Time-of-use hours change

time-of-use rate, that is a concern for us.”

SWEEP also opposes the way timeof-use rate plans are designed in the settlement.

Time-of-use plans are designed to encourage customers to shift their energy usage to off-peak times, when it is cheaper for utilities to buy power on the market because overall demand is lower on the grid.

During the hours of highest peak demand, energy prices rise because utilities turn to less efficient power plants that cost more to operate. Those plants are used only to meet high demand and are not usually run year-round.

APS and Salt River Project boast a greater percentage of their customers voluntarily signing up for time-of-use rates than any other utilities in the U.S.

Time-of-use plans should have three- or four-hour peaks when customers can avoid using lots of electricity, Schlegel said.

One current APS time-of-use rate plan charges about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity used off peak, and about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity used weekdays in summer between the hours of noon and 7 p.m. Another current rate plan has significantly higher rates of about 47 cents per kilowatt-hour from 3 to 6 p.m.

The APS settlement plan calls for all time-of-use and demand-rate plans to have a five-hour peak from 3 to 8 p.m. when power would be at a premium.

“We feel that 3-8 p.m. is simply too long to work for customers,” Schlegel said. “Especially for those families with kids trying to do homework and get them to bed.”

APS officials said they could not comment on the negotiations that led to the settlement, but they did say it is supported by a broad, diverse group of stakeholders.

“This agreement demonstrates what can be accomplished when people come together with a willingness to compromise and resolve complex policy issues,” said Don Brandt, president and CEO of APS and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. “The winners are Arizona electricity customers.”

Solar debate settled

APS was able to get trade groups representing the solar industry to agree to the settlement.

The deal will allow solar customers to avoid demand rates for 20 years from the date of their interconnection if they apply for solar before a decision in the case.

People who install solar after new rates take effect will see several changes that reduce the savings they see from their rooftop investment. Solar-industry representatives said the plan isn’t ideal, but it will allow solar installations to continue in APS territory, rather than shut them down, which is what happened in SRP territory after it made more dramatic changes in recent years.

Solar-industry groups agreed not to oppose the settlement or to undermine it through political initiatives.

But in the absence of a robust debate over solar, consumer groups are focusing on more general elements of the rate hike.

“The rate increase APS is seeking is unjustified, the 87.5 percent increase to the monthly mandatory charge is unwarranted, and the right for APS — not new customers — to determine what rate plan is best for them for the first 90 days is unconscionable,” said Diane Brown, executive director of Arizona PIRG, a public interest group.

PIRG is not an intervenor in the rate case, but Brown spoke out against the increase at a recent public comment meeting.

Brown noted that initially, both the Corporation Commission staff and Residential Utility Consumer Office concluded APS didn’t need to raise rates at all.

“Then as part of the settlement agreement, they signed off on that increase,” she said. “We are hoping the commissioners will ask them what changed.”

Flagstaff shut out

Some constituents not only feel the rate increase and its terms are unfair to consumers but also that the elected Arizona Corporation Commissioners are not giving them a fair venue to voice concerns.

Representatives from Flagstaff requested a public comment session on the case in that city.

“The people of Flagstaff are anxious to provide public comment on this topic,” Mayor Coral Evans wrote to Commission Chairman Tom Forese. “City staff are eager to provide assistance in making that happen.”

The Corporation Commission has been taking similar hearings to rural communities, including Lake Havasu City and Tucson, in an effort to be more inclusive. Usually the hearings are at meeting.

Forese agreed Verde Valley was a better location, and public comment sessions are scheduled in Verde Valley and Yuma. One already was held inDouglas.

Officials in Flagstaff, a Democratleaning city, say the Republican commissioners are playing politics by not conducting a meeting on the APS rate hike in their city, instead going to Yavapai County, where votes in the 2016 election favored Tobin and the other Republicans.

“I think that it is all politics now and it is very unfortunate we made the request months ago and it still seems we are not going to have that opportunity for people in Flagstaff who want to talk to the ACC about that proposal,” Flagstaff City Councilwoman Celia Barotz said.

“It really undermines the process if the only people who get to speak to the commission are intervenors and not the people in Flagstaff,” she said.

Smart meters

Another constituency opposing the rate settlement are customers who do not want wireless meters on their homes to measure their power consumption.

The settlement proposes to charge customers $50 to opt out of smart meters, which use radio waves to communicate customer usage to the utility. It also will charge them $5 a month for the service of having someone read their meter manually, something that has essentially been eliminated at APS except in rural areas where smart meters don’t work.

The Corporation Commission approved similar rules in 2014 for APS, but it reversed them a few months later after consulting with their attorneys regarding complaints from smart-meter opponents. They said the matter was more appropriately handled in a rate case, and APS had to wait until filing its case in June to reignite the debate.

More than 20,000 APS customers have refused to allow a smart meter to be installed on their homes, and the number has increased as the opt-out rules remained in limbo. Those customers generally cite health, safety and privacy concerns.