Telephonic Procedural Conference - Formal Complaint - E-01345A-26-0175 - Arizona Public Service Company - Jun 18, 2026

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 38 min 8 agenda items transcribed 3 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Who are the parties appearing and what is the purpose of this procedural conference?

Elizabeth Beatty 0:00

All right, thank you. Let's go on the record. Good morning, everyone. Again, I'm Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Beatty, and I've been assigned to preside over this matter. This is the time set for the Telephonic Procedural Conference for docket number E01345A260175 in the matter of the formal complaint of Doug Meyer versus Arizona Public Service Company. We will go ahead and take formal appearances on the record, beginning with the company.

Shawnee Lee 0:29

Good morning, Your Honor. Shawnee Lee on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company.

Elizabeth Beatty 0:35

Thank you. And Mr. Meyer?

Doug Meyer 0:39

Yes, Your Honor. This is Doug Meyer on behalf of myself.

Elizabeth Beatty 0:46

And then for

Thomas Ann Flying 0:47

staff. And for staff, Thomas Ann Flying, General Counsel for the Commission.

Elizabeth Beatty 0:54

All right, great. Thank you, everyone. The purpose of today's procedural conference is to discuss the status of the proceeding, address the company's response and establish a procedural schedule

Shawnee Lee 1:04

and

Elizabeth Beatty 1:04

address any other matters that the parties may have. So I do want to note, just for the record, the staff is not a party to this matter, but rather is present to discuss possible participation, which may be for a future discussion, but we can get into that. So before establishing a brief schedule, I did want to hear from the parties regarding any procedural issues that

Unknown 1:27

may

Elizabeth Beatty 1:27

affect how this matter should proceed. And I'll start with APS because my understanding was part of the response was a request to dismiss the complaint. So I'll begin with you, Ms. Lee.

Shawnee Lee 1:39

Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. And Mr. Meyer's request will seek data and information about APS's decision to call in April 22nd, 2026 public safety power shut off event. Mr. Meyer's formal complaint calls for an investigation and transparency. And he is requesting that the commission investigate APS's practices in this regard. It is APS's position that Mr. Meyer's complaint fails to state a claim as APS is permitted to have this PSTS program under its Schedule 1. However, Mr. Meyer's formal complaint suggests that he may be receptive to direct engagement with APS. So in our response to Mr. Myers' formal complaint, the company averred that as a part of this proceeding, APS looks forward to meeting with Mr. Myers to answer his questions and familiarize him with the company's PSPS program and wildfire mitigation effort.

Shawnee Lee 2:48

In line with this, APS proposes to stay this matter for 60 days. During that time, APS would like to have an information sharing session with Mr. Myers where we would have an opportunity to answer his questions. We believe it would be helpful to walk Mr. Myers through how the PSPS program works, including how weather-related decisions are made, the company's communication process for PSPS events, and information about how we inform our medical care program customers about a PSPS event. For example, Customers with life-threatening illnesses or those who rely on critical electricity-dependent medical equipment who are enrolled in APS's medical care program They're provided priority notifications before planned outages, such as PSPS events.

Shawnee Lee 3:40

This is one of the issues that Mr. Myers raised in his complaint about notification to medically vulnerable customers. So we could provide information about our MCP program in the process for providing these priority notifications. That may answer some of his questions. Another example. The decision to call a PSPS event requires consideration of many complex factors beyond wind gusts. Mr. Myers alleged in his complaint various wind issues and APS's decision to call the PSPS event based on a wind speed and certain wind gusts. However, the decision to call an event includes and is not limited to wind. There are such issues as fuel complexity, fuel moisture, terrain, active fires, plus wind speed, no mass, and the probability and speed of fire spread.

What does APS claim about the legality of the April 22 2026 PSPS event?

Shawnee Lee 4:43

APS makes ongoing assessments from its fire mitigation specialists, and we have meteorologists who are informed about weather models, weather stations data, and modeling software. In addition, depending on the service territory

Unknown 4:58

area,

Shawnee Lee 4:58

APS may use real-time situational awareness information obtained from field observers.