The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Salt River Project is subject to state public records laws that require governmental bodies to make most documents accessible to the public.
The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against SRP in 2022 seeking documents related to the expansion of the utility’s gas plant near Coolidge and the development of its Integrated System Plan, the planning document showing the mix of power sources SRP will use to meet customer demand in the future.
SRP argued in court that it did not qualify as a public entity subject to the disclosure law.
But a three-judge appellate court panel disagreed, upholding a lower court finding that the utility is a “political subdivision of the state” that must comply with the law, according to a Jan. 3 ruling authored by Judge Lacey Stover Gard.
Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter President Sandy Bahr praised the decision, saying it affirmed what her organization has long argued.
“And it's great that the court has affirmed what is pretty clear in the law that this entity is a public entity, and the records should be available to the public,” Bahr said. “It will make it so much easier for us to know what they’re up to and to hold them accountable.”
In a statement, SRP said it is evaluating the ruling to determine its next steps.
“SRP continues to maintain it must keep certain information confidential to help ensure fair, competitive pricing for purchased power and other assets necessary to provide reliable and affordable power to its customers,” according to the statement, which also noted the utility voluntarily disclosed “a large amount of information” to Sierra Club related to the Coolidge gas plant project.
The Jan. 3 ruling doesn’t mean SRP has to turn over the documents in question just yet, though.
The appellate judges partially upheld a separate part of the lower court ruling that found SRP can keep certain documents confidential under a different law designed to protect power companies
That includes “records and proceedings relating to competitive activity, including trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, if disclosure of the information could give a material advantage to another entity,” according to the law.
However, the appeals court rejected a portion of the lower court ruling that extended that confidentiality to all of the documents sought by Sierra Club without actually examining whether or not those documents contained trade secrets.
“We further conclude that the court erred by interpreting [state law] to provide a blanket presumption of confidentiality for the records of public power entities. Instead, the statute protects only those records meeting its criteria, which is a fact-specific determination.
The appeals court sent the case back to the Maricopa County Superior Court and directed the trial judge to examine each of the documents in question to determine whether they are protected by the business confidentiality law.
Bahr, with the Sierra Club, said she is confident that review will result in the release of at least of the documents sought by her organization.
“We don't disagree that there might be some information that falls within those confidentiality provisions,” Bahr said.
“But to blanket say all of this was inappropriate, and what the court said is, ‘yeah, you have to actually look at that and determine what is and is not confidential,’” she added.
