XML 39 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.26.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Palo Verde Generating Station Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Disposal On December 19, 2012, APS, acting on behalf of itself and the participant owners of Palo Verde, filed a second breach of contract lawsuit against DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuit sought to recover damages incurred due to DOE’s breach of the Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High Level Radioactive Waste (“Standard Contract”) for failing to accept Palo Verde’s spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, pursuant to the terms of the Standard Contract and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On August 18, 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which required DOE to pay the Palo Verde owners for certain specified costs paid by Palo Verde during the period January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011. In addition, the settlement agreement provided APS with a method for submitting claims and getting recovery for costs incurred through December 31, 2016, which was extended to December 31, 2025. APS is currently in the process of pursuing an extension of the settlement to cover costs paid through December 31, 2028. APS has recovered costs paid from July 1, 2011, through October 31, 2025, for twelve claims pursuant to the terms of the August 15, 2014 settlement agreement. The DOE has approved and paid approximately $189.7 million for these claims (APS’s share is approximately $55.2 million). The amounts recovered were primarily recorded as adjustments to a regulatory liability and had no impact on reported net income. In accordance with the ACC’s decision from the 2017 rate case, this regulatory liability is being refunded to customers. Nuclear Insurance Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (“Price-Anderson Act”), which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. This insurance limit is subject to an adjustment every five years based upon the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. The most recent adjustment took effect on January 1, 2024. As of that date, in accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, the Palo Verde participants are insured against public liability for a nuclear incident up to approximately $16.3 billion per occurrence. Palo Verde maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $500 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining balance of approximately $15.8 billion of liability coverage is provided through a mandatory, industry-wide retrospective premium program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, APS could be responsible for retrospective premiums. The maximum retrospective premium per reactor under the program for each nuclear liability incident is approximately $165.9 million, subject to a maximum annual premium of approximately $24.7 million per incident. Based on APS’s ownership interest in the three Palo Verde units, APS’s maximum retrospective premium per incident for all three units is approximately $144.9 million, with a maximum annual retrospective premium of approximately $21.6 million. The Palo Verde participants maintain insurance for property damage to, and decontamination of, property at Palo Verde in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion. APS has also secured accidental outage insurance for a sudden and unforeseen accidental outage of any of the three units. The property damage, decontamination, and accidental outage insurance are provided by NEIL. APS is subject to retrospective premium adjustments under all NEIL policies if NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumul ated funds. Th e maximum amount APS could incur under the current NEIL policies totals approximately $24.9 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. Additionally, at the sole discretion of the NEIL Board of Directors, APS would be liable to provide approximately $68.9 million in deposit premium within 20 days of request as assurance to satisfy any site obligation of retrospective premium assessment. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions. Nuclear Wage Class Action Lawsuit On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country’s nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. We are unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Captive Insurance Cell Pinnacle West has established a captive insurance program to supplement commercial and mutual insurance coverage for certain risks. The Captive insures Pinnacle West and its subsidiaries for terrorism coverage, excess liability including certain wildfire coverage, excess property insurance, and excess employment practice liability. These coverages may be supplemented with commercial and mutual insurance coverage. The Captive policies exclude nuclear liability at Palo Verde. The Captive may hold investment assets in cash, cash equivalents, and equity and fixed income instruments, which in the event of an insured loss would be available to pay covered claims. In the event of an insured loss event, Pinnacle West may be required to provide additional funding to the Captive. The Captive is a VIE, and Pinnacle West is the primary beneficiary of the VIE and consolidates the assets and liabilities of the Captive. In addition to the policies obtained through the Captive, Pinnacle West also has commercial and mutual insurance policies purchased through third-party insurers that may provide coverage if a loss event occurs. See Note 9 for additional details. Fuel and Purchased Power Commitments and Purchase Obligations As of June 30, 2026, our fuel and purchased power and purchase obligation commitments have increased by $2.9 billion from the information provided in our 2025 Form 10-K, primarily due to gas tolling lease contracts. See Note 17. Other than the items described above, there have been no material changes, as of June 30, 2026, outside the normal course of business in contractual obligations from the information provided in our 2025 Form 10-K. See Note 6 for discussion regarding changes in our short-term and long-term debt obligations. Superfund and Other Related Matters CERCLA establishes liability for the cleanup of hazardous substances found contaminating the soil, water or air. Those who released, generated, transported to, or disposed of hazardous substances at a contaminated site are among the parties who are potentially responsible (each a “PRP”). PRPs may be strictly, jointly, and severally liable for clean-up. On September 3, 2003, EPA advised APS that EPA considers APS to be a PRP in the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site, OU3, in Phoenix, Arizona. APS has facilities that are within this Superfund site. APS and Pinnacle West have agreed with EPA to perform certain investigative activities of the APS facilities within OU3. In addition, on September 23, 2009, APS agreed with EPA and one other PRP to voluntarily assist with the funding and man agement of the site-wide groundwater RI/FS. The RI/FS for OU3 was finalized and submitted to EPA at the end of 2022. EPA notified APS that the remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) was approved on September 11, 2024. On September 25, 2025, EPA executed a final ROD adopting the OU3 remedies proposed in the approved RI/FS OU3. APS’s expenditures related to this investigation and study are approximately $3 million. APS anticipates it may incur additional expenditures in the future, but because the final costs associated with remediation requirements set forth in the RI/FS and ROD are not yet finalized, at the present time expenditures related to this matter cannot be reasonably estimated; however, APS does not expect the outcome to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In connection with APS’s status as a PRP for OU3, since 2013 APS and at least two dozen other parties have been defendants in various CERCLA lawsuits stemming from allegations that contamination from OU3 and elsewhere has impacted groundwater wells operated by the Roosevelt Irrigation District. At this time, only one active lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, which concerns $8.3 million in remediation legal expenses. APS is unable to predict the outcome of any further litigation related to this claim or APS’s share of liability related to that claim; however, APS does not expect the outcome to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On February 28, 2022, EPA provided APS with a request for information under CERCLA related to the Ocotillo site located in Tempe, Arizona. In particular, EPA seeks information from APS regarding APS’s use, storage, and disposal of substances containing PFAS at the Ocotillo site in order to aid EPA’s investigation into actual or threatened releases of PFAS into groundwater within the South Indian Bend Wash Superfund site. The South Indian Bend Wash Superfund site includes the Ocotillo site. APS filed its response to this information request on April 29, 2022. On January 17, 2023, EPA contacted APS to inform APS that it would be commencing on-site investigations within the South Indian Bend Wash site, including Ocotillo, and performing a remedial investigation and feasibility study related to potential PFAS impacts to groundwater over the next two to three years. APS estimates that its costs to oversee and participate in the remedial investigation work will be approximately $1.7 million. At the present time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter, and any further expenditures related to necessary remediation, if any, or further investigations cannot be reasonably estimated. Environmental Matters APS is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations affecting many aspects of its present and future operations, including air emissions of both conventional pollutants and GHG, water quality, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and CCRs. These laws and regulations can change from time to time, imposing new obligations on APS resulting in increased capital, operating, and other costs. Associated capital expenditures or operating costs could be material. APS intends to seek recovery of any such environmental compliance costs through our rates but cannot predict whether it will obtain such recovery. The following proposed and final rules could involve material compliance costs to APS. Coal Combustion Waste On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its final regulations governing the handling and disposal of CCRs, such as fly ash and bottom ash. The rule regulates CCR as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and establishes national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments and all lateral expansions. These criteria include standards governing location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule generally requires any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, and further requires the closure of any CCR landfill or surface impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or structural integrity. Such closure requirements are deemed “forced closure” or “closure for cause” of unlined surface impoundments and are the subject of the regulatory and judicial activities described below. Since these regulations were finalized, EPA has taken steps to substantially modify the federal rules governing CCR disposal. While certain changes have been prompted by utility industry petitions, others have resulted from judicial review, court-approved settlements with environmental groups, and statutory changes to RCRA. The following lists the pending regulatory changes that, if finalized, could have a material impact as to how APS manages CCR at its coal-fired power plants: •Following the passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016, EPA possesses authority to either authorize states to develop their own permit programs for CCR management or issue federal permits governing CCR disposal both in states without their own permit programs and on tribal lands. ADEQ has taken steps to develop a CCR permitting program and proposed state regulations governing CCR permitting in the summer of 2024. On April 1, 2025, the Arizona Governor’s Regulatory Review Council approved ADEQ’s proposed rulemaking governing CCR permitting. ADEQ will submit an approval package to EPA, which will have to approve the entire state program before it is operational. It remains unclear when EPA would approve that permitting program pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. On December 19, 2019, EPA proposed its own set of regulations governing the issuance of CCR management permits, which would impact facilities like Four Corners located on the Navajo Nation. The proposal remains pending. •On March 1, 2018, as a result of a settlement with certain environmental groups, EPA proposed adding boron to the list of constituents that trigger corrective action requirements to remediate groundwater impacted by CCR disposal activities. Apart from a subsequent proposal issued on August 14, 2019 to add a specific health-based groundwater protection standard for boron, EPA has yet to take action on this proposal. We cannot predict the outcome of these regulatory proceedings or when EPA will take final action on those matters that are still pending. Depending on the eventual outcome, the costs associated with APS’s management of CCR could materially increase, which could affect our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On April 25, 2024, EPA took final action on a proposal to expand the scope of federal CCR regulations to address the impacts from historical CCR disposal activities that would have ceased prior to 2015. This new class of CCRMUs, which contain at least 1,000 tons of CCR, broadly encompasses any location at an operating coal-fired power plant where CCRs would have been placed on land. This would include not only historically closed landfills and surface impoundments but also prior applications of CCR beneficial use (with exceptions for historical roadbed and embankment applications). Existing CCR regulatory requirements for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure, post-closure care, and other requirements will be imposed on such CCRMUs. Under EPA’s legacy 2024 CCRMU rule, initial CCRMU site surveys were originally due to be completed by February 2026 and final site investigation reports by February 2027. On February 10, 2026, EPA published a final rule extending multiple compliance deadlines applicable to CCRMUs established under the prior rule. The final rule extends the deadline for completing Parts One and Two of Facility Evaluation Reports by one year to February 2027 and February 2028, respectively. EPA also extended associated compliance deadlines for groundwater monitoring and certain closure requirements. Subsequently, on April 9, 2026, EPA proposed a new regulation that contemplates a range of revisions to the 2024 legacy CCRMU rule, including full elimination of the 2024 standards among other alterations. EPA also proposes to expand the categories of activities that meet the definition of “beneficial use” of CCR, which is exempt from most federal CCR regulatory restrictions. In addition, EPA is proposing to authorize certain risk-based compliance alternatives for facilities subject to state or federal CCR permitting, which would allow adjustments to default standards for groundwater monitoring, groundwater protection standards, closure and post-closure care requirements, and additional measures concerning beneficial use. APS is still in the process of evaluating the impacts of these CCRMU regulations on its business and cannot predict the outcome of any future rulemaking or other regulatory proceedings aimed at changing the current EPA CCRMU rules. Based on the information available to APS at this time, APS cannot reasonably estimate the cost of the entire CCRMU asset retirement obligation. Depending on the outcome of the pending legacy 2024 CCRMU rule amendments and APS’s evaluations, the costs associated with APS’s management of CCR could materially increase, which could affect our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On May 28, 2026, EPA published notice reopening the comment period on its proposed rule to establish a federal permit program for the disposal of CCR (“2020 Proposed Federal CCR Permit Program Rule”). Under this proposal, EPA would directly issue permits for CCR units located in Indian Country and in states that do not have EPA-approved CCR permitting programs. EPA is soliciting comments on the estimated time needed to compile materials for site specific issues deferred to permitting; whether a six-month deadline after publication of the final permitting rule in the Federal Register is sufficient for the first tier of permit applications; and how best to implement electronic permitting for both EPA‑issued CCR permits and states that are implementing the CCR permitting program in lieu of EPA. APS currently disposes of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners. The Navajo Plant disposed of CCR only in a dry landfill storage area. Cholla disposed of CCR in ash ponds and dry storage areas prior to ceasing coal-fired operations. Additionally, the CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. As of October 2018, APS has completed the statistical analyses for its CCR disposal units that triggered assessment monitoring. APS determined that several of its CCR disposal units at Cholla and Four Corners will need to undergo corrective action. In addition, under the current regulations, all such dispo sal units must have ceased operating and initiated closure as of April 11, 2021 (except for those disposal units at Cholla that had been subject to alternative closure, which initiated closure work on June 30, 2025). APS completed the assessments of corrective measures on June 14, 2019; however, additional investigations and engineering analyses that will support the remedy selection are still underway. In addition, APS has also solicited input from the public and hosted public hearings as part of this process. APS’s estimates for its share of corrective action and monitoring costs at Four Corners and Cholla are captured within the AROs and removal costs within Regulatory Liabilities. As APS continues to implement the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process, the current cost estimates may change. Given uncertainties that may exist until we have fully completed the corrective action assessment and final remedy selection process, we cannot predict any ultimate impacts to APS; however, at this time APS does not believe that any potential changes to the cost estimate from the CCR rule’s corrective action assessment process for Four Corners or Cholla would have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. EPA Power Plant Carbon Regulations EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from electric utility power plants has proceeded in fits and starts over most of the last decade. Starting on August 3, 2015, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan, which was the agency’s first effort at such regulation through system-wide generation dispatch shifting. Those regulations were subsequently repealed by EPA on June 19, 2019 and replaced by the Affordable Clean Energy regulations, which were a far narrower set of rules. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the Affordable Clean Energy regulations on January 19, 2021, and ordered a remand for EPA to develop replacement regulations consistent with the original 2015 Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision on June 30, 2022, holding that the Clean Power Plan exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. In the latest final regulations governing power plant carbon dioxide emissions, released April 25, 2024, EPA issued emission standards and guidelines for various subcategories of new and existing power plants. Unlike EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulations from 2015, which took a broad, system-wide approach to regulating carbon emissions from electric utility fossil-fuel burning power plants, these new federal regulations are limited to measures that can be installed at individual power plants to limit planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions. Under current rules, carbon emission performance standards apply based on the annual capacity factors for new natural gas-fired combustion turbine power plants. The highest utilization combustion turbines must be retrofitted for CCS by 2032. Intermediate or low-load natural gas fired combustion turbines with 40% or less capacity factors do not require add-on pollution controls. Instead, natural gas-fired combustion turbines with capacity factors of up to 20% are effectively unregulated, while turbines with capacity factors over 20% and up to 40% are subject to carbon dioxide emission rate limitations. For coal-fired power plants, instead of imposing regulations based on capacity and utilization, EPA finalized subcategories based on planned retirement dates. Facilities retiring before 2032 are effectively exempt from regulation; those that retire between 2032 and 2038 must co-fire with natural gas starting in 2030; and those that retire in 2039 or later must install CCS controls by 2032. As of May 10, 2024, several states, electric utility companies, affiliated trade associations, and other entities filed petitions for review of these regulations in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. APS is participating in that litigation as part of an ad hoc coalition of electric utility companies, independent power producers, and trade groups, called Electric Generators for a Sensible Transition. On February 5, 2025, EPA filed an unopposed motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hold the GHG regulations case in abeyance for 60 days and withhold issuing an opinion while the new leadership at EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed. On February 19, 2025, the Court granted EPA’s motion. EPA subsequently filed a second motion asking the Court to keep the GHG regulations case in abeyance for an indefinite period of time given EPA’s anticipated reconsideration of the rules, with EPA providing status reports every 90 days. On April 25, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion for an indefinite abeyance. We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation challenging EPA’s current carbon emission standards for power plants. If the current regulations were to remain in effect, they would likely lead to a material increase in APS’s costs to build, operate, and maintain new, frequently operated gas-fired power plants. The regulatory deadlines in 2032 by which new, frequently operated gas-fired power plants must install CCS and achieve 90% capture efficiency may not be feasible. Future resource plans and procurement efforts implicating the development of such new generation remain pending and, as such, at this time APS is not able to quantify the financial impact associated with EPA’s existing GHG regulations for power plants. On June 11, 2025, EPA put forth a proposed rule with two scenarios for repealing the GHG regulations finalized in 2024. EPA’s primary proposal entails a full repeal of the GHG regulations based on a finding that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not present a “significant contribution” to dangerous air pollution, thereby eliminating the 2024 GHG power plant regulations in their entirety. Under EPA’s alternative proposal, only certain portions of the 2024 GHG regulations would be repealed based on a finding that they are unlawful, including the emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units (coal-fired power plants), the CCS-based standards for coal-fired steam generating units undertaking a large modification, and the CCS-based standards for new base-load stationary combustion turbines (i.e., those operating at greater than 40% annual capacity factors). This targeted approach would eliminate the CCS and natural gas co-firing technology-based pollution limits that would apply to both existing coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired combustion turbine power plants. However, efficiency-based standards for new combustion turbines would remain in place under this alternative proposal. EPA’s proposed rule to repeal the 2024 GHG regulations was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2025. Comments were due by August 7, 2025. We cannot predict the outcome of future rulemaking or other regulatory proceedings aimed at changing or eliminating the current EPA emission standards for power plants. On February 18, 2026, EPA’s repeal of the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” was finalized and published in the Federal Register. This action is expected to provide legal and regulatory support for EPA’s pending proposals seeking to eliminate or significantly limit the scope of the current EPA carbon emission standards and guidelines for new and existing power plants. The repeal of the “Endangerment Finding” is subject to judicial review, with lawsuits being filed on February 18, 2026 in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to challenge the repeal. We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation. Effluent Limitation Guidelines EPA published ELG on October 13, 2020, and, based off those guidelines, APS completed a NPDES permit modification for Four Corners on December 1, 2023. The ELG standards finalized in October 2020 relaxed the “zero discharge” standard for bottom ash transport waters EPA finalized in September 2015. However, on April 25, 2024, EPA finalized new ELG regulations that once again require “zero discharge” standards for flows of bottom ash transport water at power plants like Four Corners (“2024 ELG Rule”). For power plants that permanently cease operations by December 31, 2034, such facilities can continue to comply with the 2020 ELG standards. APS is currently evaluating its compliance options for Four Corners based on the ELG regulations finalized in April 2024 and is assessing what impacts the new standards will have on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On December 31, 2025, EPA published a final rule extending by five years the compliance deadlines for achieving the 2024 zero-discharge standards for bottom ash transport wastewater from year-end 2029 to year-end 2034, among other changes to the 2024 rulemaking. EPA is also collecting additional information on zero-discharge technologies, including cost and performance data, to inform future potential rulemakings to modify or relax the current zero-discharge ELG standards. We cannot predict the outcome of any future rulemaking or other regulatory proceedings aimed at modifying the current ELG standards. On May 18, 2026, EPA published a proposed rule to revise the 2024 ELG Rule limits and standards for unmanaged combustion residual leachate (“CRL”), or water leaking from landfills or surface impoundments that contains coal combustion residuals. The proposal would introduce flexible, site-specific approaches for managing unmanaged CRL at steam electric power plants, such as Four Corners, rather than applying a strict, national zero-discharge framework across the board as implemented under the 2024 ELG Rule. On May 22, 2026, a coalition of Environmental NGOs, including Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the EPA’s final action. APS will continue to monitor this proceeding. At this time, APS is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation. EPA Good Neighbor Proposal for Arizona On March 15, 2023, EPA issued its final Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states in order to ensure that the cross-state transport of ozone forming emissions does not interfere with downwind state compliance with the NAAQS. Thermal power plant emission limitations are a key aspect of these regulations, which involve emission allowance trading for NOx emissions. While Arizona was not among the 23 states subject to EPA’s March 2023 final action, EPA announced on January 23, 2024, that it was proposing to add Arizona and New Mexico (along with two other additional states) to EPA’s NOx emission allowance trading program finalized last year. That proposal involves adding these states to the Good Neighbor Plan and disapproving the corresponding provisions of each state’s State Implementation Plan. Because APS operates thermal power plants within Arizona and those portions of the Navajo Nation within New Mexico, APS’s power plants would be subject to EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan upon finalization of this proposal. EPA’s final Good Neighbor Plan is subject to ongoing judicial review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a motion to stay the effectiveness of EPA’s final Good Neighbor Plan pending the resolution of the litigation. As such, APS will not be impacted by the Good Neighbor Plan until the outcome of this litigation is finalized. In addition, on December 19, 2024, EPA announced that it was withdrawing its proposal to add Arizona (along with other western states) to the federal Good Neighbor Plan. On March 12, 2025, EPA announced its intention to reconsider the Good Neighbor Plan and on January 30, 2026, EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would approve Arizona’s and New Mexico’s State Implementation Plans concerning the cross-state transport of ozone forming emissions. Such approval, if finalized as proposed, would remove APS’s operations in Arizona and New Mexico from the scope of future efforts to regulate such emissions. APS cannot predict the outcome of this pending regulatory action nor when EPA may take final action on this proposal. If finalized as proposed, this action would then be subject to judicial review and APS cannot predict the outcome of such litigation, if any arises. In addition, APS cannot predict the outcome of any future EPA efforts to add Arizona or New Mexico to a future federal program addressing the cross-state transport of ozone-forming emissions. Should a federal program like the Good Neighbor Plan ultimately be imposed on APS and its operations in Arizona and New Mexico, it would have material impact on both the costs to operate current APS power plants and APS’s ability to develop new thermal generation to serve load. At this time, APS cannot predict the impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Revised Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (“MATS”) Proposal On February 20, 2026, EPA issued a final rule repealing the 2024 revisions to MATS regulations governing emissions of toxic air pollution from existing coal-fired power plants. The repeal of the 2024 amendment means that MATS regulations revert to the pre-existing framework for MATS emission limits established in 2012. As a result, the 2024 revisions that would have increased the stringency of filterable particulate matter limits used to demonstrate compliance with MATS and required the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems to ensure compliance (as opposed to periodic performance testing) will not take effect for existing coal-fired power plants, such as Four Corners. Other environmental rules that could involve material compliance costs include those related to effluent limitations, the ozone national ambient air quality standard and other rules or matters involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, RCRA, Superfund, the Navajo Nation, and water supplies for our power plants. The financial impact of complying with current and future environmental rules could jeopardize the economic viability of APS’s fossil-fuel powered plants or the willingness or ability of power plant participants to fund any required equipment upgrades or continue their participation in these plants. The economics of continuing to own certain resources, particularly our coal plants, may deteriorate, warranting early retirement of those plants, which may result in asset impairments. APS would seek recovery in rates for the book value of an y remaining investments in the plants, as well as other costs related to early retirement, but cannot predict whether it would obtain such recovery. Financial Assurances In the normal course of business, we obtain standby letters of credit and surety bonds from financial institutions and other third parties. These instruments guarantee our own future performance and provide third parties with financial and performance assurance in the event we do not perform. These instruments support commodity contract collateral obligations and other transactions. As of June 30, 2026, standby letters of credit totaled approximately $30.4 million and will expire through 2027, and surety bonds totaled approximately $26.1 million and will expire through 2028. The underlying liabilities insured by these instruments are reflected on our balance sheets, where applicable. Therefore, no additional liability is reflected for the letters of credit and surety bonds themselves. We enter into agreements that include indemnification provisions relating to liabilities arising from or related to certain of our agreements. Most significantly, APS has agreed to indemnify the equity participants and other parties in the remaining Palo Verde sale leaseback transaction with respect to certain tax matters. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the indemnification provisions and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnification provisions cannot be reasonably estimated. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the specific indemnities, we do not believe that any material loss related to such indemnification provisions is likely. Pinnacle West has issued parental guarantees and has provided indemnification under certain surety bonds for APS which were not material as of June 30, 2026. In connection with the sale of Pinnacle West’s wholly-owned subsidiary, 4C Acquisition, LLC’s 7% interest in Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners to NTEC, Pinnacle West guaranteed certain obligations that NTEC has to the other owners of Four Corners. Pinnacle West has not needed to perform under this guarantee. A maximum obligation is not explicitly stated in the guarantee and, therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under such guarantee cannot be reasonably estimated; however, we consider the fair value of this guarantee, including expected credit losses, to be immaterial. In connection with PNW Power’s investments in minority ownership positions in the Clear Creek wind farm in Missouri and Nobles 2 wind farm in Minnesota, Pinnacle West has guaranteed the obligations of PNW Power to make PTC funding payments to borrowers of the projects (the “PTC Guarantees”). The amounts guaranteed by Pinnacle West are reduced as payments are made under the respective guarantee agreements. As of June 30, 2026, there is approximately $24.6 million remaining relating to these PTC Guarantees that are expected to terminate by 2031. Pinnacle West issued various performance guarantees in connection with a joint venture project, the Kūpono Solar Project, by BCE, a former subsidiary of Pinnacle West. BCE was sold to Ameresco in 2024 (the “BCE Sale”). Subsequent to the BCE Sale, Pinnacle West continues to maintain these Kūpono Solar Project investment financing guarantees and is exposed to losses relating to these guarantees upon the occurrence of certain events that we consider to be remote. Under the Kūpono Solar Project sale-leaseback financing, Pinnacle West has committed to certain performance guarantees that may apply upon the occurrence of specified events, such as uninsured loss events. Ameresco, the owner of the Kūpono Solar Project, has agreed to make efforts to refinance the project and eliminate these guarantees prior to 2030. Pinnacle West has not needed to perform under these guarantees. Maximum obligations are not explicitly stated in the guarantees and cannot be reasonably estimated. Ameresco is obligated to reimburse Pinnacle West for any payments made by Pinnacle West under such guarantees. We consider the fair value of these guarantees, including expected credit losses, to be immaterial.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration