ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

THE ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ("ACLPI- OR "THE CENTER") ONLY LITIGATES CASES THAT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN 2024, OUR CASES ALL SERVED THE BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. IN ALL OF THE CENTER'S CASES, WE DO NOT CHARGE OUR CLIENTS ATTORNEYS' FEES. ARIZONA RECOGNIZES THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOCTRINE AND HAS SPECIFIC STATUTES THAT PROVIDE FOR AN AWARD OF FEES FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY. UNDER THIS DOCTRINE, THE CENTER WILL SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM THE ADVERSE PARTY (THE STATE OF ARIZONA). 1. THE CENTER IS LITIGATING A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR ITS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY FUND THE CAPITAL NEEDS OF ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY A FOLLOW UP CASE TO ONE THAT THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED 30 YEARS AGO. AS A RESULT OF THAT CASE, FUNDS WERE PROVIDED TO BRING ALL DILAPIDATED SCHOOLS UP TO STANDARD, AND MONEY WAS TO BE PROVIDED TO KEEP ALL SCHOOLS IN GOOD SHAPE. THE LEGISLATURE SUBSEQUENTLY DE-FUNDED MOST OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE OLD CASE, AND ARIZONA IS ONCE AGAIN IN A SYSTEM UNDER WHICH A SCHOOL DISTRICTS ABILITY TO MEET ITS CAPITAL NEEDS DEPENDS TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT ON THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WEALTH IN THE DISTRICT. IN 2024 THE CASE FINALLY WENT TO TRIAL. THE CENTER THEN PARTICIPATED IN POST- TRIAL BRIEFING THROUGH THE END OF 2024. (IN 2025 WE RECEIVED A RULING AND WE PREVAILED, THOUGH LEGISLATORS HAVE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THEY WILL APPEAL.) IF THE CENTER IS ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, THEN THE STATE WILL BE FORCED TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM THAT COMPLIES WITH THE GENERAL AND UNIFORM CLAUSE IN THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. THIS CASE WILL HELP THE APPROXIMATELY 900,000 TO 1,000,000 CHILDREN IN ARIZONAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THE CASE IS CAPTIONED, GLENDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT V. STATE OF ARIZONA. THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE FOUR ARIZONA SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS WELL AS THE ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS ASSOCIATION, THE ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, AND AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER. THE CENTER HAS SUBMITTED A FEE APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 AND IS AWAITING A RULING FROM THE COURT. 2. THE CENTER SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED A CASE AGAINST THE STATE OF ARIZONA ON BEHALF OF ALL OF ARIZONAS FOSTER CHILDREN. THIS CASE IS A CLASS ACTION, WHERE IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL CLASS OF ALL FOSTER CHILDREN THERE ARE SUBCLASSES THAT PERTAIN TO SUBSETS OF CHILDREN (E.G., THOSE WHO RECEIVE MEDICAID SERVICES, AND THOSE WHO ARE PLACED IN NON-KINSHIP SETTINGS). THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE STATE (1) FAILS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO ARIZONA'S FOSTER CHILDREN; (2) FAILS TO ASSURE THAT FOSTER CHILDREN RECEIVE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE; (3) UNREASONABLY PLACES CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE SETTINGS (WHICH NEGATIVELY IMPACT CHILDREN); (4) UNREASONABLY SEPARATES SIBLINGS; AND (5) FAILS TO TIMELY AND ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF CHILDREN WHILE IN CARE; AND MANY OTHER DEFICIENT PRACTICES. THE STATE VIGOROUSLY CONTESTED WHETHER THIS CASE MAY PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION. THE CENTER (AND CO-COUNSEL) HAVE ACHIEVED VICTORIES ON THIS QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, AND THAT RULING WAS LARGELY AFFIRMED ON APPEAL IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE CASE IS KNOWN AS B.K. V. MCKAY AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. THE CASE SOUGHT BROAD RELIEF ON BEHALF OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE FOSTER CHILDREN, AND OBVIOUSLY SERVES A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN EARLY 2021. THE CENTER WILL CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IN 2024, WE INITIATED A MEDIATION/DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS DUE TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MONITORING IS ONGOING. PURSUANT TO THE COURT-ORDERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ATTORNEY FEES FOR MONITORING RECEIVED DURING 2024 WERE 75,000. IN AUGUST 2024, THREE YEARS INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE PLAINTIFFS INVOKED THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ALLEGING THAT THE STATE HAD NOT REDUCED PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN CONGREGATE CARE, NOR INCREASED FAMILY FOSTER HOME OPTIONS, NOR INCREASED TREATMENT FOSTER HOMES CAPACITY, NOR ENSURED CHILDREN RECEIVED THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES THEY NEED. JUDGE KEN FIELDS IS THE MEDIATOR APPOINTED BY THE COURT. HE ATTEMPTED THROUGH MEDIATION TO REMEDY THE DISPUTE. ULTIMATELY, MEDIATION WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND THE ISSUE OF THE STATE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT IS BEFORE JUDGE FIELDS. WE EXPECT A RULING BY DECEMBER 31, 2025. 3. THROUGHOUT 2024, THE CENTER CHALLENGED AN ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" CREATED IN THE LAST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ("APS") RATE CASE. IN 2022, APS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER ELECTRIC RATES BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"). THE CENTER INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE NON-PROFITS. AT THE END OF A SIX-WEEK HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED A REOMMENDED OPINION AND ORDER THAT CONTAINED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, A "GRID ACCESS CHARGE" THAT WAS SPECIFIC ONLY TO ROOFTOP SOLAR CUSTOMERS (AND THUS ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS). OVER OBJECTIONS BY NUMEROUS PARTIES (INCLUDING THE CENTER'S CLIENT VOTE SOLAR), THE ACC APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2023. VOTE SOLAR, ALONG WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND ANOTHER INTERVENOR, FILED APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING, CITING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARGE UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, AS WELL AS THE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE WAS NEVER LITIGATED IN THE HEARING. IN APRIL 2024, THE ACC GRANTED A LIMITED REHEARING ON THE LEGALITY OF THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE, AND 10 DAYS OF REHEARING WERE HELD IN OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2024. THE ACC AGAIN APPROVED THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN DECEMBER 2024, AND THE PARTIES APPEALED IN JANUARY 2025. THE CENTER WAS ASSISTED IN THE REHEARING AND THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL BY EARTHJUSTICE. THE APPEAL IS ONGOING, AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON WHEN A RULING FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED. THIS CASE REPRESENTS THE FIRST MAJOR LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST THE ACC IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS THAT ASSERT THE ACC IS FAILING IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO SET JUST AND REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES IN ARIZONA AND THAT THE ACC IS UNFAIRLY BEHOLDEN TO CORPORATE INTERESTS OF THE UTILITIES. 4. IN APRIL 2024, THE CENTER REPRESENTED SWEEP ALONGSIDE MULTIPLE OTHER ALLIED PARTIES IN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE ARIZONA POWER PLANT AND LINE SITING COMMITTEE RELATED TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION BY UNISOURCE ELECTRIC ("UNSE") OF THE BLACK MOUNTAIN GENERATING STATION, A GAS-FIRED POWER STATION IN MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. USING A NOVEL INTERPRETATION OF ARIZONA LAW, UNSE ARGUED THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL POWER GENERATOR WOULD BE UNDER THE 100 MW THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY ("CEC"), AND EVEN THOUGH THE NET INCREASE ACROSS MULTIPLE PROPOSED GENERATORS WOULD BE OVER 100 MW, THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE (AND THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION) DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION. THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE VOTED 10-2 AGAINST UNSE AND FOUND THAT IT DID HAVE JURISDICTION AND THAT A CEC WAS NECESSARY. UNSE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION ("ACC"), WHICH OVERTURNED THE LINE SITING COMMITTEE 4-1 IN JUNE 2024. SWEEP DID NOT APPEAL, BUT THE CENTER ASSISTED IN THE REPRESENTATION OF SIERRA CLUB IN THE SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT, ALONGSIDE WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES AND THE STATE OF ARIZONA. APPEALS IN THIS MATTER CONTINUE ONGOING IN 2025, AS DESPITE A POSITIVE RULING FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT IN OCTOBER 2025, THE ACC HAS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. THIS CASE REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OF UTILITIES IN THE STATE WITH RELATION TO THERMAL ENERGY GENERATION (INCLUDING GAS AND NUCLEAR) AND COULD RESULT IN DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, SO IT IS EXPECTED TO BE APPEALED AS FAR AS THE COURTS WILL ALLOW IT. 5. THE CENTER REPRESENTED TWO NON-PROFITS, SWEEP AND WILDFIRE, IN THE MOST RECENT SOUTHWEST GAS RATE CASE. SOUTHWEST GAS SOUGHT AN INCREASE IN CONSUMER GAS RATES, AND A TWO-WEEK HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WITH THE ACC IN NOVEMBER 2024. THIS WAS PROCEEDED BY MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF WRITTEN EXPERT TESTIMONY AND AT LEAST ONE ATTEMPT AT SETTLEMENT. SWEEP ADVOCATED PRIMARILY AGAINST AN ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM KNOWN AS THE SYSTEM INTEGRITY MECHANISM ("SIM"), WHICH WOULD ALLOW SOUTHWEST GAS TO INCREASE RATES WITHOUT HEARING TO RECOVER SPECIFIC COSTS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. WILDFIRE PRIMARILY ADVOCATED FOR PROTECTIONS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS, BUT IT ALSO OPPOSED THE SIM. THE SIM ISSUE WAS BIFURCATED FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SOUTHWEST GAS AND THE MULTIPLE INTERVENORS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CASE WAS ADJUDICATED FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER HEARING. THE ISSUE O