The Latest
8/18/26 Lawsuit Filed
On August 18, 2026, a lawsuit was filed against the City of Tucson for its approval of the Vine Substation permit without considering its transmission lines, unlike any other recent substation application by TEP. At a minimum, transmission lines necessarily exist on the substation parcel itself.
You can read the complaint here:
In our view, the City allowed TEP to exclude the transmission lines to improperly assist it in avoiding plan requirements to underground. At a minimum, this is erroneous, especially given that the prior 2021 denial of the very same Vine Substation permit was based entirely on the location of the transmission lines. For the City to now completely flip positions and say transmission lines cannot be considered or reviewed in a substation permit, when all prior substation permits did so, is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. The law must be interpreted consistently, even when TEP dislikes it.
Notably, this is the only substation permit that was not reviewed by an independent attorney but, rather, a non-attorney that relied on the City attorney's office for legal advice.
Unfortunately, TEP has already spent more money on delays and fights than what its original estimate said undergrounding the few miles required by plans and ordinances would have cost. This is why we are fighting against TEP’s ability to recover wasteful costs in the TEP rate case.
If you live along the route, please review and fill out this form:
We anticipate further legal action in the coming months and years.
7/24/26 Brief Filed in TEP Rate Case
On July 24, 2026, we filed our Closing Brief in the TEP rate case.
As to undergrounding, we argue TEP should not be allowed to recover costs associated with delays from its preference for overhead lines contrary to local law. TEP has already spent more money fighting plans and ordinances than its original estimates said following those plans and ordinances would have cost. Wasteful and unnecessary conflict should not be a recoverable expense and TEP should account for such costs when weighing options.
Contribute to the cause:
To donate by Paypal, click here.
To donate by Venmo, send donations to @undergroundarizona.
To donate by Zelle, send donations to daniel@undergroundarizona.org.
To order signs, email info@undergroundarizona.org.
The time to fight for the future of Tucson and Arizona is now!
If ordinances and plans cannot be enforced in the city center, they cannot be enforced anywhere. Utilities cannot be above the law.
Appendix A: Useful Sworn Testimony before the ACC
The following is testimony under oath by various parties to the project taken from the Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC”) line siting hearing from July 8th to the 19th, 2024 and available on ACC Docket L-00000C-24-0118-00232. You may find this testimony useful in your comments. You can access the full transcripts here.
- TEP testified that it is possible to underground its transmission lines.
- And again here (pg. 1813):
- TEP testified that it avoided certain routes because high-density infill development had already occurred (p. 760):
- TEP testified that buildings have to be set back at least 25 feet from its transmission lines—blowout of 10+ feet plus buffer of 15 feet—due to code requirements (p. 764):
- UMC Banner testified that transmission lines interfere with investment (p. 1254):
- UMC Banner testified that it expects the city to enforce ordinances and plans that protect views. (p. 1321):
- TEP testified that transmission lines interfere with communications signals (p. 584):
- TEP testified that there are no existing transmission lines near the University of Arizona (p. 747):
- The City pointed out that TEP has a history of leaving topped poles in place for joint use attachers (p. 2192):
Meghan Grabel (TEP): We do not contest that the line can be constructed below ground. It is physically possible to do so.
Roi Lusk (City of Tucson): So, and I don’t think anybody has testified that you can’t [underground] physically or technologically. Is that correct?
Mr. Bryner (TEP): Correct.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Would you say this is the most rapidly densifying area in your service area?
Clark Bryner (TEP): I think the only thing I could say is it's a dense area and yes, it's getting more dense.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Okay. So in the Route C simulation, Larry, you said, "They have to avoid the east Speedway area because of tall buildings on both sides of the street.” So I guess my question for either of you is how does a transmission line affect high-density infill development?
Larry Robinson (TEP): Again, according to National Electric Safety Code requirements, we have to maintain certain separations between structures, buildings, signs, lights, traffic signals and things like that; right? So if the area is already occupied by some of those facilities that we can’t maintain separation from, we do have options; right? We could buy the building and tear down the building or do something like that.
Clark Bryner (TEP): So the blowout is the sag in the conductor.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Right.
Larry Robinson (TEP): So in [UMC Banner’s] counter she asked what that distance was and what we were looking for was 15 to 16 feet on the private easement. That's to account for that blowout and the NESC code requirements.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): So 15 to 16 feet is a fair assumption?
Larry Robinson (TEP): That's correct. From property line, and also from the conductor blown out.
Michele De Blasi (UMC Banner): And so if you're in the building, as opposed to a homeowner who this line would be above their home and not in eyesight, would this line be directly at eye level for someone standing in the building?
Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): It would be eye level for the majority of our floors in our patient tower.
Michele De Blasi (UMC Banner): And would this interfere with the whole purpose of the amount of investment in your patient areas and your towers?
Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): Yes. It would.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Generally speaking, do you expect the City to enforce its ordinances and plans that protect views?
Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): Yes, I would.
Clark Bryner (TEP): So communications interference, that's one of the factors that is in the statute required to be looked at and factored into the decision of the Committee.
So some communication lines—and I'm not a communications expert, so I'm going to translate it to my understanding. But some communications are point-to-point, and especially microwave communications have a very specific, small path where that communication signal travels through, and anything that breaks that path can make that obsolete.
And so it's a real thing that we need to watch out for if we break that specific path. And then, as we all know, if you drive under a high voltage line, if you've got the radio going, a lot of times you'll get nothing but static for a minute, so there are other communication factors as well.
Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): But generally speaking around the University of Arizona there are no transmission lines?
Clark Bryner (TEP): No transmission lines; correct.
Roi Lusk (City of Tucson): Well, Mr. Chair, I was actually going to ask for some clarification on that because, as we saw during the tour, there are multiple poles in the right-of-way that are what are called topped poles where TEP had poles in the right-of-way. They had attachers. And then through their agreements with their attachers they removed their infrastructure from the poles but then left the poles. So that's what I think might be the concern for the community.