HB2782 requires the Arizona Corporation Commission and public service corporations to make more detailed disclosures when utility rates include regulatory assets recovered through rates. If a regulatory asset is included in rate base or reflected in rates using a test year or historical balance, the bill requires disclosure of the unamortized balance as of the rate effective date, the difference between the test-year balance and the effective-date balance, the total amortization expense expected to be recovered during the rate period, and how different categories of regulatory assets are treated for rate-base purposes.
The bill also states that the Commission is not required to adopt any specific adjustment mechanism, but it must ensure the required disclosures are sufficient to compare the total amounts recovered in rates with the remaining unamortized balance of the regulatory asset. In addition, the bill expresses legislative intent that the Commission and utilities publicly post tariff schedules, including amortization schedules, so the public can better review and comment on rate schedules set by the Commission.
Impact
HB2782 would add a new section to Title 40 governing utility rate schedules and fair-value rate setting, increasing transparency requirements for the Arizona Corporation Commission and regulated public service corporations. It does not directly change how rates must be calculated, but it would require more detailed public disclosure of regulatory assets, amortization, and rate-base treatment, which could affect utility rate cases, tariff filings, and public review of proposed rates.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, as reflected by its passage through the House and Senate committees and final enactment. Committee votes show some opposition in the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and a divided House floor vote, suggesting the transparency goals were broadly accepted but not unanimous. The bill ultimately passed and was signed into law.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the extent of regulatory disclosure and whether the bill could complicate or constrain utility ratemaking practices. Supporters appear to favor greater transparency and public access to tariff and amortization schedules, while opponents may have been concerned about added administrative burden, the treatment of regulatory assets, or the bill’s potential effect on Commission discretion. The bill itself tries to address that concern by stating it does not require any particular adjustment mechanism, only sufficient disclosure for comparison of recovered amounts and remaining balances.