Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APS voluntarily suspended disconnections of customers for nonpayment and waived late payment fees beginning March 13, 2020 until December 31, 2020. The suspension of disconnection of customers for nonpayment ended on January 1, 2021 and customers were automatically placed on eight-month payment arrangements if they had past due balances at the end of the disconnection period of $75 or greater. APS is continuing to waive late payment fees. APS has experienced and is continuing to experience an increase in bad debt expense associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Summer Disconnection Moratorium (defined below) and the related write-offs of customer delinquent accounts. In February 2021, due to COVID-19, APS delayed the annual reset of the PSA. Rather than the increase being effective February 2021, the PSA reset was implemented with 50% of the increase effective

On April 17, 2020, APS filed an application with the ACC requesting a COVID-19 emergency relief package to provide additional assistance to its customers. On May 5, 2020, the ACC approved APS returning $36 million that had been collected through the Demand Side Management (“DSM”) Adjustor Charge, but not allocated for current DSM programs, directly to customers through a bill credit in June 2020. APS has refunded approximately $43 million to customers. The additional $7 million over the approved amount of $36 million was the result of the kWh credit being based on historic consumption, which was different than actual consumption in the refund period. The difference was recorded to the DSM balancing account and was included in the 2021 DSM Implementation Plan, which was approved by the ACC on June 13, 2021 (see below for discussion of the DSM Adjustor Charge).

In 2020, APS spent more than $15 million to assist customers and local non-profits and community organizations to help with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, with $12.4 million of these dollars directly committed to bill assistance programs (the “COVID Customer Support Fund”). The COVID Customer Support Fund was comprised of a series of voluntary commitments of funds that are not recoverable through rates throughout 2020 of approximately $8.8 million. An additional $3.6 million in bill credits for limited income customers was ordered by the ACC in December 2020 of which 50%, up to a maximum of $2.5 million, was committed to be funds that are not recoverable through rates with the remaining being deferred for potential future recovery in rates. Included in the COVID Customer Support Fund were programs that assisted customers that had a delinquency of two or more months with a one-time credit of $100, an expanded credit of $300 for limited income customers, programs to assist extra small and small non-residential customers with a one-time credit of $1,000, and other targeted programs allocated to assist with other COVID-19 needs in support of utility bill assistance. The December 2020 ACC order further assisted delinquent limited income customers with an additional bill credit of up to $250 or their delinquent balance, whichever was less. APS has distributed all funds for all COVID Customer Support Fund programs combined. Beyond the COVID Customer Support Fund, APS has also provided $2.7 million to assist local non-profits and community organizations working to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In accordance with the requirements of the 2019 rate review order described below, APS filed an application with the ACC on October 31, 2019 (the “2019 Rate Case”) seeking an increase in annual retail base rates of $69 million. This amount includes recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the Four Corners selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) project that was the subject of a separate proceeding (see “SCR Cost Recovery” below). It also reflects a net credit to base rates of approximately $115 million primarily due to the prospective inclusion of rate refunds currently provided through the Tax Expense Adjustment Mechanism (“TEAM”). The proposed total annual revenue increase in APS’s application is $184 million. The average annual customer bill impact of APS’s request is an increase of 5.6% (the average annual bill impact for a typical APS residential customer is 5.4%).

On October 2, 2020, the ACC Staff, the Residential Utility Consumer Office (“RUCO”) and other intervenors filed their initial written testimony with the ACC in the 2019 Rate Case. The ACC Staff recommended, among other things, (i) a $89.7 million revenue increase, (ii) an average annual customer bill increase of 2.7%, (iii) a return on equity of 9.4%, (iv) a 0.3% or, as an alternative, a 0% return on the increment of fair value rate base greater than original cost, (v) the recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the construction and operating costs of the Four Corners SCR project and (vi) the recovery of the rate base effects of the construction and ongoing consideration of the deferral of the Ocotillo modernization project. RUCO recommended, among other things, (i) a $20.8 million revenue decrease, (ii) an average annual customer bill decrease of 0.63%, (iii) a return on equity of 8.74%, (iv) a 0% return on the increment of fair value rate base, (v) the nonrecovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the construction and operating costs of the Four Corners SCR project pending further consideration, and (vi) the recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the construction and operating costs of the Ocotillo modernization project.

The filed ACC Staff and intervenor testimony include additional recommendations, some of which materially differ from APS’s filed application. On November 6, 2020, APS filed its rebuttal testimony and the principal provisions which differ from its initial application include, among other things, a (i) $169 million revenue increase, (ii) average annual customer bill increase of 5.14%, (iii) return on equity of 10%, (iv) return on the increment of fair value rate base of 0.8%, (v) new cost recovery adjustor mechanism, the Advanced Energy Mechanism (“AEM”), to enable more timely recovery of clean investments as APS pursues its clean energy commitment, (vi) recognition that securitization is a potentially useful financing tool to recover the remaining book value of retiring assets and effectuate a transition to a cleaner energy future that APS intends to pursue, provided legislative hurdles are addressed, and (vii) a Coal Community Transition (“CCT”) plan related to the closure or future closure of coal-fired generation facilities, of which $25 million would be funds that are not recoverable through rates with a proposal that the remainder be funded by customers over 10 years.

customers, (ii) $1.25 million that will be paid over five years to the Navajo Nation to fund an economic development organization, which would be funds not recoverable through rates, (iii) $10 million to facilitate electrification projects within the Navajo Nation, which would be funded equally by funds not recoverable through rates and by customers, (iv) $2.5 million per year in transmission revenue sharing to be paid to the Navajo Nation beginning after the closure of the Four Corners Power Plant through 2038, which would be funds not recoverable through rates, (v) $12 million that will be paid over five years to the Navajo County Communities surrounding Cholla Power Plant, which would primarily be funded by customers, and (vi) $3.7 million that will be paid over five years to the Hopi Tribe related to APS’s ownership interests in the Navajo Generating Station, which would primarily be funded by customers. The commitment of funds that would not be recoverable through rates of $25 million were recognized in our December 31, 2020 financials.

On August 2, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Opinion and Order in the 2019 Rate Case (the “2019 Rate Case ROO”) and issued corrections on September 10 and September 20, 2021. The 2019 Rate Case ROO recommends, among other things, (i) a $111 million decrease in annual revenue requirements, (ii) a return on equity of 9.16%, (iii) a 0.30% return on the increment of fair value rate base greater than original cost, with total fair value rate of return further adjusted to include a 0.03% reduction to return on equity resulting in an effective fair value rate of return of 4.95%, (iv) the nonrecovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the operating costs and construction of the Four Corners SCR project (see “Four Corners SCR Cost Recovery” below for additional information), (v) the recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the operating costs and construction of the Ocotillo modernization project, which includes a reduction in the return on the deferral, (vi) a 15% disallowance of annual amortization of Navajo Plant regulatory asset recovery, (vii) the denial of the request to defer, until APS’s next general rate case, the increase or decrease in its Arizona property taxes attributable to tax rate changes, and (viii) a collaborative process to review and recommend revisions to APS’s adjustment mechanisms within 12 months after the date of the decision. The 2019 Rate Case ROO also recommended that the CCT plan include the following components: (i) $50 million that will be paid over 10 years to the Navajo Nation, (ii) $5 million that will be paid over five years to the Navajo County Communities surrounding Cholla Power Plant, and (iii) $1.675 million that will be paid to the Hopi Tribe related to APS’s ownership interests in the Navajo Plant. These amounts would be recoverable from APS’s customers through the Arizona Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (“RES”) adjustment mechanism. APS filed exceptions on September 13, 2021 regarding the disallowance of the SCR cost deferrals and plant investments that was recommended in the 2019 Rate Case ROO, among other issues.

On October 6, 2021 and October 27, 2021, the ACC voted on various amendments to the 2019 Rate Case ROO that would result in, among other things, (i) a return on equity of 8.70%, (ii) the recovery of the deferral and rate base effects of the operating costs and construction of the Four Corners SCR project, with the exception of $215.5 million (see “Four Corners SCR Cost Recovery” below), (iii) that the CCT plan include the following components: (a) a payment of $1 million to the Hopi Tribe within 60 days of the 2019 Rate Case decision, (b) a payment of $10 million over three years to the Navajo Nation, (c) a payment of $500,000 to the Navajo County communities within 60 days of the 2019 Rate Case decision, (d) up to $1.25 million for electrification of homes and businesses on the Hopi reservation within 12 months of the 2019 Rate Case

decision and (e) up to $1.25 million for the electrification of homes and businesses on the Navajo Nation reservation within 12 months of the 2019 Rate Case decision. These payments and expenditures are attributable to the future closures of Four Corners and Cholla, along with the prior closure of the Navajo Plant and all ordered payments and expenditures would be recoverable through rates, and (iv) a change in the residential on-peak time of use period from 3 p.m.-8 p.m. to 4 p.m.-7 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The 2019 Rate Case ROO, as amended, results in a total annual revenue decrease for APS of $4.8 million, excluding temporary CCT payments and expenditures. On November 2, 2021, the ACC approved the 2019 Rate Case ROO, as amended. APS intends to file with the ACC an application for rehearing of the 2019 Rate Case. If the ACC does not approve this application, APS intends to appeal the decision in the 2019 Rate Case and is considering all other available and appropriate options. APS cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

On June 1, 2016, APS filed an application with the ACC for an annual increase in retail base rates. On March 27, 2017, a majority of the stakeholders in the general retail rate case, including the ACC Staff, RUCO, limited income advocates and private rooftop solar organizations signed a settlement agreement (the “2017 Settlement Agreement”) and filed it with the ACC. The 2017 Settlement Agreement provides for a net retail base rate increase of $94.6 million, excluding the transfer of adjustor balances, consisting of: (1) a non-fuel, non-depreciation, base rate increase of $87.2 million per year; (2) a base rate decrease of $53.6 million attributable to reduced fuel and purchased power costs; and (3) a base rate increase of $61.0 million due to changes in depreciation schedules. The average annual customer bill impact under the 2017 Settlement Agreement was calculated as an increase of 3.28% (the average annual bill impact for a typical APS residential customer was calculated as an increase of 4.54%).

On January 3, 2018, an APS customer filed a petition with the ACC that was determined by the ACC Staff to be a complaint filed pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §40-246 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint was later amended alleging that the rates and charges in the 2017 Rate Case Decision are not just and reasonable. The ACC held a hearing on this matter, and the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Opinion and Order recommending that the Complaint be dismissed. On July 3, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued an amendment to the Recommended Opinion and Order that incorporated the requirements of the rate review of the 2017 Rate Case Decision (see below discussion regarding the rate review). On July 10, 2019, the ACC adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s amended Recommended Opinion and Order along with several ACC Commissioner amendments and an amendment incorporating the results of the rate review and resolved the Complaint.

On December 24, 2018, certain ACC Commissioners filed a letter stating that because the ACC had received a substantial number of complaints that the rate increase authorized by the 2017 Rate Case Decision was much more than anticipated, they believe there is a possibility that APS is earning more than was authorized by the 2017 Rate Case Decision. Accordingly, the ACC Commissioners requested the ACC Staff to perform a rate review of APS using calendar year 2018 as a test year. The ACC Commissioners also asked the ACC Staff to evaluate APS’s efforts to educate its customers regarding the new rates approved in the 2017 Rate Case Decision.

On May 19, 2020, the ACC Staff filed a third-party consultant’s report which evaluated the effectiveness of APS’s customer outreach and education program related to the 2017 Rate Case Decision. On May 29, 2020, the Chairman of the ACC filed a letter with the ACC in response to this report and is alleging that APS is out of compliance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision and is over-earning. The Chairman proposed that the current rates should be classified as interim rates and customers held harmless if APS’s activities have caused the rates set in the 2017 Rate Case Decision to not be just and reasonable. Also, on May 29, 2020, a second commissioner filed a letter with the ACC agreeing with the Chairman’s assertions and further asserting that the 2017 Rate Case Decision should be re-opened. On June 18, 2020, at an ACC Open Meeting, the matters raised in these letters were discussed. The ACC did not vote to move forward with any adjustments to APS’s current rates. On November 4, 2020, the ACC voted to administratively close this docket.

Renewable Energy Standard. In 2006, the ACC approved the RES. Under the RES, electric utilities that are regulated by the ACC must supply an increasing percentage of their retail electric energy sales from eligible renewable resources, including solar, wind, biomass, biogas and geothermal technologies. In order to achieve these requirements, the ACC allows APS to include a RES surcharge as part of customer bills to recover the approved amounts for use on renewable energy projects. Each year, APS is required to file a five-year implementation plan with the ACC and seek approval for funding the upcoming year’s RES budget. In 2015, the ACC revised the RES rules to allow the ACC to consider all available information, including the number of rooftop solar arrays in a utility’s service territory, to determine compliance with the RES.

On November 20, 2017, APS filed an updated 2018 RES budget to include budget adjustments for APS Solar Communities (formerly known as AZ Sun II), which was approved as part of the 2017 Rate Case Decision. APS Solar Communities is a 3-year program authorizing APS to spend $10 million to $15 million in capital costs each year to install utility-owned DG systems for low to moderate income residential homes, non-profit entities, Title I schools and rural government facilities. The 2017 Rate Case Decision provided that all operations and maintenance expenses, property taxes, marketing and advertising expenses, and the capital carrying costs for this program will be recovered through the RES.

On July 1, 2019, APS filed its 2020 RES Implementation Plan and proposed a budget of approximately $86.3 million. APS’s budget request supports existing approved projects and commitments and requests a permanent waiver of the residential distributed energy requirement for 2020 contained in the RES rules. On September 23, 2020, the ACC approved the 2020 RES Implementation Plan, including a waiver of the residential distributed energy requirements for the 2020 implementation year. In addition, the ACC approved the implementation of a new pilot program that incentivizes Arizona households to install at-home battery systems. Recovery of the costs associated with the pilot will be addressed in the 2021 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan (“DSM Plan”).

On July 1, 2020, APS filed its 2021 RES Implementation Plan and proposed a budget of approximately $84.7 million. APS’s budget request supports existing approved projects and commitments and requests a permanent waiver of the residential distributed energy requirement for 2021 contained in the RES rules. In the 2021 RES Implementation Plan, APS requested $4.5 million to meet revenue requirements associated with the APS Solar Communities program to complete installations delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. On June 7, 2021, the ACC approved the 2021 RES Implementation Plan including a waiver of the residential distributed energy requirements for the 2021 implementation year. As part of the approval, the ACC approved the requested budget and authorized APS to collect $68.3 million through the Renewable Energy Adjustment Charge to support APS’s RES programs.

On May 21, 2021, the ACC adopted a clean energy rules package which would require APS to meet certain clean energy standards and technology procurement mandates, obtain approval for its action plan included in its IRP, and seek cost recovery in a rate process. The adopted rules included substantial changes since the original Recommended Opinion and Order, and thus will require supplemental rulemaking before taking effect. APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter. See “Energy Modernization Plan” below for more information.

Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge. The ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards require APS to submit a DSM Plan annually for review by and approval of the ACC. Verified energy savings from APS’s resource savings projects can be counted toward compliance with the Electric Energy Efficiency Standards; however, APS is not allowed to count savings from systems savings projects toward determination of the achievement of performance incentives, nor may APS include savings from these system savings projects in the calculation of its Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (“LFCR”) mechanism (see below for discussion of the LFCR).

On September 1, 2017, APS filed its 2018 DSM Plan, which proposed modifications to the demand side management portfolio to better meet system and customer needs by focusing on peak demand reductions, storage, load shifting and demand response programs in addition to traditional energy savings measures. The 2018 DSM Plan sought a requested budget of $52.6 million and requested a waiver of the Electric Energy Efficiency Standard for 2018. On November 14, 2017, APS filed an amended 2018 DSM Plan, which revised the allocations between budget items to address customer participation levels but kept the overall budget at $52.6 million.

On December 31, 2019, APS filed its 2020 DSM Plan, which requested a budget of $51.9 million and continued APS’s focus on DSM strategies such as peak demand reduction, load shifting, storage and electrification strategies. The 2020 DSM Plan addressed all components of the pending 2018 and 2019 DSM plans, which enabled the ACC to review the 2020 DSM Plan only. On May 15, 2020, APS filed an amended 2020 DSM Plan to provide assistance to customers experiencing economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The amended 2020 DSM Plan requested the same budget amount of $51.9 million. On September 23, 2020, the ACC approved the amended 2020 DSM Plan.

On April 17, 2020, APS filed an application with the ACC requesting a COVID-19 emergency relief package to provide additional assistance to its customers. On May 5, 2020, the ACC approved APS returning $36 million that had been collected through the DSM Adjustor Charge, but not allocated for current DSM programs, directly to customers through a bill credit in June 2020. APS has refunded approximately $43 million to customers. The additional $7 million over the approved amount was the result of the kWh credit being based on historic consumption which was different than actual consumption in the refund period. The difference was recorded to the DSM balancing account and was included in the 2021 DSM Implementation Plan, which was approved by the ACC on June 13, 2021.

On December 31, 2020, APS filed its 2021 DSM Plan, which requested a budget of $63.7 million and continued APS’s focus on DSM strategies, such as peak demand reduction, load shifting, storage and electrification strategies, as well as enhanced assistance to customers impacted economically by COVID-19. On April 6, 2021, APS filed an amended 2021 DSM Plan that proposed an additional performance incentive for customers participating in the residential energy storage pilot approved in the 2020 RES Implementation Plan. On July 13, 2021, the ACC approved the amended 2021 DSM Plan.

On November 30, 2020, APS filed its PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2021. That rate was $0.003544 per kWh and consisted of a forward component of $0.003434 per kWh and a historical component of $0.000110 per kWh. The 2021 PSA rate is a $0.004 per kWh increase, compared to the 2020 PSA year, which is the maximum permitted under the Plan of Administration for the PSA. This left $215.9 million of fuel and purchased power costs above this annual cap which will be reflected in future year resets of the PSA. These rates were to be effective on February 1, 2021 but APS delayed the effectiveness of these rates until the first billing cycle of April 2021 due to concerns of the impact on customers during COVID-19. In March 2021, the ACC voted to implement the 2021 PSA, with 50% of the rate increase effective in April 2021 and the remaining 50% of the increase effective in November 2021. The PSA rate implemented on April 1, 2021 was $0.001544 per kWh and consisted of a forward component of $(0.004444) per kWh and a historical component of $0.005988 per kWh. On November 1, 2021, the remaining increase was implemented to a rate of $0.003544 per kWh and consisted of a forward component of $(0.004444) per kWh and a historical component of $0.007988 per kWh. As part of this approval, the ACC ordered ACC Staff to conduct a fuel and purchased power procurement audit, which is currently underway, to better understand the factors that contributed to the increase in fuel costs. APS cannot predict the outcome of this audit.

On March 15, 2019, APS filed an application with the ACC requesting approval to recover the costs related to two energy storage power purchase tolling agreements through the PSA. On December 29, 2020, the ACC Staff filed its report and recommended the storage costs be included in the PSA once the systems are in-service. On January 12, 2021, the ACC approved this application but did not rule on the prudency. On October 28, 2021, APS filed an application requesting approval to recover costs related to three additional energy storage projects through the PSA once the systems are in service.

Environmental Improvement Surcharge. The EIS permits APS to recover the capital carrying costs (rate of return, depreciation and taxes) plus incremental operations and maintenance expenses associated with environmental improvements made outside of a test year to comply with environmental standards set by federal, state, tribal, or local laws and regulations. A filing is made on or before February 1 for qualified environmental improvements made during the prior calendar year, and the new charge becomes effective April 1 unless suspended by the ACC. There is an overall cap of $0.0005 per kWh (approximately $13 million to $14 million per year). APS’s February 1, 2021 application requested an increase in the charge to $10.3 million, or $1.5 million over the prior-period charge and it became effective with the first billing cycle in April 2021.

Transmission Rates, Transmission Cost Adjustor (“TCA”) and Other Transmission Matters. In July 2008, FERC approved a modification to APS’s Open Access Transmission Tariff to allow APS to move from fixed rates to a formula rate-setting methodology in order to more accurately reflect and recover the costs that APS incurs in providing transmission services. A large portion of the rate represents charges for transmission services to serve APS’s retail customers (“Retail Transmission Charges”). In order to recover the Retail Transmission Charges, APS was previously required to file an application with, and obtain approval from, the ACC to reflect changes in Retail Transmission Charges through the TCA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into in 2012 regarding APS’s rate case (“2012 Settlement Agreement”), however, an adjustment to rates to recover the Retail Transmission Charges will be made annually each June 1 and will go into effect automatically unless suspended by the ACC.

agreed to by APS and the ACC Staff can remain in dispute until settled or litigated at FERC. Settlement or litigated resolution of disputed issues could require an extended period of time and could have a significant effect on the Retail Transmission Charges because any adjustment, though applied prospectively, may be calculated to account for previously over- or under-collected amounts. The resolution of proposed adjustments can result in significant volatility in the revenues to be collected.

On March 7, 2018, APS made a filing to make modifications to its annual transmission formula to provide transmission customers the benefit of the reduced federal corporate income tax rate resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Act”) beginning in its 2018 annual transmission formula rate update filing. These modifications were approved by FERC on May 22, 2018 and reduced APS’s transmission rates compared to the rate that would have gone into effect absent these changes. On March 17, 2020, APS made a filing to make further modifications to its annual transmission formula to provide additional transparency for excess and deficient accumulated deferred income taxes resulting from the Tax Act, as well as for future local, state, and federal statutory tax rate changes. This filing is pending with FERC.

Effective June 1, 2019, APS’s annual wholesale transmission revenue requirement for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $25.8 million for the 12-month period beginning June 1, 2019 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. Of this amount, wholesale customer rates increased by $21.1 million and retail customer rates would have increased by approximately $4.7 million. However, since changes in retail transmission charges are reflected through the TCA after consideration of transmission recovery in retail base rates and the ACC approved TCA balancing account, the retail revenue requirement increased by a total of $4.9 million, resulting in a decrease to residential rates and an increase to commercial rates. An adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover FERC approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2019.

Effective June 1, 2020, APS’s annual wholesale transmission revenue requirement for all users of its transmission system decreased by approximately $6.1 million for the 12-month period beginning June 1, 2020 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. Of this net amount, wholesale customer rates increased by $4.8 million and retail customer rates would have decreased by approximately $10.9 million. However, since changes in retail transmission charges are reflected through the TCA after consideration of transmission recovery in retail base rates and the ACC approved balancing account, the retail revenue requirement decreased by a total of $7.4 million, resulting in reductions to both residential and commercial rates. An adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover FERC approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2020.

Effective June 1, 2021, APS’s annual wholesale transmission revenue requirement for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $4 million for the 12-month period beginning June 1, 2021 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. Of this net amount, wholesale customer rates decreased by approximately $3.2 million and retail customer rates would have increased by approximately $7.2 million. However, since changes in retail transmission charges are reflected through the TCA after consideration of transmission recovery in retail base rates and the ACC approved balancing account, the retail revenue requirement decreased by $28.4 million, resulting in reductions to both residential and commercial rates. An adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover FERC-approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2021.

Lost Fixed Cost Recovery Mechanism. The LFCR mechanism permits APS to recover on an after-the-fact basis a portion of its fixed costs that would otherwise have been collected by APS in the kWh sales lost due to APS energy efficiency programs and to DG such as rooftop solar arrays. The fixed costs recoverable by the LFCR mechanism are currently 2.5 cents for both lost residential and non-residential kWh as set forth in the 2017 Settlement Agreement. The LFCR adjustment has a year-over-year cap of 1% of retail revenues.

On February 15, 2018, APS filed its 2018 annual LFCR adjustment, requesting that effective May 1, 2018, the LFCR be adjusted to $60.7 million. On February 6, 2019, the ACC approved the 2018 annual LFCR adjustment to become effective March 1, 2019. On February 15, 2019, APS filed its 2019 annual LFCR adjustment, requesting that effective May 1, 2019, the annual LFCR recovery amount be reduced to $36.2 million (a $24.5 million decrease from previous levels). On July 10, 2019, the ACC approved APS’s 2019 LFCR adjustment as filed, effective with the next billing cycle of July 2019. On February 14, 2020, APS filed its 2020 annual LFCR adjustment, requesting that effective May 1, 2020, the annual LFCR recovery amount be reduced to $26.6 million (a $9.6 million decrease from previous levels). On April 14, 2020, the ACC approved the 2020 LFCR adjustment as filed, effective with the first billing cycle in May 2020. On February 15, 2021, APS filed its 2021 annual LFCR adjustment, requesting that effective May 1, 2021, the annual LFCR recovery amount be increased to $38.5 million (an $11.8 million increase from previous levels). On April 13, 2021, the ACC voted not to approve the requested $11.8 million increase to the annual LFCR adjustment, thus the previously approved rates continue to remain intact. The $11.8 million will continue to be maintained in the LFCR regulatory asset balancing account and will be included in APS’s next LFCR application filing in accordance with the compliance requirements.

The 2019 Rate Case decision requires APS to include an earnings test as part of its annual LFCR mechanism calculations, based on prior year data and the most recent return on equity authorized by the ACC. If the earnings test shows that APS’s rate of return for the prior year is higher than the amount authorized, recovery through the LFCR is to be set at zero for the following year. The initial LFCR adjustment under this methodology will be determined in 2022.

Tax Expense Adjustor Mechanism. As part of the 2017 Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to a rate adjustment mechanism to address potential federal income tax reform and enable the pass-through of certain income tax effects to customers. The TEAM expressly applies to APS’s retail rates with the exception of a small subset of customers taking service under specially-approved tariffs. On December 22, 2017, the Tax Act was enacted. This legislation made significant changes to the federal income tax laws including a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018.

On January 8, 2018, APS filed an application with the ACC that addressed the change in the marginal federal tax rate from 35% to 21% resulting from the Tax Act and reduced rates by $119.1 million annually through an equal cents per kWh credit (“TEAM Phase I”). On February 22, 2018, the ACC approved the reduction of rates through an equal cents per kWh credit. The rate reduction was effective for the first billing cycle in March 2018.

The impact of the TEAM Phase I, over time, is expected to be earnings neutral. However, on a quarterly basis, there is a difference between the timing and amount of the income tax benefit and the reduction in revenues refunded through the TEAM Phase I related to the lower federal income tax rate. The amount of the benefit of the lower federal income tax rate is based on quarterly pre-tax results, while the reduction in revenues refunded through the TEAM Phase I is based on a per kWh sales credit which follows our seasonal kWh sales pattern and is not impacted by earnings of the Company.

On March 19, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APS delayed the discontinuation of TEAM Phase II until the first billing cycle in May 2020. Amounts credited to customers after the last billing cycle in March 2020 will be recorded as a part of the balancing account and will be addressed for recovery as part of the 2019 Rate Case. Both the timing of the reduction in revenues refunded through TEAM Phase II and the offsetting income tax benefit are recognized based upon our seasonal kWh sales pattern.

On April 10, 2019, APS filed a third request with the ACC that addressed the amortization of depreciation related excess deferred taxes over a 28.5-year period consistent with IRS normalization rules (“TEAM Phase III”). On October 29, 2019, the ACC approved TEAM Phase III providing both (i) a one-time bill credit of $64 million, which was credited to customers on their December 2019 bills, and (ii) a monthly bill credit effective the first billing cycle in December 2019 which will provide an additional benefit of $39.5 million to customers through December 31, 2020. On November 20, 2020, APS filed an application to continue the TEAM Phase III monthly bill credit through the earlier of December 31, 2021, or at the conclusion of the 2019 Rate Case. On December 9, 2020, the ACC approved this request. Both the timing of the reduction in revenues refunded through the TEAM Phase III monthly bill credit and the offsetting income tax benefit are recognized based upon APS’s seasonal kWh sales pattern.

APS’s 2017 Rate Case Decision provides that payments by utilities for energy exported to the grid from DG solar facilities will be determined using a RCP methodology, a method that is based on the most recent five-year rolling average price that APS pays for utility-scale solar projects, while a forecasted avoided cost methodology is being developed. The price established by this RCP method will be updated annually (between general retail rate cases) but will not be decreased by more than 10% per year. Once the avoided cost methodology is developed, the ACC will determine in APS’s subsequent rate cases which method (or a combination of methods) is appropriate to determine the actual price to be paid by APS for exported distributed energy.

In accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, APS filed its request for a third-year export energy price of 10.5 cents per kWh on May 1, 2019. This price also reflects the 10% annual reduction discussed above. The new rate rider became effective on October 1, 2019. APS filed its request for a fourth-year export energy price of 9.4 cents per kWh on May 1, 2020, with a requested effective date of September 1, 2020. This price reflects the 10% annual reduction discussed above. On September 23, 2020, the ACC approved the annual reduction of the export energy price but voted to delay the effectiveness of the reduction in export prices until October 1, 2021. In accordance with this decision, the RCP export energy price of 9.4 cents per kWh became effective on October 1, 2021.

On January 23, 2017, The Alliance for Solar Choice (“TASC”) sought rehearing of the ACC’s decision regarding the value and cost of DG. TASC asserted that the ACC improperly ignored the Administrative Procedure Act, failed to give adequate notice regarding the scope of the proceedings, and relied on information that was not submitted as evidence, among other alleged defects. TASC filed a Notice of Appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals and filed a Complaint and Statutory Appeal in the Maricopa County Superior Court on March 10, 2017. As part of the 2017 Settlement Agreement described above, TASC agreed to withdraw these appeals when the ACC decision implementing the 2017 Settlement Agreement is no longer subject to appellate review.

On August 25, 2016, then-Commissioner Robert Burns, individually and not by action of the ACC as a whole, served subpoenas in APS’s then current retail rate proceeding on APS and Pinnacle West for the production of records and information relating to a range of expenditures from 2011 through 2016. The subpoenas requested information concerning marketing and advertising expenditures, charitable donations, lobbying expenses, contributions to 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofits and political contributions. The return date for the production of information was set as September 15, 2016. The subpoenas also sought testimony from Company personnel having knowledge of the material, including the Chief Executive Officer.

On September 9, 2016, APS filed with the ACC a motion to quash the subpoenas or, alternatively to stay APS’s obligations to comply with the subpoenas and decline to decide APS’s motion pending court proceedings. Contemporaneously with the filing of this motion, APS and Pinnacle West filed a complaint for special action and declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County, seeking a declaratory judgment that Burns’ subpoenas are contrary to law. On September 15, 2016, APS produced all non-confidential and responsive documents and offered to produce any remaining responsive documents that are confidential after an appropriate confidentiality agreement is signed.

Commissioner, a candidate for ACC Commissioner, or key ACC Staff. As part of this docket, Burns set March 24, 2017 as a deadline for the production of all information previously requested through the subpoenas. Neither APS nor Pinnacle West produced the information requested and instead objected to the subpoena. On March 10, 2017, Burns filed suit against APS and Pinnacle West in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County in an effort to enforce his subpoenas. On March 30, 2017, APS filed a motion to dismiss Burns’ suit against APS and Pinnacle West. In response to the motion to dismiss, the court stayed the suit and ordered Burns to file a motion to compel the production of the information sought by the subpoenas with the ACC. On June 20, 2017, the ACC denied the motion to compel.

On August 4, 2017, Burns amended his complaint to add all of the ACC Commissioners and the ACC itself as defendants. All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 15, 2018, the Superior Court dismissed Burns’ amended complaint. On March 6, 2018, Burns filed an objection to the proposed final order from the Superior Court and a motion to further amend his complaint. The Superior Court permitted Burns to amend his complaint to add a claim regarding his attempted investigation into whether his fellow commissioners should have been disqualified from voting on APS’s 2017 rate case. Burns filed his second amended complaint, and all defendants filed responses opposing the second amended complaint and requested that it be dismissed. Oral argument occurred in November 2018 regarding the motion to dismiss. On December 18, 2018, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and entered final judgment on January 18, 2019.

On February 13, 2019, Burns filed a notice of appeal. On July 12, 2019, Burns filed his opening brief in the Arizona Court of Appeals. APS filed its answering brief on October 21, 2019. The Arizona Court of Appeals originally granted the request for oral argument; however, on March 31, 2020, the court vacated the date scheduled for oral argument given the COVID-19 pandemic. The court determined that the matter could be submitted without oral argument and has taken the matter under advisement and will issue a decision without oral argument.

Burns’ position as an ACC commissioner ended on January 4, 2021. Nevertheless, Burns filed a motion with the Court of Appeals arguing that the appeal was not mooted by this fact and the court should decide the matter. Both APS and the ACC filed responses opposing the motion and asserting that the matter is moot. On March 4, 2021, the Court of Appeals found Burns’ motion to be moot because the Court of Appeals had issued an opinion deciding the matter that same day. In its March 4, 2021 opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Burns’ complaint, concluding that Burns could not overturn the ACC’s 4-1 vote refusing to enforce his subpoenas. On May 15, 2021, Burns filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court asking for reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion and the trial court’s judgment. APS and the ACC filed responses to Burns’ petition on July 14, 2021 requesting that the petition be denied. The grant of review by the Arizona Supreme Court is discretionary. Pinnacle West and APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On January 14, 2019, ACC Commissioner Kennedy opened a docket to investigate campaign expenditures and political participation of APS and Pinnacle West. In addition, on February 27, 2019, ACC Commissioners Burns and Dunn opened a new docket and requested documents from APS and Pinnacle West related to ACC elections and charitable contributions related to the ACC. On March 1, 2019, ACC Commissioner Kennedy issued a subpoena to APS seeking several categories of information for both Pinnacle West and APS, including political contributions, lobbying expenditures, marketing and advertising expenditures, and contributions made to 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities, for the years 2013-2018. Pinnacle West and APS voluntarily responded to both sets of requests on March 29, 2019. APS also received and responded to various follow-on requests from ACC Commissioners on these matters. Pinnacle West and APS

On January 30, 2018, former ACC Commissioner Tobin proposed the Energy Modernization Plan, which consisted of a series of energy policies tied to clean energy sources such as energy storage, biomass, energy efficiency, electric vehicles, and expanded energy planning through the integrated resource plan (“IRP”) process. In August 2018, the ACC directed ACC Staff to open a new rulemaking docket which will address a wide range of energy issues, including the Energy Modernization Plan proposals. The rulemaking will consider possible modifications to existing ACC rules, such as the RES, Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Standards, Net Metering, Resource Planning, and the Biennial Transmission Assessment, as well as the development of new rules regarding forest bioenergy, electric vehicles, interconnection of distributed generation, baseload security, blockchain technology and other technological developments, retail competition, and other energy-related topics.

On April 25, 2019, the ACC Staff issued an initial set of draft energy rules and subsequent drafts were filed by ACC Staff in July 2019, February 2020 and July 2020. During this same time period, the ACC held multiple workshops to incorporate feedback from stakeholders and the ACC. On July 30, 2020, the ACC Staff issued final draft energy rules which proposed 100% of retail kWh sales from clean energy resources by the end of 2050. Nuclear is defined as a clean energy resource. The proposed rules also require 50% of retail energy served be renewable by the end of 2035. A new energy efficiency standard was not included in the proposed rules. If approved by the ACC Commissioners, the rules would require utilities to file a Clean Energy Implementation Plan and Energy Efficiency Report as part of their IRP every three years beginning in 2023. In addition, the ACC Staff proposed changing the IRP planning horizon from 15 years to 10 years.

The ACC discussed the final draft energy rules at several different meetings in 2020. On October 14, 2020, the ACC passed one amendment to ACC Staff’s final draft energy rules that would have required electric utilities to obtain 35% of peak load (as measured in 2020) by 2030 from DSM resources, including traditional energy efficiency, demand response and other programs aimed at reducing energy usage, peak demand management and load shifting. This standard aligned with the proposed rules’ three-year resource planning cycle and allowed recovery of costs through existing mechanisms until the ACC issues a decision in a future rate proceeding. On October 29, 2020, the ACC approved an amendment that would have required electric utilities to reduce their carbon emissions over 2016-2018 levels by 50% by 2032; 75% by 2040; and 100% by 2050. The ACC also approved an amendment that required utilities to install energy storage systems with an aggregate capacity equal to 5% of each utility’s 2020 peak demand by 2035, of which 40% must be derived from customer-owned or customer-leased distributed storage. Another approved amendment modified the resource planning process, including requirements for the ACC to approve a utility’s load forecast and resource plan, and for a utility to perform an all-source request for information to guide its resource plan. On November 13, 2020, the ACC approved a final draft energy rules package. On April 19, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order and Opinion on the final energy rules. In June 2021, the ACC adopted clean energy rules based on a series of ACC amendments. The adopted rules include a final standard of 100% clean energy by 2070 and the following interim standards for carbon reduction from baseline carbon emissions level: 50% reduction by December 31, 2032; 65% reduction by December 31, 2040; 80% reduction by December 31, 2050 and 95% reduction by December 31, 2060. Since the adopted clean energy rules differ substantially from the original Recommended Order and Opinion, supplemental rulemaking procedures are required before the rules can become effective. APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

ACC rules require utilities to develop 15-year IRPs which describe how the utility plans to serve customer load in the plan timeframe. The ACC reviews each utility’s IRP to determine if it meets the necessary requirements and whether it should be acknowledged. In March of 2018, the ACC reviewed the 2017 IRPs of its jurisdictional utilities and voted to not acknowledge any of the plans. APS does not believe that this lack of acknowledgment will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Based on an ACC decision, APS was originally required to file its next IRP by April 1, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the ACC extended the deadline for all utilities to file their IRPs from April 1, 2020 to June 26, 2020. On June 26, 2020, APS filed its final IRP. On July 15, 2020, the ACC extended the schedule for final ACC review of utility IRPs to February 2021. In March 2021, the ACC Staff requested additional time to prepare its assessment of utility IRPs and to engage a third-party consultant to analyze the utility IRPs. In August 2021, ACC Staff filed a copy of the third-party consultant report. The ACC has hosted three public comment sessions and a workshop related to this report. The ACC has taken no further action on APS’s IRP. APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter. See “Energy Modernization Plan” above for information regarding proposed changes to the IRP filings.

Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”), qualifying facilities are provided the right to sell energy and/or capacity to utilities and are granted relief from certain regulatory burdens. On December 17, 2019, the ACC mandated a minimum contract length of 18 years for qualifying facilities over 100 kW in Arizona, and established that the rate paid to qualifying facilities must be based on the long-term avoided cost. “Avoided cost” is generally defined as the price at which the utility could purchase or produce the same amount of power from sources other than the qualifying facility on a long-term basis. During calendar year 2020, APS entered into two 18-year power purchase agreements with qualified facilities, each for 80 MW solar facilities. In March 2021, the ACC approved these agreements.

On June 13, 2019, APS voluntarily suspended electric disconnections for residential customers who had not paid their bills. On June 20, 2019, the ACC voted to enact emergency rule amendments to prevent residential electric utility customer service disconnections during the period June 1 through October 15 (“Summer Disconnection Moratorium”). During the Summer Disconnection Moratorium, APS could not charge late fees and interest on amounts that were past due from customers. Customer deposits must also be used to pay delinquent amounts before disconnection can occur and customers will have four months to pay back their deposit and any remaining delinquent amounts. In accordance with the emergency rules, APS began putting delinquent customers on a mandatory four-month payment plan beginning on October 16, 2019.

In June 2019, the ACC began a formal regular rulemaking process to allow stakeholder input and time for consideration of permanent rule changes. The ACC further ordered that each regulated utility serving retail customers in Arizona update its service conditions by incorporating the emergency rule amendments, restore power to any customers who were disconnected during the month of June 2019 and credit any fees that were charged for a reconnection. The ACC Staff and ACC proposed draft amendments to the customer service disconnections rules. ACC stakeholder meetings were held in September 2019, October 2019 and January 2020 regarding the customer service disconnections rules. On April 14, 2021, the ACC voted to send to the formal rulemaking process a draft rules package governing customer disconnections that allows utilities to

choose between a temperature threshold (above 95 degrees and below 32 degrees) or calendar threshold (June 1 – October 15) for disconnection moratoriums. The ACC held two public comment sessions on the draft rules and on November 2, 2021, the ACC approved the final rules. As part of the formal rulemaking process, the final rules will be filed with the Arizona Attorney General for review before the rules become effective. The Summer Disconnection Moratorium will remain in effect until the rules become final.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, APS voluntarily suspended disconnections of customers for nonpayment and waived late payment fees beginning March 13, 2020 until December 31, 2020. The suspension of disconnection of customers for nonpayment ended on January 1, 2021 and customers were automatically placed on eight-month payment arrangements if they had past due balances at the end of the disconnection period of $75 or greater. APS is continuing to waive late payment fees. APS has experienced and is continuing to experience an increase in bad debt expense associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. See “COVID-19 Pandemic” above for more information.

On November 17, 2018, the ACC voted to re-examine the facilitation of a deregulated retail electric market in Arizona. An ACC special open meeting workshop was held on December 3, 2018. No substantive action was taken, but interested parties were asked to submit written comments and respond to a list of questions from ACC Staff. On July 1 and July 2, 2019, ACC Staff issued a report and initial proposed draft rules regarding possible modifications to the ACC’s retail electric competition rules. Interested parties filed comments to the ACC Staff report and a stakeholder meeting and workshop to discuss the retail electric competition rules was held on July 30, 2019. ACC Commissioners submitted additional questions regarding this matter. On February 10, 2020, two ACC Commissioners filed two sets of draft proposed retail electric competition rules. On February 12, 2020, ACC Staff issued its second report regarding possible modifications to the ACC’s retail electric competition rules. The ACC held a workshop on February 25-26, 2020 on further consideration and discussion of the retail electric competition rules. During a July 15, 2020 ACC Staff meeting, the ACC Commissioners discussed the possible development of a retail competition pilot program, but no action was taken. The ACC Commissioners are continuing to explore the retail electric competition rules. APS cannot predict whether these efforts will result in any changes and, if changes to the rules results, what impact these rules would have on APS.

On August 4, 2021, Green Mountain Energy filed an application seeking a certificate of convenience and necessity to allow it to provide competitive electric generation service in Arizona. Green Mountain Energy has requested that the ACC grant it the ability to provide competitive service in APS’s and Tucson Electric Power Company’s certificated service territories and proposes to deliver a 100% renewable energy product to residential and general service customers in those service territories. The ACC has not yet set a schedule or process for conducting this proceeding. APS opposes Green Mountain Energy’s application and intends to intervene to contest it. On November 3, 2021, the ACC submitted questions to the Arizona Attorney General requesting legal opinions related to a number issues surrounding retail electric competition and the ACC’s ability to issue competitive certificates convenience and necessity.

On November 14, 2019, APS learned that its rate plan comparison tool was not functioning as intended due to an integration error between the tool and APS’s meter data management system. APS immediately removed the tool from its website and notified the ACC. The purpose of the tool was to provide customers with a rate plan recommendation based upon historical usage data. Upon investigation, APS determined that the error may have affected rate plan recommendations to customers between February 4, 2019 and November 14, 2019. By the middle of May 2020, APS provided refunds to approximately 13,000 potentially impacted customers equal to the difference between what they paid for electricity and the amount they would have paid had they selected their most economical rate, as applicable, and a $25 payment for any inconvenience that the customer may have experienced. The refunds and payment for inconvenience being provided did not have a material impact on APS’s financial statements. APS developed a new tool for comparing customers’ rate plan options. APS had an independent third party verify that the new rate comparison tool works correctly. In February 2020, APS launched the new online rate comparison tool, which is now available for its customers. The ACC hired an outside consultant to evaluate the extent of the error and the overall effectiveness of the tool. On August 20, 2020, ACC Staff filed the outside consultant’s report on APS’s rate comparison tool. The report concluded APS’s new rate comparison tool is working as intended. The report also identified a small population of additional customers that may have been affected by the error and APS has provided refunds and the $25 inconvenience payment to approximately 3,800 additional customers. These additional refunds and payment for inconvenience did not have a material impact on APS’s financial statements. On September 28, 2020, the ACC discussed this report but did not take any action. APS cannot predict if any action will be taken by the ACC at this time.

APS received civil investigative demands from the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Consumer Protection & Advocacy Section (“Attorney General”) seeking information pertaining to the rate plan comparison tool offered to APS customers and other related issues including implementation of rates from the 2017 Settlement Agreement and its Customer Education and Outreach Plan associated with the 2017 Settlement Agreement. APS fully cooperated with the Attorney General’s Office in this matter. On February 22, 2021 APS entered into a consent agreement with the Attorney General as a way to settle the matter. The settlement resulted in APS paying $24.75 million, approximately $24 million of which has been returned to customers as restitution. While this matter has been resolved with the Attorney General, APS cannot predict whether additional inquiries or actions may be taken by the ACC.

On December 29, 2017, in accordance with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, APS filed a Notice of Intent to file its SCR Adjustment to permit recovery of costs associated with the installation of SCR equipment at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. APS filed the SCR Adjustment request in April 2018. Consistent with the 2017 Rate Case Decision, the request was narrow in scope and addressed only costs associated with this specific environmental compliance equipment. The SCR Adjustment request provided that there would be a $67.5 million annual revenue impact that would be applied as a percentage of base rates for all applicable customers. Also, as provided for in the 2017 Rate Case Decision, APS requested that the adjustment become effective no later than January 1, 2019. The hearing for this matter occurred in September 2018. At the hearing, APS accepted ACC Staff’s recommendation of a lower annual revenue impact of approximately $58.5 million. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Opinion and Order finding that the costs for the SCR project were prudently incurred and recommending authorization of the $58.5 million annual revenue requirement related to the installation and operation of the SCRs. Exceptions to the Recommended Opinion and Order were filed by the parties and intervenors on December 7, 2018. The ACC has not issued a decision on this matter. APS included the costs for the SCR project in the retail rate base in its 2019 Retail Rate Case

On August 2, 2021, the 2019 Rate Case ROO recommended a disallowance of approximately $399 million of SCR plant investments and $61 million of SCR cost deferrals. On October 27, 2021, the ACC voted and passed an amendment to the 2019 Rate Case ROO that allows for recovery of approximately $194 million of SCR related plant investments and cost deferrals, resulting in a partial and combined disallowance of $215.5 million on the investments and deferrals. The amendment also requires that APS include the SCR plant investments and deferrals in rate base and recover, depreciate and amortize the investments and deferrals based on an end-of-life assumption of July 2031. On November 2, 2021, the ACC approved the 2019 Rate Case ROO, as amended. APS believes the SCR plant investments and related SCR cost deferrals were prudently incurred and intends to legally challenge the ACC’s $215.5 million disallowance. Based on APS’s review and analysis of the amendment to the 2019 Rate Case ROO and its intent to legally challenge the disallowance, APS has not reflected an impairment or write-off related to this regulatory action as of September 30, 2021. If the amended 2019 Rate Case ROO is ultimately upheld, APS may be required to record a charge to its results of operations of up to $215.5 million. We cannot predict the outcome of the legal challenges nor the timing of when this matter will be resolved. As of September 30, 2021, the SCR plant investments and SCR cost deferral balances reported on our condensed consolidated balance sheet are approximately $331 million and $77 million, net of accumulated deferred income taxes, respectively.

On September 11, 2014, APS announced that it would close Unit 2 of the Cholla Power Plant (“Cholla”) and cease burning coal at the other APS-owned units (Units 1 and 3) at the plant by the mid-2020s, if the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approved a compromise proposal offered by APS to meet required environmental and emissions standards and rules. On April 14, 2015, the ACC approved APS’s plan to retire Unit 2, without expressing any view on the future recoverability of APS’s remaining investment in the unit. APS closed Unit 2 on October 1, 2015. In early 2017, EPA approved a final rule incorporating APS’s compromise proposal, which took effect on April 26, 2017. In December 2019, PacifiCorp notified APS that it planned to retire Cholla Unit 4 by the end of 2020. Cholla Unit 4 was retired on December 24, 2020.

Previously, APS estimated Cholla Unit 2’s end of life to be 2033. APS has been recovering a return on and of the net book value of the unit in base rates. Pursuant to the 2017 Settlement Agreement described above, APS will be allowed continued recovery of the net book value of the unit and the unit’s decommissioning and other retirement-related costs ($44.8 million as of September 30, 2021), in addition to a return on its investment. In accordance with GAAP, in the third quarter of 2014, Unit 2’s remaining net book value was reclassified from property, plant and equipment to a regulatory asset. The 2017 Settlement Agreement also shortened the depreciation lives of Cholla Units 1 and 3 to 2025.

APS is currently recovering depreciation and a return on the net book value of its interest in the Navajo Plant over its previously estimated life through 2026. APS will seek continued recovery in rates for the book value of its remaining investment in the plant ($64.6 million as of September 30, 2021) plus a return on the net book value as well as other costs related to retirement and closure, including the Navajo coal reclamation regulatory asset ($17.3 million as of September 30, 2021). APS believes it will be allowed recovery of the net book value, retirement and closure costs, in addition to a return on its investment. In accordance with GAAP,


	Amortization Through	September 30, 2021				December 31, 2020
		Current		Non-Current		Current		Non-Current
Pension	(a)	$	—	$	493,952	$	—	$	469,953
Deferred fuel and purchased power (b) (c)	2022	375,181		—		175,835		—
Income taxes — allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”) equity	2051	7,169		164,567		7,169		158,776
Retired power plant costs	2033	27,244		93,686		28,181		114,214
Ocotillo deferral	N/A	—		139,009		—		95,723
SCR deferral	N/A	—		101,890		—		81,307
Lost fixed cost recovery (b)	2022	58,423		—		41,807		—
Deferred property taxes	2027	8,569		43,199		8,569		49,626
Deferred compensation	2036	—		35,806		—		36,195
Four Corners cost deferral	2024	8,077		18,018		8,077		24,075
Income taxes — investment tax credit basis adjustment	2049	1,113		23,185		1,113		24,291
Palo Verde VIEs (Note 6)	2046	—		21,134		—		21,255
Coal reclamation	2026	1,068		16,198		1,068		16,999
Loss on reacquired debt	2038	1,648		9,716		1,689		10,877
Mead-Phoenix transmission line contributions in aid of construction (“CIAC”)	2050	332		9,131		332		9,380
Tax expense adjustor mechanism (b)	2021	8,614		—		6,226		—
PSA interest	2022	245		—		4,355		—
Deferred fuel and purchased power — mark-to-market (Note 7)	2024	—		—		3,341		9,244

Demand side management (b)	2023	—		—		—		7,268
Other	Various	217		8,207		3,951		4,804
Total regulatory assets (d)		$	497,900	$	1,177,698	$	291,713	$	1,133,987


	Amortization Through	September 30, 2021				December 31, 2020
		Current		Non-Current		Current		Non-Current
Excess deferred income taxes — ACC - Tax Act (a)	2046	$	41,418	$	980,277	$	41,330	$	1,012,583
Excess deferred income taxes — FERC - Tax Act (a)	2058	7,240		221,878		7,240		229,147
Asset retirement obligations	2057	—		554,820		—		506,049
Other postretirement benefits	(d)	47,798		302,366		37,705		349,588
Deferred fuel and purchased power — mark-to-market (Note 7)	2024	126,502		68,681		—		—
Removal costs	(c)	73,325		51,986		52,844		103,008
Income taxes — change in rates	2050	2,839		63,707		2,839		66,553
Four Corners coal reclamation	2038	5,460		50,151		5,460		49,435
Income taxes — deferred investment tax credit	2049	2,231		46,431		2,231		48,648
Spent nuclear fuel	2027	6,778		40,102		6,768		44,221
Renewable energy standard (b)	2022	32,193		115		39,442		103
FERC transmission true up	2023	11,385		12,257		6,598		3,008
Property tax deferral	N/A	—		19,318		—		13,856
Sundance maintenance	2031	—		13,271		2,989		11,508
Demand side management (b)	2023	7,701		3,713		10,819		—
Tax expense adjustor mechanism (b) (e)	2021	7,398		—		7,089		—
Deferred gains on utility property	2022	1,907		551		2,423		1,544
Active union medical trust	N/A	—		1,481		—		6,057
Other	Various	5,018		107		3,311		4,861
Total regulatory liabilities		$	379,193	$	2,431,212	$	229,088	$	2,450,169