Arizona Commission Votes To Send Letter To AG On Treatment Of Retail Supplier License Applications; Addresses Status Of Pending CC&Ns
November 3, 2021 Email This Story Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Arizona Corporation Commission today formally voted (3-2) to request, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(7), an Attorney General Opinion regarding whether it can grant Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CC&N) to competitive retail electric suppliers in light of the Phelps Dodge court case which invalidated several of the ACC's retail choice rules on procedural grounds
Commissioner Justin Olson voted against the letter, and instead will send his own request to the AG
Olson said that the letter request adopted by the ACC was narrow and only asks if the ACC can issue competitive CC&N applications in light of the Phelps Dodge decision; and whether the ACC can cure and certify the rules which were previously invalidated on procedural grounds.
Olson expressed concern the letter suggests that the ACC has already arrived at the conclusion that it is the ACC's position that the Commission cannot grant competitive CC&Ns without electric restructuring rules in place
Olson would have included a discussion of the Johnson Utilities case, which found that statutes are operative on the ACC except in circumstances when setting rates. Olson would have asked if the ACC is thus obligated to grant competitive CC&Ns, regardless of any rules being in place, due to statute requiring the ACC to address CC&N applications
Commissioner Jim O'Connor also voted against sending the AG request letter as granted. O'Connor expressed some interest in reviewing Olson's letter and potentially joining it
The ACC also discussed the status of several pending applications for competitive CC&N
The ACC did not discuss Green Mountain Energy's application due to pending motions and a forthcoming procedural ruling in the case. Utilities Division Staff are seeking dismissal of Green Mountain Energy's application (arguing retail rules must be in place first), while Green Mountain Energy argued that the ACC must address the application to comply with statute.
ACC Staff noted that the ACC previously found that the application of then-named Sempra Energy Solutions shall been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the generic retail choice investigation. Staff said that other applications have, generally, not yet been found to be sufficient, and thus the Commission did not have to address the procedural tenor of any of these other cases at this time