​Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Comments on the August 30, 2024 Utilities Division Memorandum and Amendments, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
On August 30, 2024, Commission Staff filed a Memorandum with their recommendations as to the Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) of Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power (TEP), UNS Electric (UNSE), and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO).[1] AriSEIA participates on the Resource Planning Advisory Council (RPAC) for APS and TEP and has for many years.
 
        I.            AriSEIA IRP Engagement
 
AriSEIA first filed in this docket on April 28, 2023 expressing concerns about the delay with APS and TEP providing the modeling licenses that were required from the 2020 IRP Order (Decision No. 78499).[2] It had been 15 months and stakeholders still did not have nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) executed, licenses, or utility data. At that time, we asked for an IRP filing extension, as it takes months to review these models. AriSEIA reiterated these concerns verbally at the June 21, 2023 Open Meeting.
 
AriSEIA also hired a consultant and obtained a modeling license for this IRP. AriSEIA filed two different sets of comments in this docket on January 31, 2024. The comments we filed with our consultant, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), are 263 pages long.[3] These comments included comprehensive slides as to their review of the modeling done by APS (60 slides) and TEP (63 slides). We presented this work one on one with each utility and to each RPAC (four total presentations). Plus, RMI provided a presentation to each RPAC on IRP best practices (another two presentations, for six total presentations). We also provided an abbreviated version of the slides to Commission Staff, which we presented at the IRP workshop on July 31, 2024. AriSEIA also attended all of the modeling trainings and briefed APS on what we intended to do with the model before we ever obtained a license. AriSEIA also filed individual comments on the IRP on January 31, 2024, which were 142 pages in length.[4] Those comments focused on our recommendations for the next IRP (the 2026 IRP). Those recommendations are worth repeating here, as many of them are not included in Staff’s recommendation. Namely we recommend retaining the following requirements from the 2020 IRP Order:

• A comprehensive analysis of power system resiliency to extreme weather[5]
• Discussion of the load serving entities’ (LSE) gas price assumptions[6]
• A variety of potential portfolios[7]
• An analysis of resource adequacy[8]
• A requirement to provide stakeholders with modeling licenses[9]
• A requirement to eliminate must run designations,[10] as well as restrictions on the economic cycling of plants[11]
• A requirement that the utilities accurately account for the costs of hydrogen[12]
• A requirement that the utilities continue to include relevant tax credits in their modeling[13]
• A requirement that the utilities evaluate the emissions reductions of their portfolios[14]
• A requirement for the utilities to select a preferred portfolio[15]
• A requirement that both TEP and APS use capacity expansion modeling[16]

We also recommended the inclusion of the following new requirements:

• That the next IRP be filed in 2026.
• That TEP and APS be required to continue using a Resource Planning Advisory Council (RPAC) process to hold at least monthly meetings and commence at least one (1) year in advance of the next IRP filing deadline.
• That TEP be required to file a complete plan and actually use capacity expansion modeling similar to APS’ modeling and plan in this docket.
• That TEP and APS be required to continue using ASRFPs for procurement of new resources.
• That the RPAC be utilized to improve the ASRFPs prior to release and be apprised of the results thereafter.
• That modeling licenses, nondisclosure agreements, any necessary training, and preliminary data be provided to stakeholders at least six (6) months prior to the IRP filing deadlines.
• That the final data be provided to stakeholders at least three (3) months prior to the IRP deadline.
• That the preferred portfolio be provided to the RPAC at least two (2) months prior to the IRP filing deadline.
• That the utilities be required to run at least ten (10) different portfolios that evaluate a variety of different scenarios developed in concert with their RPACs.

The majority of these recommendations were not included in Staff’s recommendation. AriSEIA also filed a letter to this docket on August 27, 2024 in response to APS and TEP comments that stakeholders that obtained modeling licenses had not appropriately used those licenses.[17] That letter noted that fifteen different organizations filed stakeholder comments on the IRP on January 31, 2024. To our knowledge, the only stakeholder groups to obtain licenses were AriSEIA, Western Resource Advocates (WRA), and Sierra Club. All of those organizations hired consultants to evaluate the models. All of those groups filed comments on January 31, 2024, and presented at the Commission’s IRP workshop on July 31, 2024. All of the slides the stakeholders presented at that workshop were also filed in the docket.[18]

The Sierra Club filed 36 pages of single spaced comments on the APS plan[19] and 26 single spaced comments on the TEP plan[20] on January 31, 2024 and hired Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to review the models. WRA filed 24 pages of single spaced comments on the TEP plan[21] and 49 pages of single spaced comments on the APS plan.[22] WRA hired Energy Strategies as their consultant on the model analysis, as well as to conduct their own modeling. Sierra Club and WRA also presented their work to the RPAC. Other than Staff, AriSEIA is not aware of any other stakeholder obtaining a modeling license. Collectively, the stakeholders that obtained modeling licenses filed 540 pages of analysis and gave at least 11 presentations on our work between the RPAC, the utilities, and the Commission. And that is despite the fact that we received the licenses and data from the utilities very late in the process. Until TEP filed comments on May 31, 2024, it had never before been asserted that the stakeholders had used the licenses insufficiently.[23] APS did not assert there was any deficiency with the stakeholder use of the licenses until August 26, 2024, nearly seven months after the stakeholders filed their comments.[24]
 
     II.            Staff Recommendation
 
AriSEIA did no less work than Staff did with the modeling license. In Staff’s recommendation, they wrote:
 
"Staff did find value in being able to navigate the software and step through the inputs in the project files…. Staff believes this software is important for Staff’s analysis in the IRP process. Staff recommends that APS, TEP, and UNSE continue to provide Staff` with a license to the Aurora Modeling Software."[25]
 
Staff then acknowledges the numerous issues stakeholders had in obtaining licenses from the utilities, stating:
 
"Stakeholders in the RPAC stated that they experienced difficulties with fully utilizing the licensing that was provided because of timelines and insufficient data sharing. As a result, stakeholders modeling effects were not as impactful as they could have been. APS only provided the project files for its reference case and TEP and UNSE only provided the project files for its base case."[26]
 
Despite Staff stating that even though they did not do their own modeling and acknowledging the many issues stakeholders encountered with the utilities in being able to access the models, Staff removes the requirement to provide modeling licenses to stakeholders. The 2020 IRP order stated:
 
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Power Company, and UNS Electric, Inc. shall in future Integrated Resource Plans negotiate a project-based licensing fee that permits up to 12 Resource Planning Advisory Council members and Staff the ability to perform their own modeling runs in the same software package as these load serving entities, and to provide all necessary data and support to fully utilize the models. The load serving entities shall absorb the cost of the licensing fees."[27]

Despite recommending removal of this requirement, Staff then states that “Staff believes that transparency in the IRP process is important to develop comprehensive IRPs.”[28] However, removing the requirement to provide access to the modeling inhibits transparency. Staff’s only stated reason for removing the modeling requirement for stakeholders is cost.[29] However, a reimbursement model would not lower costs. In fact, because it would create additional administrative burdens, it would likely cost more. There is nothing in the Staff Recommendation that articulates the process by which Staff or the utilities will manage a reimbursement program. Some initial questions include:
 
·         Who will manage and monitor this program?
·         By what date must the utilities reimburse the costs of the modeling licenses?
·         What is the deliverable that stakeholders must provide to the utilities and by when?
·         What is the remedy process should there be a dispute?
 
Additionally, it is unclear if the utilities will be able to negotiate a reduced rate license if the stakeholders are to procure the licenses on their own to be potentially reimbursed someday if the utilities, in their sole discretion, deem it warranted. For example, WRA objectively met the never before stated requirement to model their own portfolios (something Staff admits they did not do). Therefore, if only WRA is entitled to reimbursement and that license is astronomically more expensive than the negotiated bulk licenses procured by the utility, the reimbursement could be higher than it is with the current system.
 
Further, a reimbursement program would make it impossible for small nonprofits, such as AriSEIA, to participate at all. AriSEIA has never missed an RPAC meeting. AriSEIA has objectively actively engaged in this docket. It has never been asserted that we do not participate or contribute and yet, under the Staff Recommendation, we are the stakeholder that would be excluded from this process going forward. AriSEIA reached out to Staff three times before this filing in an attempt to understand what problem they are trying to solve with their recommendations, but we were not provided the opportunity to discuss this issue.
 
AriSEIA objects to Staff recommendations 7 and 8 (also known as G and H). Those recommendations will not increase transparency. There is also no evidence that those recommendations will save ratepayers’ money.
 
AriSEIA also objects to Staff recommendation 13 (also known as M). The proper way for the Commission to modify a prior order is through A.R.S. § 40-252. Also, the Staff Recommendation is missing several of the items listed on page 2 above from the 2020 IRP Order that are still very valuable, such as:

• A comprehensive analysis of power system resiliency to extreme weather like heat and wildfires,
• Discussion of the LSE’s gas price assumptions,
• An analysis of resource adequacy,
• A requirement to eliminate must run designations as well as restrictions on the economic cycling of plants,
• A requirement that the utilities accurately account for the costs of hydrogen,
• A requirement that the utilities continue to include relevant tax credits in their modeling, and
• A requirement that both TEP and APS use capacity expansion modeling.

AriSEIA also recommends the utilities model ten, not seven, portfolios in the 2026 IRP. Staff recommended only seven in its recommendation 14 (also known as N).
 
The Commission removed the requirement for Staff to obtain a consultant to provide an independent review of the IRPs.[30] This is reason enough for continued stakeholder access to the models. Removing the third party requirement and limiting stakeholder participation in the IRP docket is a step in the wrong direction and takes us back to the backbox utility IRPs that we not acknowledged by the Commission in prior years.[31] This is the first time the utilities have ever provided modeling access and no evidence has been provided that those licenses were misused. No evidence has been provided that removing that requirement will save ratepayers money. Therefore, AriSEIA has provided two Proposed Amendments below.
 
  III.            Battery Storage
 
Baseload resources are resources that run consistently all or most of the time. Nuclear is an example. You are not going to ramp up and down a nuclear plant based on changes in demand. Dispatchable resources are resources that can be increased or decreased on demand as the needs of the grid change. Some resources are both, such as geothermal and hydropower. They can be run consistently or they can be ramped up and down based on needs. Some resources like gas peakers (combustion turbines (CTs)) and batteries are dispatchable, but are not baseload. Batteries can be dispatched as needed.[32]
 
There are many kinds of storage, batteries are one type. There are many different kinds of battery technologies and they have different capabilities. There are lithium ion batteries, redox flow batteries, lead batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, sodium sulfur batteries, iron-chromium flow batteries, and zinc-bromine flow batteries.[33] The durations of these technologies range from two hours to ten hours.[34] Indeed, Salt River Project (SRP) has a ten hour flow battery expected to be operational by Q1 of 2026.[35]
 
Batteries are dispatchable. Therefore, they should not be excluded from the Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Myers Joint Proposed Amendment No. 1. Further, singling out specific technologies undermines the utilities’ usage of all source requests for proposals (ASRFPs). The entire point of moving to ASRFPs is so that all resources have a level playing field on which to compete on cost and utility needs. The Commission singling out specific technologies that cannot be used for capacity or resource planning will jeopardize affordability. Further, it undercuts innovation. Why would the Commission want to choose winners and losers in a game with constantly improving technology? Additionally, specifically eliminating certain technologies makes the utilities more vulnerable to supply chain constraints. A war, natural disaster, new political administration, global pandemic, port strike, etc. can all impact which technologies are available and affordable at any given time. Why would the Commission want to constrain those options?
 
As the amendment is drafted, the only resources that appear to count as “dependable and dispatchable capacity, not including battery storage” but also “approved” after December 31, 2024 and before 2031 would be gas peakers (CTs). Specifying how much of what kind of resource a utility must buy and when, in order to make an additional decision about which plants to retire, is very prescriptive and may be more of a managerial decision than a regulatory one.
 
Finally, because APS first announced it was closing Four Corners in 2020. It is not clear why the new capacity resources that APS must procure to replace Four Corners need be procured only after December 31, 2024. All capacity resources APS procures to replace Four Corners should count for resource adequacy purposes.
 
That being said, AriSEIA understands the purpose of the Amendment and has suggested a friendly amendment below to maintain the spirit of the Amendment while being technology agnostic.
 
  IV.            Commissioner and Staff Amendments
 
AriSEIA has reviewed the documents filed by Staff, Commissioner Myers, and Commissioner Thompson.
 
AriSEIA supports Staff Proposed Amendment No. 1. The utilities have been clear that the coal retirement dates are economic decisions.

AriSEIA opposes Staff Proposed Amendment No. 3. This amendment makes the data that the utilities are to provide to stakeholders with the modeling licenses more ambiguous. “Portfolios” are more specific. If Staff wishes to add “information” it should be additive to and not in lieu of the “portfolios.”

AriSEIA opposes Staff Proposed Amendment No. 2. This language is removed by AriSEIA Proposed Amendment No. 1. Further, this language is redundant. For the stakeholder to have modeling results, they would have to use the software.

AriSEIA supports Commissioner Myers Proposed Amendment No. 3. Ensuring the accuracy of load forecasts is essential for maintaining reliability and ensuring affordability.

AriSEIA supports Commissioner Myers Proposed Amendment No. 6. Regional markets participation is a relevant factor that can impact resource selections and costs and should be included in long term planning.

AriSEIA has offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Myers Joint Proposed Amendment No. 1. AriSEIA supports efforts to ensure resource adequacy, but does not think the Commission should exclude any technologies that provide “dependable and dispatchable capacity.” Please see AriSEIA Proposed Amendment No. 3.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Arizona Corporate Commission, Staff’s Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) Recommendation, August 30, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037784.pdf [hereinafter Staff Recommendation].

[2] AriSEIA, Letter to Commission on IRP, April 28, 2023, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026311.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[3] AriSEIA, Vote Solar, and Advanced Energy United, Joint Comments to Commission on IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033451.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[4] AriSEIA, Comments to Commission on IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, at 4-5, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033415.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[5] Arizona Corporate Commission, Staff Assessment of 2020 IRP, March 2, 2022, Decision No. 78499, at 11:1-2,  available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000206081.pdf?i=1700515655944 [hereinafter 2020 IRP Order].

[6] Id. at 11:8-13.

[7] Id. at 13:10-16.

[8] Id. at 14:5-8.

[9] Id. at 14:9-14.

[10] Id. at 14:15-17.

[11] Id. at 14:22-25.

[12] Id. at 15:1-3.

[13] Id. at 15:4-6.

[14] Id. at 15:7-9.

[15] Id. at 15:14-16.

[16] Id. at 17:15-17.

[17] AriSEIA, Letter to Commissioners, August 27, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037591.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[18] Utilities Division Staff, IRP Memorandum, July 29, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000036917.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[19] Sierra Club, Comments on the APS 2023 IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033488.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[20] Sierra Club, Comments on the TEP 2023 IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033487.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[21] WRA, Notice of Filing Comments on the 2023 IRP of TEP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033471.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[22] WRA, Amended Notice of Filing Comments on the 2023 IRP of APS, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033473.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[23] TEP, Response to Stakeholder Comments, May 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000035982.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[24] APS, Response to Commissioner Questions, August 23, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037555.pdf?i=1727931647086 (APS asserts they purchased a total of six licenses for stakeholders. It is unclear if this number includes Staff. It is unclear who the additional licenses were for and contradicts information APS has provided as to the total amount spent on the licenses. It also falsely asserts that “APS is not aware of whether any other stakeholders utilized the remaining licenses,” despite us presenting at least 11 total times.)

[25] Staff Recommendation at 86.

[26] Id. at 86-87.

[27] 2020 IRP Order at 14:9-14.

[28] Staff Recommendation at 87.

[29] Id.

[30] Arizona Corporate Commission, Order, June 20, 2024, Decision No. 79385, Docket No. E-00000V-15-0094, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000211300.pdf?i=1727936736722.

[31] Arizona Corporate Commission, Order, March 29, 2018, Decision No. 76632 at 53:4-6, Docket No. E-00000V-15-0094, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000186964.pdf?i=1727936284687.

[32] American Clean Power, Clean Energy Storage Facts, available here https://cleanpower.org/facts/clean-energy-storage/.

[33] American Clean Power, Battery Storage, available here https://cleanpower.org/facts/clean-energy-storage/battery-storage/.

[34] Id.

[35] Salt River Project and CMBlu Energy Announce Launch of Innovative Long-Duration Energy Storage Project, Aug. 31, 2023, available here https://media.srpnet.com/salt-river-project-and-cmblu-energy-announce-launch-of-innovative-long-duration-energy-storage-project/. 

AriSEIA hired Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) jointly with Vote Solar and Advanced Energy United as a consultant during the 2023 IRP process. RMI advised stakeholders and the utilities on integrated resource plan (IRP) best practices, made recommendations about analysis of distributed energy resources and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and also to review the filed plans by Arizona Public Service (APS) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Read the comments above.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1300 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Comments on the APS and TEP 2023 IRPs, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046
 
Chairman, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA is an active member of the Resource Plan Advisory Council (RPAC) for both Arizona Public Service (APS) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). AriSEIA also jointly hired Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) to engage in the RPAC process. Their findings are filed separately from these jointly with Vote Solar and Advanced Energy United.
 
AriSEIA submits the following comments on APS[1] and TEP’s[2] Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) filed on November 1, 2023. Our comments include four sections. First, we include documentation on the affordability and reliability of solar resources. Second, we make recommendations as to the forthcoming Order. Third, we include an analysis of APS’ plan. Fourth, we include a review of TEP’s plan.
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] APS, 2023 IRP, Filed Nov. 1, 2023, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000031965.pdf?i=1704923236078 [hereinafter APS IRP].

[2] TEP, 2023 IRP, Filed Nov. 1, 2023, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000031960.pdf?i=1704923236078 [hereinafter TEP IRP]. 

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.

Salt River Project
1500 N. Mill Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85288
 
RE: Integrated System Plan and Stakeholder Engagement
 
Salt River Project and Board,

The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) requested to be a part of the Integrated System Plan (ISP) stakeholder group in 2022. That request was denied. AriSEIA also requested to be included in the Sustainability Advisory Council and, to date, that has also not been granted. It is unclear why AriSEIA continues to be excluded from all formal SRP stakeholder processes. Therefore, AriSEIA submits the following comments on Item 4 of the October 2nd Board Meeting:

SRP should be required to issue All Source Requests for Proposals (ASRFPs) for all major procurements of generating resources. Those ASRFPs should be vetted through the ISP stakeholder process, as Arizona Public Service (APS) has started to do. The ISP stakeholder process should not exclude stakeholders that request inclusion, especially if they are well established organizations that participate in the resource planning processes of every other major utility in the state. Additionally, no stakeholder process should purposely exclude an entire stakeholder segment, such as renewable energy organizations. Such a stance needlessly excludes valuable expertise from what should be a technically robust process. Meetings should also be virtual or hybrid. In person meetings, such as has been the case for the last two, exclude many stakeholders. Stakeholders that are out of the Phoenix metro area, have small children, or cannot devote multiple hours to commuting to and from SRP are excluded. The other major utilities all have remote options for stakeholder participation.

Further, the ISP stakeholder process should be meaningful. There should be an exchange of information in both directions and the utility should be willing to make modifications based on stakeholder feedback, run requested portfolios, and provide the modeling inputs and results to stakeholders. Board members should familiarize themselves with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process and should hold SRP to a similar standard, as you all serve as the regulator of SRP.

SRP has been holding meetings on the ISP for more than two years. The board should be voting on a resource plan, not three vague slides called “strategies.” That is not adequate oversight of an unregulated monopoly. The “strategies” provide no meaningful information as to what the utility plans to do regarding RFPs, procurement, or implementation of their sustainability goals. The 2017-2019 resource plan was much more detailed and it completely neglected major procurements, such as the Coolidge expansion.
​
SRP is the only major utility in the state that does not have an exit date for all coal; does not have a mass based carbon emissions goal; and has pursued major gas plant expansions that were never in a resource plan or RFP. The board should demand that the company do better. You are the only oversight on the second largest utility in the state.
Sincerely,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]