Sierra Club, the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, Western Grid Group, Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and Western Resource Advocates (collectively, the “Joint Signatories”) provide the following comments regarding Staff’s memorandum, five-year report, and proposed order in Docket No. AUD-00000A-23-0142.
 
I.          BACKGROUND
 
On May 26, 2023, the Utilities Division issued a memorandum opening this docket to review the following Commission rules as part of the Commission’s 5-year review procedure:
 

• Article 7 (R14-2-701 through R14-2-706) - Resource Planning and Procurement
• Article 9 (R14-2-901 through R14-2-909) - Customer-Owned Pay Telephones
• Article 18 (R14-2-1801 through R14-2-1816, and Appendix A) - Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff
• Article 24 (R14-2-2401 through R14-2-2419) - Electric Energy Efficiency Standards
• Article 25 (R14-2-2501 through R14-2-2520) - Gas Utility Energy Efficiency Standards

 
On November 30, 2023, Staff issued a memorandum, five-year report, and proposed order recommending that the Commission open a new rulemaking docket to consider amendments to the above-listed rules, with the exception of Article 7 (resource planning and procurement), which already has an existing rulemaking docket (Docket No. RE-00000A-22-0029). Staff’s attached five-year report reviews the objectives, effectiveness, clarity, and probable costs and benefits of each section of Articles 7, 9, 18, 24, and 25, and recommends that portions of each article be amended.
 
II.        CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO RESOURCE PLANNING RULES
 
If the Commission decides to consider potential changes to the integrated resource planning (“IRP”) rules in Article 7, the Joint Signatories  agree with Staff that such consideration should occur in the existing IRP rulemaking docket (Docket No. RE-00000A-22-0029).
 
A.        The Commission Should Consider the Existing Record in the IRP Rulemaking Docket.
 
In considering any proposed changes to the IRP rules, the Commission should refer to the existing record in Docket No. RE-00000A-22-0029. In that docket, proposed rules were developed by Staff via a collaborative process with extensive stakeholder input, which included multiple rounds of comment and several day-long in-person meetings over more than a year.
 
On March 10, 2022, Commission Staff filed a memorandum and proposed order containing the text of proposed rules governing All-Source Requests for Proposals (“ASRFPs”) and the IRP process, which would have been contained in a new Article 28 of the Commission rules.[1] While it appears the current 5-year review rulemaking docket is intended to be narrower in scope, parts of Staff’s 2022 proposal remain relevant and could be adopted via amendments to Article 7.
 
On March 11, 2022, Sierra Club, Western Grid Group, Tierra Strategy, and Western Resource Advocates filed joint comments on Staff’s proposed IRP rules.[2] Those comments are incorporated herein by reference. The 2022 joint comments expressed support for most aspects of Staff’s March 2022 proposal, concluding that the proposed rules would modernize and strengthen Arizona’s IRP process, promoting transparent and accountable resource planning.
 
The 2022 joint comments supported Staff’s proposal to require that a competitive ASRFP procurement process be fuel-neutral and technology-neutral. The comments also supported a robust stakeholder input process via Resource Planning Advisory Councils, and supported requiring utilities to provide stakeholders and Staff with access to modelling software as a permanent feature of the IRP process.
 
However, the 2022 joint comments expressed concerns about a few aspects of Staff’s March 2022 proposal, opposing the inclusion of biomass in the definition of renewable energy resources, and called for IRPs to prioritize development of renewable and clean energy resources in impacted communities affected by fossil fuel power plant closures. Sierra Club filed further comments regarding the Commissioners’ proposed amendments in the IRP rulemaking docket on April 13, 2022, which are incorporated herein by reference.[3]
 
B.        The Commission Should Consider Updating Definitions in the IRP Rules.
 
With regard to Staff’s proposed order and 5-year review report in Docket No. AUD-00000A-23-0142, the Joint Signatories agree with Staff that Section R14-2-701 should be amended to clarify the definition of “renewable energy resource” and to define the terms “Resource Planning Advisory Council” and “All-Source Request for Proposals.”[4] The Joint Signatories intend to provide further substantive comments on potential changes to this and other sections of Article 7 if the Commission proceeds with the IRP rulemaking process.
 
C.        The Commission Should Include Robust Stakeholder Input In the IRP Rulemaking.
 
The Article 7 IRP rules proposed for review encompass a number of important statewide policy issues related to utility resource planning. Potential amendment of these rules could have far-reaching consequences. These important issues require thorough consideration and robust input from interested parties. The rulemaking process must be transparent and provide ample time for all interested stakeholders to fully participate.
 
In considering any proposed changes to the IRP rules, the Commission should provide extensive opportunities for meaningful stakeholder input. This should include (1) stakeholder workshops, (2) development and issuance of an initial proposal by Staff, including the text of proposed changes to the rules, (3) adequate time for stakeholders to review that proposal and provide feedback, including recommended changes to the text of the rules, (4) issuance of a final proposal by Staff, and (5) adequate time for stakeholders to provide written comments on the final Staff proposal and any proposed amendments prior to the Commission vote.
 
III.       CONCLUSION
 
In considering any proposed changes to the IRP rules, the Commission should refer to the existing record in Docket No. RE-00000A-22-0029, and should provide ample opportunities for further stakeholder input.
 
If the Commission decides to consider potential changes to the IRP rules via a rulemaking process as proposed by Staff, the Joint Signatories intend to participate fully in that process, and will provide more detailed comments at the appropriate time.[5]

[1] Utilities Division Memorandum and Proposed Order, No. RE-00000A-22-0029  (Mar. 10, 2022), available at https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/document-search/item-detail/295540.

[2] Sierra Club, Western Grid Group, Tierra Strategy, and Western Resource Advocates, Stakeholder Comments on Possible Rulemaking for the Adoption of All-Source Requests for Proposals and Integrated Resource Planning Rules, No. RE-00000A-22-0029 (Mar. 11, 2022), available at https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/document-search/item-detail/295575.

[3] Sierra Club, Comments on Amendments to Rulemaking for the Adoption of All-Source Requests for Proposals and Integrated Resource Planning Rules, Docket No. RE-00000A-22-0029 (Apr. 13, 2022), available at https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/document-search/item-detail/296682.

[4] See Utilities Division Memorandum and Proposed Order, No. RE-00000A-22-0029  (Mar. 10, 2022), Exhibit A at 1.

[5] The Joint Signatories’ silence as to any aspect of Staff’s memorandum, five-year report, and proposed order not addressed in these comments should not be interpreted as agreement with or endorsement of those aspects.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
Re: TEP Rate Case, Customer Storage Program Stakeholder Meeting, Docket No. E-01933A-22-0107
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
AriSEIA submits these comments in response to the compliance filing that TEP filed on December 7, 2023, in response to the stakeholder process they were ordered to commence regarding a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program (also known as Virtual Power Plant (VPP)) and revisions to the R-TECH and LGST-SP tariffs.[1] These stakeholder processes are the result of Order 79065.[2]
 
Because some of the utilities have recently been using their compliance filings as evidence in other proceedings and have also asserted that stakeholder silence is agreement, AriSEIA makes this filing to detail our numerous concerns about how TEP has so far engaged on BYOD, R-TECH, and LGST-SP. AriSEIA put forth a robust proposal to implement a BYOD program, as well as specific modifications to the R-TECH and LGST-SP in the course of the last rate case. Those proposals are the reason this stakeholder process was ordered. Further, TEP stated multiple times in the course of the last rate case proceeding that they had not had time to review the proposals. January will be one year since AriSEIA filed those proposals and TEP still seems unfamiliar with them.
 
BYOD is a win/win for AZ ratepayers and the utilities. AriSEIA’s BYOD proposal leverages private investment in distributed battery storage to provide much needed capacity to the grid at a price that is less than the cost of utility-owned, utility scale battery storage.[3] Further, any costs associated with the program are pay for performance only. There is no upfront payment, no subsidy, no cost shift.
 
At the stakeholder meeting held by TEP on November 17, 2023, TEP had no substantive content prepared, had no response to the AriSEIA proposals, had no proposals of its own, did not have the correct people at the meeting to discuss policy, nor did they articulate any plan for how to manage this process going forward. Further, despite the fact that the Order is clear as to what these stakeholder processes are meant to do, TEP was not clear in its direction to participants as to what we were even there to discuss. TEP permitted the meeting to devolve into a tangent conversation about wholly unrelated technologies or whether or not storage should even be considered, despite the fact that storage is the very reason the stakeholder process was ordered.
 
AriSEIA makes the following recommendations to the Commission and TEP:
 
1.      TEP should have the correct personnel at the stakeholder meetings to discuss policy and regulatory issues;
2.    The AriSEIA proposals on BYOD, R-TECH, and LGST-SP should be the basis on which the process unfolds. TEP should come to the meetings prepared to suggest components of these programs they can or cannot support;
3.     R-TECH and LGST-SP are separate issues and while they are to be discussed concurrently with BYOD, need not be discussed simultaneously;
4.     TEP needs to provide a capable facilitator of the meetings and process, either internal or external;
5.    If TEP wishes to host additional stakeholder meetings on unrelated topics or technologies, it can do so, but these processes should remain consistent with and adherent to the Order and the issues discussed in the last rate case; and
6.   TEP needs to articulate a process and timeline for this work. We suggest monthly meetings of one hour, which should be scheduled in advance with a stakeholder list, like TEP does for its other “collaborative” meetings.
 
AriSEIA’s proposal on all three matters can be found in Kevin Lucas’ direct testimony, filed on January 27, 2023, starting at page 314.[4] An excerpt of that testimony is attached herein.
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] TEP, Notice of Filing-Tucson Electric Power Company’s Customer Storage Program Stakeholder Meeting Summary, Dec. 7, 2023, Docket. No. E-01933A-22-0107, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032546.pdf.

[2] ACC, Opinion and Order No. 79065, Pg. 149, Lines 11-27, Aug. 25, 2023, Docket No. E-01933A-22-0107, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000209684.pdf?i=1701984045033.

[3] Kevin Lucas in APS rate case, hearing test., Sept. 1, 2023, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144, 00:04:31 (this is also applicable in the TEP rate case).

[4] AriSEIA, Direct Testimony of Kevin Lucas, Jan. 27, 2023, Docket No. E-01933A-22-0107, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000023835.pdf?i=1701984045030.