Mayes and Environmental Advocates Take Legal Action Against Corp Comm Over Power Plant Expansion

Attorney General Kris Mayes and two environmental organizations have initiated legal action against the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) after its controversial decision in June to exempt an energy company from an environmental review regarding its power plant expansion.

The ACC voted to reverse a prior order from the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee, which mandated that UniSource Energy secure a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) for its planned expansion of the Black Mountain Generating Station, located near Kingman.

In the complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, Mayes’ office contends that the commission “misinterpreted key terms and made erroneous conclusions” in their ruling.

“Arizona’s energy projects must remain accountable under the law in order to protect communities and our environment,” Mayes stated, emphasizing the need for stringent regulatory oversight.

Mayes is urging the court to nullify the commission’s ruling and mandate the denial of UniSource’s request to bypass the environmental review process for this expansion.

State law requires utility companies to obtain a CEC for power plants with generators rated at 100 megawatts or more. However, UniSource contends that the expansion project, which involves adding four 50-megawatt generators, should not require a CEC even though the total output exceeds 100 megawatts.

Several advocacy groups, including the Western Resource Advocates, Sierra Club, and the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, implored the commission to reconsider its decision, arguing that it contradicts longstanding regulatory precedents. Their requests went unanswered, effectively being denied by the commission.

Both Western Resource Advocates and the Sierra Club have submitted motions similar to those of Mayes, seeking to challenge the ACC’s ruling.

“The requirement that utilities obtain a certificate of environmental compatibility is an important part of Arizona’s regulatory process,” remarked Emily Doerfler, an attorney for WRA. She criticized the commission’s decision as a blatant disregard for decades of established precedent.

In the legal filing, Mayes alleges that the ACC considered evidence “not permitted by law” to reach its decision, thereby creating ambiguity in legal interpretation.

Meanwhile, the commission has defended its stance, asserting that it adhered strictly to state statute language that offers limited scope for interpretation.

“The Commission followed the letter of the law as written,” stated Tom Van Flein, the commission’s general counsel. He highlighted that calls for a different interpretation arose from policy advocates, reiterating that such matters fall within legislative jurisdiction.

Advocacy groups have dismissed the commission’s rationale, pointing out that the commission has held contradictory positions for nearly half a century. They assert that the Legislature’s intentions were clearly articulated when the statute was passed, providing further basis for their objections.

The timeline for when the court will render a decision remains uncertain. If unresolved by Election Day, the commission could face a composition change should the court remand the decision for further action.