Dental and Health Academy, said the law lacks oversight and safeguards because it did not clearly define how the training would be approved, what curriculum should include or how the role would be regulated and tracked. 

“We want a pathway that includes clear oversight, defined training standards, and accountability before expanding patient care roles,” she said. 

Three schools are preparing to launch the OPA curriculum by next fall, including Phoenix College, Rio Salado College, and Midwestern University, Cobb said. The law doesn’t dictate a specific curriculum, she added, but it dictates boundaries. 

“We gave them 120 hours. They can take those 120 hours and educate their kids the best way they know how,” she said. 

Arizona has what it needs for its AI future

Peter Clark

Arizona is on the brink of becoming a major hub for artificial intelligence in the U.S. The Grand Canyon state’s rise in prominence as a center for technological innovation coincides with concerns over water scarcity, but the question isn’t whether Arizona can sustain this growth; it’s whether lawmakers will allow it to thrive.

Arizona has a long history of adapting to the arid climate of the Sonoran Desert. Data centers are only the next step in the evolution of our economic development. The state has managed decades of population growth with novel policies that promote conservation and discourage waste.

It would be a mistake to impose regulations that would chill Arizona’s progress. Concerns about data center water consumption are overstated. Incentive-based policies can foster both conservation and growth, and Arizona can’t afford to freeze out the data center trend.

As Arizona faces water cuts and shrinking aquifers, data centers are becoming the subject of scrutiny. Agriculture accounts for approximately 70% of water consumption statewide, a staggering 4 billion gallons of water daily. In contrast, data centers use up to 5 million gallons of water daily; agricultural water use easily dwarfs the consumption of data centers.

Even other varieties of commercial water use surpass this data. In 2025, data centers in Maricopa County used 905 million gallons, in contrast to golf courses, which used 29 billion gallons.

Overall water use is exaggerated, but the potential for future water efficiency is underestimated; data centers are already seeking more sustainable cooling methods. For example, closed-loop systems that recycle cooling water reduve water consumption by “up to 70%.”

As cooling systems for servers and storage arrays become more advanced, following the likes of WaterSense toilets and irrigation systems, they become more water-efficient over time.

Penalizing data centers for water usage is not only shortsighted but could stifle the local tech industry.

More data centers would increase overall water demand in a state facing recent cuts, but this is a challenge that Arizona can manage. While Arizonans are right to be concerned about water, the state has led the way in water conservation. Despite massive population growth, water use is lower than it was in the 1950s.

For over a century, Arizona has pioneered water recycling programs for agriculture. The state has implemented incentive-based initiatives for turf removal and agricultural reimbursements for farmers to switch from flood irrigation to drip irrigation systems.

Policymakers should encourage tech firms to come to Arizona, rather than punishing them for water use. We should address the biggest driver of water use, cooling systems, with targeted tax incentives.

Arizona already offers incentives to data centers, but an additional tax break on efficient cooling systems would address concerns over the dwindling water supply. Not only will this reduce demand, but it will also ensure that the state remains competitive as it develops into a tech hub. Lawmakers should be mindful of water scarcity, but not at the expense of economic growth.

Arizona can’t afford to scare off investment with overly aggressive environmental policies.

Until recently, job opportunities have drawn people to Arizona. However, last year saw a steep decline in job creation, falling from 10th in the nation in job creation to 47th, the weakest performance in 15 years.

Some of Arizona’s biggest sectors were hit hardest. Manufacturing experienced a 1.3% decline in employment, with layoffs at Microchip and Intel. Real estate and construction have cooled off due to high interest rates, home prices, and rising costs.

Despite sluggish growth, tech jobs in Arizona have increased by 11% since 2019, and there have been billions of dollars in investment. If we stay on course, continued expansion could generate millions of jobs and billions in tax revenue over the next decade. If policymakers play it smart, Arizona doesn’t have to choose between conservation and growth.

Arizonans don’t have to choose between prosperity and our water supply – we can achieve both. Policies that incentivize conservation will not only preserve the environment but also strengthen the state’s economy and cultivate a business-friendly environment without deterring investment. Arizona’s future depends on innovation and a willingness to embrace it.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer. 

Governor unveils state strategic energy plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State strategic energy plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework for large load growth

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced energy sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts about SRP and data centers

Jim Pratt

The only thing bigger than the data center boom is the confusion about whether data center growth impacts reliability and affordability for SRP’s residential customers. Given the ongoing conversation, I want to use this opportunity to share the facts about data centers in SRP’s service territory. 

As a not-for-profit utility, we take pride in providing what is among the most reliable service in the nation at prices that are on average 18% lower than other major utilities in the state. We don’t have investors, which means our decisions are driven by customer needs, not maximizing profits. SRP is proud of the fact that our customers have ranked us Number One in the country in J.D. Power’s Residential Electric Customer Satisfaction study for 24 consecutive years. 

SRP has been a community-based organization since 1903. Throughout its history, we have worked with cities and towns to help the Valley become the major metropolitan area we call home. Today, local governments determine whether data centers are appropriate for their communities. Like any other customer in our service territory, once a data center secures proper zoning and local city or county approval, SRP will plan and work to serve their electrical needs.

In 2025, data center customers estimated peak demand was 441 MW, which is 5.1% of the highest peak demand total of 8,542 MW, making them a growing but still manageable share of our total electric usage.

To meet SRPs growing electric system demand, we rely on large load customer forecasts and economic forecasts, paired with our own internal expertise and industry best practices, to size infrastructure correctly and plan for future demand. Through SRP’s Integrated System Plan, presented to SRP’s publicly elected Board of Directors, we align generation, transmission and distribution to manage growth while maintaining affordability and reliability. In other words, we take significant steps to keep the lights on and our prices low.

SRP is committed to helping ensure new data centers in our service territory do not raise electric rates for residential customers. Like all large industrial customers, data centers must pay for the infrastructure to serve them, such as upgraded transmission lines, substations and more. This is a long-standing requirement that helps ensure costs to serve new data centers are not shifted to residential customers. 

We recently took additional steps to further protect residential customers from cost shifts associated with adding new large load customers: 

  • Large Customer Integration Process (LCIP): Introduced in 2025, this process requires a new type of study to identify new infrastructure and other system upgrades required to serve new large load customers such as data centers. SRP gives these proposed customers cost estimates for their specific upgrades. The customer must pay these costs upfront, so they are not paid by other SRP customers. This process also helps make sure only viable projects move forward.

  • Updated E‑67 Price Plan: Approved by SRP’s Board of Directors during our 2025 pricing process, this new price plan requires customers with at least 20 MW of forecasted load to meet minimum billing requirements tied to either their actual use or 80% of their forecasted demand in addition to dedicated transmission and substations. This helps prevent us from overbuilding generation and creating costly stranded power infrastructure.

There is also considerable discussion regarding data centers and their water use. SRP does not control how much water data centers use. SRP provides raw water to municipalities, not directly to data centers. Local governments, like cities and counties, set water‑use requirements and may require high‑intensity industrial users to secure independent supplies. 

The Phoenix area attracts data centers largely because of favorable tax incentives, minimal natural disasters, abundant fiber‑optic infrastructure, available land, and access to reliable, cost‑effective electricity. These market and policy factors — not utility decisions — drive data center growth.

SRP will continue to be a trusted economic partner in our communities, meeting the electric needs of large load customers like data centers while keeping the lights on and SRP electric rates low for our residential customers.

Jim Pratt is general manager and chief executive officer of SRP.

What’s the big deal about dental health and pregnancy?

Anna Leah Eisner

In Arizona, a bill that would provide dental coverage to pregnant people enrolled in AHCCCS (Arizona’s Medicaid program), has been proposed again this year. A bill like this has been proposed at the Capitol every year for at least the last 15 years, but has yet to be passed, largely due to state budget politics. Arizona has attempted versions of a maternal dental coverage bill seven times since 2017, and, despite bipartisan support each time, most have died. The furthest any bill of this kind has advanced is an iteration from the 2018 session, which was passed in the Senate but later stalled and was removed from the budget. 

There are several reasons why this bill continues to be endorsed by health care advocates (including the Arizona Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) in nearly every legislative cycle. Dental care is safe throughout pregnancy, and the health benefits of dental care extend far beyond the tooth. Gum disease, such as gingivitis, is a noted risk factor for poor outcomes in pregnancy and beyond. 

During pregnancy, poor maternal dental health is associated with preterm birth, low birth weight, fetal growth restriction, and the life-threatening disease of high blood pressure in pregnancy called preeclampsia. These poor pregnancy outcomes require lengthy hospital stays, procedural deliveries and increased financial burden to our already stressed health care systems. Maternal dental health is also predictive of the dental health of their children, as infants acquire cavity-causing bacteria from their birthing parent. In a preventive sense, caring for the teeth of pregnant people supports the overall goal of having a healthy population. A healthy population means less money spent on health care, and we know that preventive dental care is relatively inexpensive compared with the costs of a medically complicated pregnancy. 

About half of all births in Arizona are funded by AHCCCS, so the state of Arizona already pays for the consequences of poor pregnancy outcomes, from complicated deliveries to NICU stays. Refusing to cover basic preventive dental care during pregnancy is costly, both for an individual who suffers the consequences and the taxpayers. Maternal dental health has been a bipartisan issue for years. It’s time for Arizona to finally approve coverage for dental care in pregnancy and pass HB2958. After all, improving outcomes for mothers and babies can start with something as simple as a (healthy) smile.

Anna Leah Eisner is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix. 

Arizona’s allied health care workforce could get needed boost from new bill

Key Points:
  • Arizona faces a health care professional shortage, ranks ninth worst in the U.S.
  • Bill would give a one-time appropriation to establish a workforce development program
  • The proposed model has already seen success in seven other states

An average American spends less time with their health care provider and more time interacting with health care professionals who take vitals and sometimes blood samples. 

And while Arizona does have a physician shortage, there’s also a shortage of health care professionals who help deliver medical care. 

Overall, Arizona is ranked ninth in the U.S. for worst health care professional shortage areas, Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, said. On a more granular level, the state has about 284 Health Care Professional Shortage Area designations in primary care. That affects a total population of over 4.2 million people.

Right now, Arizona needs about 776 practitioners to remove the designation, according to a 2026 quarterly summary from the Health Resources and Services Administration, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. 

Kuby filed Senate Bill 1461, which would give a one-time appropriation of $5 million from the general fund to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System to establish a workforce development program for allied health care professions. Kuby originally asked for a $15 million appropriation but reduced it due to budget constraints this year. 

“We need to have an ecosystem that can help educate, recruit people, coach people, mentor people and keep them in the profession,” Kuby told the Arizona Capitol Times. 

The program would be a partnership among several key entities. Allied Up Cooperative is a career counselor organization that works with Futuro Health, a nonprofit organization that teaches courses in allied health care fields. They would work with Healthcare Rising Arizona, a nonpartisan group of Arizonans working to address issues in Arizona’s health care system.

The idea is to help recruit and provide tuition-free entry-level courses to adults 18 and over who have a high school diploma or GED. Courses could include certified medical assistant, certified nursing assistant, phlebotomy training, emergency room technician, surgical technician and pharmacy technician. 

Health Care Rising already has a certified medical assistant course ready to go with 25 seats. A medical assistant can perform patient intake and take vitals and blood samples before patients see their provider. 

The program has already seen success with 75% graduation rates and 70% job placement rates. Six states, including Oregon, Colorado, Mississippi, Washington, Virginia and Maryland, and Washington, D.C. have seen success with it, Kuby said. 

Kuby argued the proposed model would quickly solve the shortages because the education infrastructure already exists and students could be enrolled as soon as 30 days after the measure passes. That would mean students could begin graduating in as little as 18 to 24 months.

The senator, who represents Legislative District 8, said the workforce shortage isn’t going away and that Arizona needs a pipeline of trained health care workers who want to stay here. It would be more beneficial than funding temporary fixes, she said. 

“I wanted to introduce a nonpartisan issue. It will benefit the entire state,” Kuby said. “Every family in Arizona deserves access to health care, whether they’re in Phoenix, Flagstaff or Douglas.”

Hortencia Armendáriz, director of health care opportunities at Healthcare Rising Arizona, said their members and leaders have seen firsthand the challenges patients face when they get health care. 

“We’ve seen it before the pandemic and post pandemic, there’s a huge need for a robust and healthy workforce,” she said in an interview. “We think there’s an opportunity to grow your own through our workforce development ecosystem.”

In addition to the need for practitioners to fill the health care professional shortage, people who work alongside doctors and nurses are also in need. The average American sees their doctor for about five minutes, and spends more time with other professionals who take vitals, draw blood samples or support the work that doctors and nurses are doing, she said, adding it helps with the delivery of care. 

People are not only trained in the course they choose, but also taught soft skills and how to work in a professional health care setting, Armendáriz added.

“There’s a transformation for the student. There’s a transformation for the economy because that worker now is in a higher paying job where they’re able to put more back into the economy,” Armendáriz said. “This isn’t an issue of party, this is an issue of economics employment.”

So far, the bill has seen bipartisan support. It passed the Senate on a 23-4 vote, with applause from senators and now heads to the House Appropriations Committee.

As Arizona expands fentanyl enforcement, lab funding declines amid cychlorphine surveillance questions

Brandon Burley

Arizona’s FY 2027 Executive Budget proposes approximately $9 million in one-time funding to combat fentanyl trafficking and strengthen drug interdiction efforts. During the same budget cycle, projected funding for the Department of Public Safety’s Scientific Analysis Bureau, which houses drug toxicology and controlled substances testing, declines from $28.3 million to $26.6 million, a reduction of roughly $1.7 million. Staffing levels remain largely unchanged.

The contrast emerges as a newly engineered synthetic opioid, N-propionitrile chlorphine, commonly known as cychlorphine, has been identified in seized drug markets in multiple states. The first U.S. seizure was confirmed by a DEA forensic laboratory in Florida in April 2024. Since then, DEA-confirmed seized drug material has been identified in Texas, California, Illinois and Missouri, with repeat detections in Texas and California in 2026. DEA tracks seized drug evidence but does not monitor toxicology findings.

International monitoring agencies in Germany, France and the United Kingdom have reported detections. Germany placed cychlorphine under its New Psychoactive Substances Act in December 2025.

In Tennessee, forensic officials have reported 19 overdose deaths under investigation involving cychlorphine, 12 confirmed and seven pending laboratory confirmation. The state’s crime laboratory system identified the compound in 20 seized drug submissions during the same period. In at least one confirmed fatality, cychlorphine was the only opioid detected in femoral blood at approximately 0.5 nanograms per milliliter — a concentration measured in billionths of a gram. A single case does not define population risk, but it illustrates the analytical precision required to detect emerging compounds.

Arizona officials report no confirmed cychlorphine identifications in state casework to date. Detection of newly emerging synthetic opioids in Arizona depends on toxicology panel scope at the county medical examiner level. Public overdose reporting aggregates deaths under broad opioid categories, and compound-specific details recorded in medical examiner reports are not reflected in dashboard totals due to ICD-10 coding structure.

Arizona’s model is decentralized by design. County medical examiners determine toxicology panels. Crime laboratory data do not directly feed the public dashboard. There is typically a three- to four-month lag between confirmation of an overdose death and public reporting, with additional national coding delays currently affecting completeness.

The governor’s proposal directs substantial one-time funding toward fentanyl interdiction. Emerging compounds like cychlorphine raise a parallel policy consideration: whether statewide alignment of toxicology standards and laboratory capacity should be evaluated alongside enforcement investments.

Synthetic opioid chemistry evolves faster than most surveillance systems were designed to track. Whether cychlorphine remains limited to select markets or expands further remains uncertain. What is clearer is that detection of newly engineered opioids depends not only on interdiction, but on laboratory architecture and data integration.

Brandon Burley is a criminal justice educator and public policy writer based in Tennessee.

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

Autumn Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona lawyers up for potential Colorado River court battle

Key Points:
  • The Arizona Department of Water Resources has retained the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell
  • The announcement comes as negotiations over Colorado River sharing remain stalled
  • Despite pleas from Gov. Katie Hobbs, the federal government has not intervened

Arizona is retaining legal counsel in preparation for a potential court battle over the Colorado River, according to Gov. Katie Hobbs’ office.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources has hired the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent the state’s position as negotiations remain at a standstill and federal intervention on behalf of the Lower Basin seems unlikely. 

The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada have entered a third year of negotiating guidelines for sharing the river after 2026. The announcement comes after negotiators missed two federally-imposed deadlines to reach a deal, one in November and the other in February. 

No consequences appeared to come from missing the deadlines, but in January the Bureau of Reclamation issued a draft environmental impact statement with five alternatives to the river’s current operating guidelines. Arizona’s leaders oppose all five alternatives and have asked the bureau to revoke the draft EIS.

Hobbs has repeatedly called on leaders at the Department of the Interior to step in and serve as mediators in the stalled negotiations, but to no avail. She made one such plea on March 17 during a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summit in Washington, D.C., imploring President Donald Trump and his administration to recognize the threat to Arizona’s Colorado River allocation as a national security issue. 

“Let me be very clear, this administration’s goals rely on Arizona receiving our fair share of Colorado River water,” Hobbs said. “It relies on Arizona-made missiles, Arizona-made semiconductors, and Arizona grown-agriculture … This administration must step in, show leadership and help the seven states come to a reasonable and fair agreement to ensure Arizona has the ability to defend our nation, feed our nation and build the high tech economy of our nation’s future.”

Hobbs’ office says it is currently unclear on what shape the litigation will take as the seven states await action from the federal government. A decision from the Department of the Interior on the draft EIS is likely to come around June, which will help the state better understand its legal position. 

Depending on the department’s decision, Arizona may sue the federal government or the Upper Basin states. Officials in Hobbs’ office say they believe Arizona has a very strong case based on delivery obligations outlined in the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which requires the Upper Basin to deliver 7.5 million acre feet of water to the Lower Basin annually.  

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told lawmakers in his state in January that his office has built up a team ready for litigation, while California and Nevada have obtained counsel for a Supreme Court showdown, according to Hobbs’ office. Arizona allocated $3 million to a Colorado River Litigation Fund in 2025, and state lawmakers are hoping to add even more money to the fund during this year’s budget process. 

Hobbs has long said that a negotiated agreement is still the preferred outcome, but that possibility is seeming less and less likely. Arizona’s chief water negotiator, ADWR Director Tom Buschatzke, is still engaged in weekly negotiation meetings though, according to Hobbs’ office. 

The seven Colorado River states are currently operating under a temporary deal brokered in 2023, intended as a bridge to negotiate a 20-year agreement set to take effect in 2027. As part of those negotiations, Arizona has agreed to reduce its Colorado River usage by 1.5 million acre feet, which amounts to 27% of the state’s allocation. 

Hobbs has said the state is willing to cut more, but only if the Upper Basin states agree to reductions in their supply. The Upper Basin states have argued they should not be forced to make cuts because they historically have not used their entire Colorado River allocation, while California and Arizona have regularly used more than their allotted share. 

The stakes have only been raised by a dismal winter on the Colorado River watershed, which brought a snow drought and record-high temperatures. The Department of Interior hopes to finalize new operating guidelines for the river by Oct. 1. 

It’s time to rein in out-of-network billing abuse

Dr. Richard Popiel

As a physician and part-time Scottsdale resident, I’ve watched Arizona’s health care costs climb with growing alarm. When I see health insurance premiums for Arizona families jump 29% in a single year, I think about the small-business owner in Tempe weighing whether to keep offering coverage, or the startup founder in Chandler losing a recruit to a company in a lower-cost state.

That’s why I was encouraged to see Arizona legislators take a hard look at a growing problem hiding behind a well-intentioned federal law: doctors and hospitals staying out of network, on purpose, because it pays better.

In 2022, Congress passed the No Surprises Act to stop patients from getting blindsided by massive bills from out-of-network providers they never chose. The law worked on that front. But it created a backdoor problem now hitting Arizona harder than almost any other state.

When an out-of-network doctor and an insurer can’t agree on payment, the dispute goes to a federal arbitration process called Independent Dispute Resolution, or IDR. Each side submits a number, and a third-party picks one. In the first half of 2025, providers won 88% of IDR disputes nationally, with payment amounts routinely exceeding in-network rates by 400%-600%.

This isn’t a niche issue for Arizona, it’s a crisis. Providers in our state filed more than 216,000 IDR disputes in 2023 and 2024, nearly 9% of all disputes nationwide. Arizona ranks second only to Texas in volume, and providers here won nearly 80% of the time. Nationally, IDR has added an estimated $5 billion in costs to the health care system since 2022.

Arizona’s outsized share of that burden isn’t random. A single radiology company accounts for roughly 40% of all Arizona IDR disputes. These aren’t small practices fighting for fair pay. They are sophisticated operations turning arbitration into a revenue strategy.

In 2026, ACA marketplace premiums in Arizona spiked roughly 29% for silver-tier plans. An unsubsidized family of four now pays an average of $2,189 per month, more than many Arizonans pay for their mortgage. Enrollment has plummeted 17% as a result.

A recent Gallup survey found that roughly one-third of Americans have cut back on daily living expenses to afford health care, and nearly half of middle-income households have delayed major life decisions because of health care costs. These aren’t just personal hardships; they’re drags on workforce mobility and economic growth.

For Arizona’s business community, this is an existential pressure point. The state has worked hard to attract companies from higher-cost markets: semiconductor manufacturing, tech firms and financial services. When employer-sponsored family coverage nationally averages nearly $27,000 a year and is rising faster than wages, Arizona can’t afford a broken arbitration system piling additional costs onto its employers.

Arizona’s HB 2211, introduced by Rep. David Livingston, takes a straightforward approach. The bill would establish that any IDR offer exceeding 300% of Medicare rates or the qualified payment amount constitutes a “clearly excessive fee”, exposing providers to disciplinary action up to license revocation. It also holds insurers accountable, requiring them to pay arbitration awards within the 30-day federal timeline. Balanced guardrails on both sides.

Arizona isn’t alone. In Idaho, the state Senate advanced Senate Bill 1319, which would require freestanding emergency rooms to accept in-network market rates. The pattern is clear: legislators are recognizing that a subset of providers has turned a patient protection law into a profit machine.

The fix isn’t complicated. Arbitration decisions should be anchored to prevailing in-network rates. Providers who operate in a community should be expected to contract with the insurers serving that community’s patients. And states like Arizona should set guardrails that prevent a handful of bad actors from inflating costs for everyone.

Arizona’s economy is booming, but health care affordability is becoming a competitive vulnerability. I’m glad Arizona’s legislators recognized the problem. Now it’s time to finish the job, for patients, for employers, and for the long-term health of our state’s economy.

Dr. Richard Popiel is a health care delivery expert and part-time Scottsdale resident.

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