Commissioner Walden Explains Why She Voted to Eliminate Programs That Drive Up Costs to Arizonans

Phoenix, Ariz. - On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 during the Arizona Corporation Commission's Open Meeting, I, Commissioner Rachel Walden, voted to repeal the Commission's Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Side Management (DSM) Rules put in place in 2010 and that expired in 2020. I cast my vote to repeal the rules because the rules were not based on any cost effectiveness tests, nor did they contain any other ratepayer protection requirements. The mandates instead passed all program costs in support of the few on the backs of all ratepayers, especially onto those who can least afford it-our low- and fixed income ratepayers, and our hardworking Arizona families. I fully support the use of EE mechanisms and DSM programs, which have demonstrated energy savings especially during peak summer heating days when our energy needs have stressed the electrical grid. What I do not support is the cost shifts and economic burdens these mandated programs have created, costing ratepayers in excess of $1.1 Billion.

Repealing these rules does not mean Arizona will no longer have EE/DSM program opportunities. In fact, our utilities are required to use All-Source Requests for Proposals when they are planning how to address their forecasted energy demands. EE and DSM programs are two categories of solutions that can be proposed for the utility's consideration-and I urge technology stakeholders to continue to propose these types of solutions to offset utility generation needs. The solutions must be cost-effective, and the Commission will continue to evaluate these programs on a case-by-case basis during rate cases. I recently offered an amendment to approve a Bring Your Own Device DSM program for APS customers that did not create a cost shift, and that amendment was adopted by majority vote by this Commission.

Also during the September Open Meeting, I also voted to deny a proposed low-income-based Customer Owned Yard Line replacement program that was proposed by Southwest Gas. My concerns included the lack of consumer protections and guardrails that were not proposed as a part of the program, and that the Company did not provide data in support of their proposal to enable the Commission to fully evaluate the efficacy of the program. I encourage SWG to repropose a program in a future rate case application that contains thoughtful ratepayer protections and adequate data for the Commission's consideration.

For more information, please contact Commissioner Walden at [email protected].