Arizona Commission Upholds Solar Customer Fee Amid Controversy
In a decision impacting thousands of solar users in Arizona, the state’s Corporation Commission has reaffirmed a contentious fee on customers of Arizona Public Service (APS) who utilize solar energy. This decision follows a previous move by the commission to approve a rate increase for APS, which included an additional monthly charge of $2-$3 for solar customers, meant to cover costs not shared with non-solar customers.
The commission’s decision to maintain the fee was made after a review prompted by critics who alleged that it unfairly targeted solar users. However, administrative law judge Belinda Martin concluded the fee was not discriminatory, while also noting that it wouldn’t be discriminatory to non-solar users if the fee were removed.
“Both actions are well within the commission’s broad discretion when setting rates as long as the rates are supported by sufficient evidence and are just and reasonable,” Judge Martin stated.
Opponents, including the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, have criticized the fee, arguing that it overlooks the benefits that solar customers provide to APS by contributing excess energy back to the grid. Mary Curtin from the Attorney General’s Office highlighted the public’s disapproval of the fee, noting, “So one could say the public and the Commission don’t agree that a grid access charge is in the public interest.”
In the face of these criticisms, the commission upheld the fee by a 3-1 vote, with Democratic Commissioner Anna Tovar dissenting. Tovar expressed concerns that the fee might deter future solar adoption and fails to account for the advantages solar users bring to both APS and non-solar customers.
In contrast, Commission Chairman Jim O’Connor, along with Republican Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson, defended the fee as a necessary measure to prevent non-solar customers from subsidizing the costs associated with solar users. “A million customers have been paying the bill for the 200,000 customers who opted to install solar on their homes,” O’Connor stated.
Backing the fee, supporters argue it will help offset the costs of ensuring APS can provide consistent power to solar customers, even if their solar systems fail. However, Court Rich, representing Tesla, countered this by pointing out that solar customers already pay for the electricity they consume from the grid, not the total electricity they produce.
Additional criticisms arose around APS’s justification for the fee, which assumes simultaneous system failure for all solar customers but does not consider other unlikely scenarios, such as a simultaneous charge of all electric vehicles in the state. Autumn Johnson from the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association noted, “And yet, APS isn’t using a hypothetical load for, or charging them more for resource adequacy needs to make sure that 300,000 people can charge their [electric vehicles] for four hours.” Johnson’s group plans to appeal the decision.
—
Read More Arizona News
