AriSEIA Files Exceptions and Amendments on APS' Solar Fee

READ THE FILING

The Judge issued a recommended opinion and order (ROO) upholding APS' discriminatory fee on solar customers. The vote by the Commission is on Tuesday, December 17th at 9am. The ROO as drafted fails to resolve many of the underlying issues that prompted a rehearing in the first instance. The ROO is inadequate for the following reasons:

1. The ROO makes it clear that despite comments made at the April procedural conference, in the October Procedural Order, and at the hearing, all of the many concerns regarding the site-load COSS were not considered in the decision[1]; therefore, no due process concerns have been alleviated.
2. The ROO falsely states that the Legacy Adjustment “bares no relationship to the GAC other than the same percentage increase,”[2] which is contrary to the testimony from the hearing.
3. The ROO completely fails to address any of Mr. Lucas’ testimony as to the calculation of the solar credit, which is a part of the site-load COSS. That analysis proved that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers, not the other way around.
4. The ROO misstates the Value of Solar decision. The decision as cited in the ROO did not find that the Net Metering Rules resulted in a cost shift to non-solar residential customers.[3] The decision specifically stated that the “the ratemaking implications of this separate class treatment are to be determined in each utilities’ rate case supported by a fully vetted cost of service analysis.”[4]
5. The ROO fails to address the arguments related to the Commission’s own Net Metering Rules,[5] despite the fact this issue was raised in AriSEIA’s request for rehearing and in its pre and post hearing briefs.
6. The ROO fails to address the fact that the infrastructure in place during the test year was designed and built to provide resource adequacy for solar customers’ delivered load only meaning that when solar customers paid their bills for delivered load, they paid all the costs incurred during the test year to provide them with resource adequacy. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that APS used delivered load, and not site load for planning purposes in the 2020 integrated resource plan (IRP) and before.[6]
7. The ROO fails to address the fact that the “risk” argument as articulated by Mr. McClain[7] is contrary to the risk analysis APS actually does as articulated in their IRPs.
8. The ROO misstates the “Challenging Parties’” positions, in that AriSEIA has never argued that solar customers are not partial requirements customers.[8] Instead, AriSEIA argued that being partial requirements customers alone is not a sufficient basis on which to base an additional charge.[9] There needs to be an evidentiary basis on which additional charges are warranted.
9. The ROO falsely states that solar customers are distinct from all other residential customers, without any analysis as to energy efficiency or electric vehicle (EV) customers. The ROO also admittedly does “not address the parties’ various arguments reflecting a deeper dive into the intricacies of those laws” pertaining to discrimination.[10]
10. The ROO, which was filed approximately 24 hours after reply briefs were due, does not seem to at all consider AriSEIA’s arguments in its Reply Brief.
11. The ROO falsely places the burden of proof on the intervenors,[11] when the entire issue on rehearing is whether APS’ fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory.

[1] Rehearing ROO at 22:8-9 and 30:20.
[2] Id. at 16:7-9.
[3] Id. at 39:10-13.
[4] Decision No. 75859 at 174:17-19.
[5] Rehearing ROO at 23:19-20.
[6] Id. at 26:14-15.
[7] Id. at 25:15-17.
[8] Id. at 22:17-19.
[9] Id. at 31:5-6. This is not a “keystone inquiry” and was not challenged by any party. What the Value of Solar decision says on this subject was covered extensively in the hearing.
[10] Id. at 32:2-4.
[11] Id. at 20:3-4.