19 ~~---, In-th_e_ir_m_o_s_t_ag-gr-es-s-iv_e_d-is-p-la_y_o_f_p_o,litical gamesmanship to date, TASC and its. R c c E I \ / F f")

Transcription

1 I il 1 I Thomas A. Loquvam.,. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation 00 North th Street, MS 869 /, Phoenix, Arizona 800 II Tel: (60) 0-60 Fax: (60) for Arizona Public Service Company 7 1 R c c E I \ / F f") L. I v ~:I. ZO 1 S[P P : Lt ~~~z co;~p cm~r-11 : OOC i~et cmn i< BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION 9 1 II 10 1 COMMISSIONERS 11 SUSAN BITTER SMITH, Chairman BOB STUMP 1 BOB BURNS DOUG LITTLE 1 TOM FORESE 1 1. I! 1 ~,~ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION DOCKET NO. E-01A-1-08 I OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE 16 COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF NET ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ~~~ METERING COST SHIFT SOLUTION. COMPANY'S MOTION TO AMEND 17 1 INTERLOCUTORY ORDER i 18 I 19 ~~---, In-th_e_ir_m_o_s_t_ag-gr-es-s-iv_e_d-is-p-la_y_o_f_p_o,litical gamesmanship to date, TASC and its 'I 0 allies have shown their true colors. Instead of taking the opportunity to prove their 1 claims through sworn testimony, they have retreated to procedural tactics and character attacks designed to discredit elected officials and undermine the integrity of the Arizona Corporation Commission. The obvious goal is to paralyze the Commission. The rooftop \ solar leasing companies do not want to have a substantive discussion, especially not in a 1 hearing where their representatives will be on the record and subject to cross 1 examination. They can only continue to profit from artificial subsidies as long as they 11.

2 1 can continue to disrupt the regulatory process and prevent the Commission from considering the substance of rate design. APS' s Motion to Reset created an opportunity for the Commission to make incremental progress on addressing the cost shift between distributed generation (DG) and non-dg customers in two separate ways. First, APS requested that the Commission 6 reset the Grid Access Charge to $/kw, an amount that the Commission had previously 7 found to be reasonable in Decision No. 70. Resetting the Grid Access Charge to 8 $/kw now would improve the price signal sent to customers who install DG and 9 provide the Commission with more flexibility in incrementally addressing the issue 10 through rate design in APS's next rate case. It would also be entirely revenue-neutral, as 11 every dime collected would be credited to the LFCR, conclusively rendering moot any 1 and all fair value concerns associated with the Grid Access Charge. 1 Second, APS's Motion to Reset provided a venue for the Commission and all 1 interested stakeholders to continue discussing how to advance Arizona's energy policy. 1 In 01, the Commission played a significant leadership role in beginning the discussion 16 of how to fairly address the subsidies in rate design. Commissions throughout the 17 country almost immediately followed suit, initiating their own discussions and inquiries. 18 APS' s Motion to Reset is part of the next phase of this discussion in Arizona, a phase 19 designed to elicit evidence and sworn testimony supporting the parties' various 0 positions. 1 In August, the Commission determined that evidence would assist its review of APS' s Motion, and ordered that an evidentiary hearing proceed. 1 And in ordering a hearing, the Commission declined to accept its prior findings that the installation of DG shifts costs to non-dg customers at face value? Instead, the Commission ordered that APS prove once again that (i) the installation of DG causes the under recovery of fixed grid costs; and (ii) those unrecovered fixed grid costs are shifted to customers without 1 See Decision No. 71. See Decision No. 70 at P

3 1 DG. The Commission ordered that a hearing should commence pending further definition of scope, and that no issue was prejudged. Faced with the prospect of proving their rhetoric with evidence, TASC and its allies have sought rehearing. The recent rehearing requests are built on allegations about rumor and Facebook posts; reflect a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the Grid 6 Access Charge and APS' s LFCR Adjustor; and contort the law beyond recognition in an 7 attempt to achieve political objectives. These, along with several other serious 8 substantive flaws, are ultimately rendered moot by the filings' procedural defects. 9 Decision No. 71 was an interlocutory order and resolved no substantive rights. 10 Therefore, requests for rehearing of that order cannot be granted as a matter of law. 11 Instead of taking the opportunity to substantiate their positions with evidence and sworn 1 testimony, these parties filed patently improper requests for rehearing in a desperate 1 attempt to avoid addressing the issues. In fact, it appears that TASC regularly uses these 1 tactics to undermine serious policy discussions throughout the country, including New 1 Mexico, Hawaii, Kansas, California, Nevada, and Wisconsin. 16 APS is committed to serious discussions that further good public policy for the 17 benefit of all of its customers. The Commission has made clear its own interest in these 18 discussions, and has ordered that the parties submit real data and sworn testimony to 19 support the claims. In Decision No. 71, the Commission ordered that APS file Cost 0 of Service information as part of the hearing process. APS is prepared to submit this 1 information and the results will show that customers will experience real consequences Decision No. 71 at P 16. See A.R.S. 0-(A) ("After any final order or decision is made by the commission, any party to the action... may apply for a rehearing... "). Because Decision No. 71 decided no substantive rights, and only authorized a hearing, the rehearing requests were improper and cannot be granted. See, e.g., Industrial Comm'n v. Superior Court, Ariz. App. 100, 10, P.d 7, 79 (1967) ("An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory non-appealable order... ");see also A.R.S See, e.g., Motion for the Disqualification of Comisisoner (sic) Ellen Nowak of the Alliance for Solar Choice, Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company And Wisconsin Gas, LLC, both d/b/a We Energies, For Authority to Adjust Electric, Natural Gas, and Steam Rates, Docket No. -UR-107 (December 1, 01). - -

4 1 if the cost shift is not fairly and sustainably addressed. Delay only deepens the magnitude of the problem, and meaningful progress should be made promptly. In an effort to continue making such meaningful progress, and if it would be helpful to the Commission, APS recommends that the Commission order a more narrow hearing than contemplated in Decision No. 71. This modified hearing would address 6 and culminate in findings about (i) the cost to serve APS's residential customers with 7 and without solar; and (ii) how those costs are collected under APS's current rate design. 8 It should address cost of service issues only, and not address other values of solar. The 9 value of solar is a means to guide resource planning, and should be addressed in 10 separate, but related dockets. If a hearing about these issues can be promptly scheduled, 11 and the facts found in this hearing be used to inform APS' s 016 general rate case, APS 1 would forgo its request to reset the Grid Access Charge. In other words, this proceeding 1 would transition into a hearing with the goal of establishing important policy findings 1 that guide subsequent APS proceedings before the Commission. 1 APS offers this alternative to the Commission so that progress can continue to be 16 made on these critical policies despite efforts by T ASC and others to confuse, distract 17 and delay. A meaningful hearing, even if that hearing does not culminate in a reset of the 18 Grid Access Charge, is an important step forward. Accordingly, APS requests that the 19 Commission modify Decision No. 71 pursuant to A.R.S. 0- for the limited 0 purpose of removing any consideration of resetting the Grid Access Charge. Then, the 1 hearing in this matter can proceed with an evaluation of critical policy issues that will inform future APS proceedings. In order to effectively use any findings that emerge from this proceeding, APS urges that this inquiry conclude with a Commission decision on the findings by March 1,

5 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this th day of September 01. ORIGINAL and thirteen (1) copies of the foregoing filed this th day of September 01, with: By: {i] J.:JQ.~ ~(J\_ Thomas A. Loquvam for Arizona Public Service Company 9 Docket Control ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION West Washington Street 11 Phoenix, Arizona COPY of the foregoing mailed/delivered this th day of September 01 to: Janice Alward Legal Division Arizona Corporation Commission 100 W. Washington Thomas Broderick Utilities Division Arizona Corporation Commission 100 W. Washington Bradley Carroll Tucson Electric Power Company 88 East Broadway Blvd. Mail Stop HQE910 P.O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 870 David Berry Western Resource Advocates P.O. Box 106 Scottsdale, AZ David Brooks for Sunrun, Inc., William Mundell and Renz Jennings Brooks and Affiliates, PLC 11 North Greenfield Road, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 80 Giancarlo Estrada Kamper, Estrada and Simmons, LLP 00 N. Third St., Suite 770 Phoenix, AZ

6 1 Kevin Fox Albert Gervenack Keyes, Fox & Wiedman, LLP Homeowner in Sun City West 6 1th Street, Suite W. Buttonwood Drive Oakland, CA 961 Sun City West, AZ 87 Todd Glass Meghan Grabel Osborn Maledon, P.A. Wilson, Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 99 North Central Avenue Suite PC Fifth Ave., Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ Seattle, W A Hugh Hallman W.R. Hansen 8 for Sunrun, Inc., William President of PORA Mundell and Renz Jennings 181 W. Camino Del Sod 9 Hallman & Affiliates, P.C. Sun City West, AZ North Campo Alegre Road, 10 Suite 100 Tempe, AZ Garry Hays Timothy Hogan 1 for AZ Solar Deployment Alliance Arizona Center for Law in the Public 1 Law Offices of Garry D. Hays, PC Interest 170 E. Highland Ave, Suite 0 0 E. McDowell Road, Suite 1 1 Phoenix, AZ 8016 Phoenix, AZ Mark Holohan Patty Ihle Chairman 0 E. Cedar Mill Road 16 AriSEIA Star Valley, AZ 81 1 W. Lone Cactus Drive, Suite 17 Phoenix, AZ Lewis Levenson Tim Lindl 108 E Cedar Lane 19 Payson, AZ 81 Keyes, Fox & Wiedman LLP 6 1th Street, Suite 10 0 Oakland, CA Craig Marks Kristin Mayes 106 N. Tatum Blvd. The Kris Mayes Law Firm Suite N. rd Street, Suite 00 Phoenix, AZ 80 Phoenix, AZ

7 Dwight Nodes Administrative Law Judge Arizona Corporation Commission 100 W. Washington Greg Patterson Munger Chadwick 916 West Adams Suite Patrick Quinn Arizona Utility Ratepayer Alliance 1 E. Cholla St. Scottsdale, Arizona 8 Erica Schroeder Keyes, Fox & Wiedman, LLP 6 1th Street, Suite 10 Oakland, CA 961 John Wallace Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative 10 S. Priest Drive Tempe, AZ 8 Michael Patten SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 00 E. Van Buren Street, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ Daniel Pozefsky Chief Counsel RUCO 1110 W. Washington, Suite 0 Court Rich Rose Law Group, P.C. 71 East Stetson Drive, Suite 00 Scottsdale, AZ 81 Anne Smart Alliance for Solar Choice Fremont Street, nd Floor San Francisco, CA 910 Gary Y aquinto President & CEO Arizona Investment Council 100 N. Central Avenue, Suite 10 Phoenix, AZ