Hearing - E-01345A-25-0105 - Arizona Public Service Company - Jun 17, 2026

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 7h 30m 8 agenda items transcribed 1 day ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural matters and exhibit admissions are addressed at the start of the hearing?

Unknown 0:00

let's go ahead and go back on the record good morning this 19th day in the application of APS for a rate increase where we left off we were still in the midst of the cross-examination of mr. Moe but before we get started just some procedural house clean housekeeping here there was the outstanding issue of the stipulation that had been forecasted pulling it up as we speak here as a request to move in the pre filed testimony of Mr. Bass, Miss Brown, Mr. Mitch lick, Miss horse herder and Mr. Frankowski. Are there any parties that object to the admission of their pre filed exhibits CS 01? Ruko 070809 1011 CG one and CG two. All right. There being no objections then, pursuant to the party stipulation, exhibits CS1, RUCO 7, RUCO 8, RUCO 9, RUCO 10, RUCO 11, CG01, and CG02 are hereby admitted.

Unknown 1:19

Second order of business was with regard to... Aracia 53 was the grid access charge appeal. And I have had a chance to look at it. I wouldn't say I've read it up, down, sideways, forwards and back yet, but, I have gone through it once and it occurs to me that it does have some implications for purposes of how we're proceeding here with regard to one matter, the grid access charge that company is currently charging as of this time. And while I don't have a specific suggestion as to how to deal with it, it does seem like we are going to have to figure out how we're going to approach that within the confines of this case here. I didn't know if parties have had a chance to evaluate and come to suggestions on how they want to proceed on it or what.

Unknown 2:08

But I just wanted to put that on people's radars so you should start thinking about it so that I can have a suggestion to think about at some point here. So I'll ask, does any party have a suggestion about how to proceed as of this point?

Jeff Allman 2:22

Your Honor, on behalf of APS, what I would offer is that at this point, we don't yet have a firm suggestion. We think we just need a little bit more time, not much, to work through. Because it is a very detailed and long opinion relative to the due process issues that it raises. The important thing I think to note, though, is that there is no mandate that's been issued yet. There'll still be 30 days before that happens, and during that period of time, parties have the ability to file petitions for review beyond that. From our perspective, there are issues in that decision that may very well merit reconsideration or further review by the Arizona Supreme Court. that's certainly something that parties like APS or the Commission need to consider and think through because it's kind of the threshold matter as to whether or not the due process violations did occur.

Jeff Allman 3:30

I think overall APS's position is that we don't agree with that and to the extent that those issues go up on appeal, there will be, there wouldn't not necessarily be a basis for immediately redoing and reevaluating those things. That being said, we understand that there would need to be sort of some recognition of it here. We have not, again, in terms of the decision making about how to proceed with that and what the response would need to be in the here and now, we don't have a clear proposal for that yet, but I think that's an important context for what we're looking at and how we're evaluating.

Unknown 4:11

All right. I see you raising your hand, Ms. Johnson. I'll get to you in a moment here, but it occurs to me that since we actually do have the company's witness on the point of the grid access charge and with regard to the cost of service analyses supporting it, it does seem like IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO EVALUATE BEFORE MR. MO GETS DONE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VIABILITY OF THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE AS OF THIS MOMENT WAS A PREDICATE FOR THE COMPANY'S PROPOSED INCREASES IN THE GRID ACCESS CHARGE IN THIS CASE. I just wanted to test whether you think that there's some additional evidence you're going to have to put forward to justify it as if a new charge, rather than simply stepping off from an existing charge based on the cost of service analyses that have already been performed, whether that's something where perhaps we should stick a pin in the testimony at this point and come back to Mr. Moe on that later, or do you believe that Mr. Moe is