Archive for category: Did You Know

Background on the APS rate case. The last APS rate case resulted in an average 8% rate increase or $10 each month, and was decided by the Arizona Corporation Commission, APS’s regulators, in 2023.

APS is now seeking:

• An average rate increase of approximately $20 month (or 14.58% on average for residential customers), net of adjustors[1], for a total net increase of $579 million.
• An increase in the basic service charge[2] to $15 a month.
• A doubling of the grid access charge for the average solar customer to nearly $6 each month.
• Formula rates, which would allow for annual increases to customer bills based on the formula to be created and approved in this case. If formula rates and the proposed rate get approved, the average 14% rate increase would likely be a baseline for the next five years.
• An increase — bringing to over 10% — the amount that shareholders make off capital investments, meaning that if the Commission approves APS’ request, more money for shareholders and less money for ratepayers.
• Continuation of support to limited-income bill assistance programs at $2.5 million a year, and maintaining their tiered discount rate for income-eligible customers.

APS has stated that high inflation and interest rates, system investment needs due to growth in their service territory, and supply chain issues are among the reasons they need this increase. While the utility is entitled to recover prudent costs in areas such as load growth and supply chain shortages, their shareholders have recently yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to the detriment of their customers.

1.  Provide comment during the public comment session:

Mon., May 18. There is a public comment session scheduled to start at 10:00 a.m. and end by 1:00 p.m., or until the last person has provided comment, whichever comes first. If you are going in person, we encourage you to arrive at least 15 minutes before the comment period starts. If you are calling in, the call-in line should be open 15 minutes before the comment period starts. Comments are usually taken in order of requests to speak on that day. The number to call is 1 (877) 309-3457; Passcode 801972877#

Information and tips on providing public comment.

• Sign in to speak when you get to the Commission or call in early.
• Listen for the prompt of when to speak. You may need to press a number on your phone to unmute yourself.
• Feel comfortable knowing that a very nice Administrative Law Judge for the Arizona Corporation Commission (regulators of APS) is running the public comment session. It is extremely rare that you will be asked a question. Typically, questions are only asked if clarification is needed – e.g., seeing if you are an APS customer.
• Prepare your comments, knowing you likely will have no more than 3 minutes to speak. The most effective public comments are those that speak from your experience/concern and are respectful, stick to the topic, and make your point(s) clear. It is helpful to note how long you have been an APS customer and it is nice to thank the Commission for the opportunity to provide comments.

2. Submit a letter to the Arizona Corporation Commission. While the opportunity to submit a letter will continue to exist for months, it is very helpful to provide comments in writing as soon as possible.

Tips on writing a letter. The Arizona Corporation Commissioners will decide whether or not APS gets the full rate increase they are seeking. Writing a letter is one of the most effective ways for Commissioners to know ratepayers are paying attention and don’t want to pay for unfair rates and fees. IF possible, please email your hand-written or typed letter to Diane at dbrown@arizonapirg.org with subject line: Letter on APS rate case. We will make sure your letter is properly submitted to the Commission. If you prefer, you can instead submit through the Commission’s online form: https://efiling.azcc.gov/online-services/utilities-public-comment-external or call the Commission at (602)542-4251.

1.   Add Docket Number: E-01345A-25-0105 near the top of your letter. For example:

Arizona Corporation Commission

1200 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Docket Number: E-01345A-25-0105

2.   Address the Chair, Vice-Chair and Commissioners. For example:

Dear Chair Myers, Vice-Chair Walden, and Commissioners,

Note if you are an APS customer, especially if you have been an APS customer for years. If you aren’t you can still write a letter, as the Commissioners are elected by Arizona voters.

State why you are writing – mentioning the main point(s) you want to get across in the first paragraph.

*Keep your comments tied to your utility bills/the rate case.

*Fine to be passionate but please be respectful.

*You aren’t expected to be an expert, what is important is providing your thoughts.

      *Write one paragraph or one page or something in between.

      Pick an item(s) APS is proposing and provide your thoughts such as:

      *How another approximate average $20 a month would impact you/your household

      *How you feel about the proposed various bill increases

      *What ‘just and reasonable’ utility bills mean to you

      *How you think Commissioners should stand up for ratepayers

      *What APS expenses you think are reasonable and what are unreasonable

5.   Restate your main thought and thank Commissioners for considering your views.

6.   Put your first and last name, address, and city or town and zip code on the bottom.

Sample letter (please do not copy the language)

Arizona Corporation Commission

1200 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Docket Number: E-01345A-25-0105

Dear Chair Myers, Vice-Chair Walden, and Commissioners,

I’ve been an APS customer for close to 10 years.

I’m writing today to urge you to look closely at what APS has proposed in their rate case and to make sure you are putting ratepayers before shareholders as you look at what they are requesting.

While $20 more a month for customers may not seem like a lot to APS, it is a lot to me and my family. I understand APS also has bills to pay but I’m counting on you to make sure they are fair. Right now, it seems like APS spends quite a bit of money on advertising and lobbying and not enough on programs to reduce energy waste.

Please carefully review APS’ proposal and put everyday consumers first.

Thank you for taking my views into account.

Sincerely,

Your first and last name

Your street address

Your city or town and zip code

Arizona seniors cannot afford another rate hike. APS is asking for a massive increase that will hit fixed‑income households the hardest, especially in dangerous summer heat. Every resident in Sun City West must speak up now. The Arizona Corporation Commission reads and counts every public comment, and large senior communities have real influence. Tell them this increase is unaffordable, unsafe, and unfair. Tell them we need protection, not higher bills. Your voice matters. Write to the ACC today at UtilitiesDiv@azcc.gov  and make your opposition part of the official record.

Authored by Renee Obringer, Penn State and Dave White, Arizona State University

When a drought turns into an urban water crisis, a city’s first step is often to limit lawn watering and launch a campaign to encourage everyone to conserve. It might raise water-use rates or offer incentives for installing low-flow devices.

While demand management techniques like these have had a lot of success in reducing water use, our new research suggests that they may not be effective enough in the face of climate change.

We looked at three cities in the Colorado River Basin – Phoenix, Las Vegas and Denver – to understand what each could do to increase demand management amid water shortages and how far those methods could go as temperatures rise and the Colorado River’s flow weakens.

The results suggest the region needs to be thinking about bigger solutions.

Colorado River states’ immediate challenge

The Colorado River provides drinking water to nearly 40 million people and irrigation for over 5.5 million acres of cropland. But it has experienced a significant drop in water availability in recent decades due in part to rising demand for water and a long-running megadrought in the Southwest.

To ensure that water is shared across boundaries, the seven states within the basin agreed to the Colorado River Compact in 1922, setting limits on water withdrawals from the river. Since then, the region has adopted additional rules, agreements and policies, collectively termed the “Law of the River.” But despite this compact, which the states are renegotiating in 2026, the basin’s water supply is shrinking.

Water conservation works, but climate change is outpacing it: Phoenix, Denver and Las Vegas offer a glimpse of the future.

Research shows that the region is likely to experience more intense, frequent droughts that last longer due to climate change, putting the water supplies for farms, people and energy systems at risk.

As researchers who study the impact of climate change on water systems, we wanted to see if demand management techniques could help under these intensifying conditions.

Getting people involved can change attitudes

Many demand management policies are reactive and only go into effect when sources run low.

These reactive policies can be successful during the scarcity period, but there is often a rebound effect: Water consumption can actually increase afterward.

We integrated survey data with a computer model of water availability and demonstrated that there can be long-term benefits to the local water supply if communities encourage positive attitudes toward conservation.

The survey focused on how people think about water conservation and climate change, drawing on a large body of research that shows people who care about the environment often take eco-friendly actions. Building off these ideas, we segmented the population into groups that shared similar views on water conservation and found that a large proportion of residents supported water conservation but weren’t actively participating in conservation programs within their communities.

We then used the computer model to explore how changing attitudes, and subsequent conservation behavior, could affect water supplies under climate change.

When participatory demand management works

Our research shows that individual actions, when implemented by a lot of people, can measurably improve water supplies’ reliability.

A great example of the benefits of long-term behavioral changes is Las Vegas.

Las Vegas is in many ways viewed as a city of excess; however, since 2002, the city has reduced its per-capita water use by nearly 60%, even as the population grew by more than 50%. It reached these savings through efforts to reduce seasonal irrigation, replace water-intensive landscaping and require new developments to be sustainable, along with the treatment and reuse of wastewater. Today, Las Vegas recycles nearly all of the water used indoors and returns it to Lake Mead.

Phoenix, another desert city, also runs successful conservation programs. These programs focus on converting grass lawns to desert-friendly landscaping and encouraging owners to fix leaks and install smart meters and low-flow devices. These programs led to a 20% reduction in water use over 20 years, while the population grew by about 40%.

Demand management is not always enough

These cities have shown that demand management can work, but there are limits on how much these techniques can do as water supplies dry up.

When we added projections of future climate change to our model, we found that conditions could lead to so little water being available that these demand management methods won’t be able to keep up.

In other words, climate change may create situations where water supplies are still severely limited, even after people reduced their consumption by up to 25%.

For example, under a plausible, moderately high emissions scenario, Phoenix’s available surface water supply was forecast to drop below the historical average by 2060. Even when we simulated higher participation in conservation programs, there was no noticeable change in the water availability, suggesting that any savings from reducing demand were counteracted by losses from upstream flow reductions. Encouraging people to use less water is a start, but there is a limit to how much people can conserve.

We found similar results in Denver under a moderate emissions scenario and in Las Vegas under a moderately high emissions scenario, indicating that even moderate climate change could lead to extreme scarcity conditions that are not manageable through demand-side changes alone.

What else cities can do

In these cases, it may be necessary to find other creative water sources, such as water reuse, desalination or limiting consumption in other sectors, such as agriculture or energy, to maintain the municipal supply.

These solutions, however, take time and money to implement. Desalination is incredibly expensive. A recently built desalination plant in Carlsbad, California, cost US$1 billion – four times the initial estimate.

Other solutions, such as reducing agricultural water use, require significant buy-in from local farmers and could result in producing less food.

Reducing the water consumed for electricity generation would require significant investment in renewable energy technologies that have lower water requirements than fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

While large-scale solutions like water reuse systems and desalination can be expensive, these costs might be necessary to maintain adequate water supply in the region, because simply encouraging people to use less won’t be enough.

This article is republished from The Conversation (where is can be read in its entirety: Desalinating seawater sounds easy, but there are cheaper and more sustainable ways to meet people’s water needs), a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Renee Obringer, Penn State and Dave White, Arizona State University