Arizona utility regulators: We won't abstain from vote on APS solar fees
Arizona utility regulators say they will vote on Arizona Public Service Co.'s request for a solar-rate increase despite challenges from the solar industry suggesting regulators are biased in favor of APS, the state's biggest utility, and should recuse themselves.
Arizona Corporation commissioners Tom Forese and Doug Little have been in the spotlight because their campaigns received millions of dollars in "dark money" thought to have come from APS. Commissioner Bob Stump has been under fire from solar companies because of perceived bias against the solar industry.
The Commission issued a news release Tuesday saying that all five elected regulators will not consider challenges from solar rooftop finance company Sunrun Inc., two former state regulators and rooftop-solar trade group the Alliance for Solar Choice asking that the regulators step aside.
At an Oct. 20 meeting, the commissioners are expected to discuss the contentious solar-rate proposal from APS. In 2013, the company asked to increase monthly fees on new solar customers by $50 or more. Regulators approved a fee averaging $5, although a majority of commissioners had suggested fees of about $20 a month or more.
Roberts: Little and Forese: In the bag for APS? Who? Us?
They settled on $5 a month because the rooftop-solar industry representatives participating in that hearing said that was an acceptable compromise.
APS this year asked to increase the fee to $20 as the Corporation Commission staff and regulators had suggested in the 2013 hearings. Amid intense backlash, APS last week asked the regulators to put the increase on hold if they would conduct a study on the costs involved in providing electricity to customers with rooftop solar.
The utility contends that the system of net metering, through which solar customers are paid retail credit for the intermittent power they send to the grid, is an unfair subsidy paid for by non-solar customers.
Solar advocates contend that the system is fair, and the benefits of clean solar power are undervalued by APS and other utilities.
APS gives up fight for higher solar rates — for now
Before APS asked to put its increase on hold, opponents asked Forese and Little to recuse themselves from the solar-fee case. One challenge said their election last year came with $3.2 million in "dark money" support from independent political groups widely thought to be funded by APS.
APS does not deny involvement in the election.
One request for a rehearing was filed by Sunrun and former Commissioners Renz Jennings, a Democrat, and William Mundell, a Republican.
"Renz and I are discussing our legal options, which include appealing to the court system," Mundell said Wednesday. "I am disappointed by the commissioners' decision but not surprised."
Mundell continued to press for the commissioners to order APS or its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., to disclose whether it spent money helping elect regulators.
"The commissioners have the power to show they are fair and impartial by ordering APS to disclose how much ratepayer money they spent on getting them elected," he said.
MacEachern: Susan Bitter Smith battle is overblown
The other filing sought to disqualify Stump, saying his critical remarks about solar show his prejudice against the rooftop-solar industry.
Forese, Little and Stump issued statements denying bias or prejudgment of the APS case.
“I have duly considered the allegations and the entire record and I conclude that I have acted fairly, impartially and without bias in all aspects of this proceeding,” Little wrote. “I am not disqualified from decision-making by any conflict of interest because none exists.”
The other two commissioners, Susan Bitter Smith and Robert Burns, both face complaints at the Attorney General's Office seeking their removal from office because of their ties to telecommunications industries that also are regulated by the commission.