AriSEIA Submits Recommendations on New ACC IRP Process

Read the Filing

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Response to Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement; IRP Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
AriSEIA is a member of both the TEP/UNSE and APS Resource Planning Advisory Councils (RPAC). We have been engaged with the last two TEP and APS Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). In addition to being on the RPACs, regularly attending the meetings, submitting detailed comments on the plans, presenting at the IRP workshop and IRP open meeting; we also participated in the modeling process last time.
 
AriSEIA filed comments on the original Staff recommendation on October 4, 2024.[1] AriSEIA continues to maintain that it is a mistake to require stakeholders to pay for their own modeling licenses. AriSEIA also filed comments refuting utility statements at the IRP workshop that stakeholders had not properly utilized their licenses on August 27, 2024.[2] AriSEIA filed comments on the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024 as required. That filing was 142 pages long.[3] AriSEIA also filed 263 pages of joint comments with Vote Solar and Advanced Energy United as to the 2023 IRPs on January 31, 2024.[4] That filing included 124 slides as to RMI’s analysis of TEP and APS’ IRPs, based on their use of the modeling licenses. RMI was our consultant in that matter. AriSEIA filed joint comments in the same docket supporting the need to move the IRP deadline due to modeling delays on May 2, 2023.[5] AriSEIA filed a letter to the docket expressing concerns that APS and TEP were violating the 2020 IRP Order in delaying the release of the modeling tools on April 28, 2023.[6] We note these filings now to draw attention to our robust participation in IRP dockets, but also to highlight that issues with the modeling licenses plagued all of 2023. AriSEIA does not recommend changing the process yet again, as we had just barely worked out the issues with the prior process.
 
Nevertheless, we highlight the following concerns with the Utilities Division Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement filed on May 9, 2025.[7] First, it is important this issue is addressed as soon as possible. It was very clear last time that waiting until the calendar year in which the IRP is due is too late to obtain the modeling licenses and corresponding NDAs, etc. This resulted in significant delays last time, which resulted in the IRP deadline having to be postponed. Second, it is important that the utilities are negotiating down the price of the licenses and provide that price imminently. It is not clear how many licenses we need, how much they cost, or how long we would need to forgo recouping that deposit.
 
It is still unclear what problem this policy is trying to solve. It has been stated that “some” stakeholders, apparently including AriSEIA, did not do enough work to “deserve” a modeling license, despite all of the work described above. However, there were no articulated requirements we failed to meet. The Commission could simply set requirements and not require stakeholders to upfront the cost. There is no articulated reason that small nonprofits need to expend tens of thousands of dollars in advance to provide an essential service to this Commission (i.e., critical review of portfolios that cost ratepayers billions of dollars). That being said, if the Commission proceeds on its current course the requirements should be a floor. It is very strenuous to require stakeholders to run three separate portfolios just to be reimbursed for the licenses.
 
RECOMMENDATION 1: Require One Model
 
AriSEIA recommends the policy require a stakeholder to run the base case scenario or one (not two) distinct portfolio. Staff’s concerns about ability to hire consultants, Staff capacity as to time, and their lack of any modeling in the 2023 IRP process highlight how onerous this work is. There is no substantiation as to why stakeholder need to run three models. One should be the floor. If a stakeholder has the time or resources to run more, then there is nothing stopping them from doing that.
  
RECOMMENDATION 2: Create a Data Request Process
 
Further, there were data limitations from the utilities last time that would not have even allowed stakeholders to run the base case as required by the policy. Stakeholders should not have to forgo their deposit due to a failure on the part of the utility. Not only should the policy be clear what the utilities must provide and by when, it should allow for a discovery like process. If you have issued a Letter of Intent, you should also be able to issue data requests that the utilities have to comply with in 10 days, just like in a rate case.
 
RECOMMENDATION 3: Honor Reciprocity as to Any Deadline Delays
 
Any delays by the utilities to meet their deadlines in the IRP process should correspond with an equal delay in the requirements for stakeholders to meet their subsequent deadlines. A delay on the part of a utility should not require a stakeholder to forfeit their deposit.
 
RECOMMENDATION 4: Allow Stakeholders to Jointly Complete the Framework Requirements
 
“Stakeholder” in this policy should not be singular. Stakeholders should be able to work collaboratively with one Letter of Intent and be able to share the data and responsibility for the requirements articulated in this policy, even if only one person is actually allowed to run the model (i.e., maintains the license). Stakeholders should be able to work together to fund one consultant. A consultant that does capacity expansion modeling likely exceeds $100,000. That number will go up if more modeling runs (like three) are required. Even with model license reimbursement, the Commission is making this process so onerous that most stakeholders, like AriSEIA, will not be able to participate absent working collaboratively with other stakeholders.
 
RECOMMENDATION 5: Reimbursement Must Occur within 60 days of October 30, 2026
 
Reimbursement should happen within 60 days of the stakeholder filing its analysis on October 30, 2026 and should not require a subsequent vote of the Commission and should, certainly, not have to wait until a vote of the Commission on the actual IRPs, which is typically one to two years after the IRPs are filed. A stakeholder being out >$30,000 for two to three years is not reasonable. The utilities will know what the requirements are and reimbursement should happen seamlessly after filing. If there is any kind of dispute, a stakeholder can notify Staff and that can be taken up by a vote of the Commission. But all stakeholders should not need a vote on something that a) you will have voted on already before the process commences and b) is not likely to be controversial. Note, should any of the deadlines be moved, the 60 days should run from the due date for filing the analysis.
 
RECOMMENDATION 6: Create a Scholarship Option
 
The Commission should consider a scholarship process for stakeholders that can demonstrate a financial hardship. The Commission should put parameters in place to make sure only qualified stakeholders qualify for the scholarship. If a stakeholder does qualify, they should be required to complete the requirements set out in this policy, but without paying for the license themselves. Suggested parameters may include: being a member of the RPAC, attending a certain percentage of RPAC meetings, demonstrated participation in the last IRP process, being a not for profit entity, and financial hardship either by 990 or other means. Penalty for obtaining a scholarship and not completing the requirements as set forth in this policy could be disqualification from any such similar program in the next IRP cycle.
 
RECOMMENDATION 7: Spread Out When the Fees are Due
 
Finally, entities should not have to upfront the entire cost of the license at the outset. Perhaps half is paid at the beginning and half is paid in Q1 2026 or some other date. Being out >$30,000 for multiple budget cycles could be very difficult for many nonprofit organizations.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] AriSEIA Comments on the August 30, 2024 Utilities Division Memorandum and Amendments, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed October 4, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000039019.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[2] AriSEIA Response, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed August 27, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037591.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[3] AriSEIA Comments on the APS and TEP 2023 IRPs, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed January 31, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033415.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[4] Joint Comments of AriSEIA, Advanced Energy United, and Vote Solar on the 2023 IRPs, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed January 31, 2024, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033451.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[5] Support for APS and TEP’s Request for an Extension of IRP Filing Deadline, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, filed May 2, 2023, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026358.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[6] AriSEIA Letter on IRP Modeling Licenses, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available at https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026311.pdf?i=1749756384020.

[7] Utilities Division Staff Proposed Framework for IRP License Reimbursement Memorandum, Docket No. E-99999A-25-0058, filed May 9, 2025, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000044023.pdf?i=1748461994048.