Solar advocacy groups prevail on appeal in Arizona rooftop solar case; Court Rich, Rose Law Group co-founder and director of the energy & utility infrastructure department, calls it a ‘huge win for APS customers’

(Disclosure: Rose Law Group represented AriSEIA in this matter.)

“This case is a huge win for APS customers who no longer can be taxed for the sin of trying to lower their always-increasing electric bills with rooftop solar technology.” – Court Rich, Rose Law Group co-founder and director of the energy & utility infrastructure department

By Rose Law Group Reporter

The Court of Appeals found that the proceeding where the Commission enacted the solar charges deprived participants and the public of due process because there was no notice provided that a charge on rooftop solar customers was being considered. In essence, the solar charge was ordered after a hearing where the solar charge was never made an issue, no party asked for the charge, and no party presented evidence for or against the charge. In fact, APS said it specifically was not seeking a charge on solar customers during the proceeding that ultimately resulted in the Commission ordering the charge.  

The Court of Appeals directed the tax on solar customers be stricken because the proceeding lacked necessary due process, the Court wrote that, “we hold [ ] that because (1) the Commission, in the most recent prior rate case, directed APS to discontinue a solar-specific charge based on the absence of evidence of unique costs that solar customers impose on APS, (2) APS presented no evidence in the Current Rate Case of any unique costs that solar customers impose on APS, (3) APS never asked for a solar-specific increase in the Current Rate Case, (4) APS affirmatively requested a uniform rate increase for all residential customers, solar and non-solar alike, and (5) APS expressly disclaimed reliance on the site-load COSS in the Current Rate Case, no interested observer would have had any reason to suspect that a solar-specific charge was even a potential outcome of the Current Rate Case. For all of these reasons, we hold that the initial proceedings that led to the Commission’s approval of a solar-specific charge in the Rate Decision did not comport with due process.”