Regulatory Matters | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Regulatory Matters | |
Regulatory Matters | 3. Regulatory Matters |
|
Retail Rate Case Filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission |
|
On June 1, 2011, APS filed an application with the ACC for a net retail base rate increase of $95.5 million. APS requested that the increase become effective July 1, 2012. The request would have increased the average retail customer bill approximately 6.6%. On January 6, 2012, APS and other parties to the general retail rate case entered into an agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) detailing the terms upon which the parties agreed to settle the rate case. On May 15, 2012, the ACC approved the Settlement Agreement without material modifications. |
|
Settlement Agreement |
|
The Settlement Agreement provides for a zero net change in base rates, consisting of: (1) a non-fuel base rate increase of $116.3 million; (2) a fuel-related base rate decrease of $153.1 million (to be implemented by a change in the base fuel rate for fuel and purchased power costs (“Base Fuel Rate”) from $0.03757 to $0.03207 per kilowatt hour (“kWh”); and (3) the transfer of cost recovery for certain renewable energy projects from the Arizona Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (“RES”) surcharge to base rates in an estimated amount of $36.8 million. |
|
APS also agreed not to file its next general rate case before May 31, 2015, and not to request that its next general retail rate increase be effective prior to July 1, 2016. The Settlement Agreement allows APS to request a change to its base rates during the stay-out period in the event of an extraordinary event that, in the ACC’s judgment, requires base rate relief in order to protect the public interest. Nor is APS precluded from seeking rate relief, or any other party to the Settlement Agreement precluded from petitioning the ACC to examine the reasonableness of APS’s rates, in the event of significant regulatory developments that materially impact the financial results expected under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. |
|
Other key provisions of the Settlement Agreement include the following: |
|
· An authorized return on common equity of 10.0%; |
|
· A capital structure comprised of 46.1% debt and 53.9% common equity; |
|
· A test year ended December 31, 2010, adjusted to include plant that is in service as of March 31, 2012; |
|
· Deferral for future recovery or refund of property taxes above or below a specified 2010 test year level caused by changes to the Arizona property tax rate as follows: |
|
· Deferral of 25% in 2012, 50% in 2013 and 75% for 2014 and subsequent years if Arizona property tax rates increase; and |
|
· Deferral of 100% in all years if Arizona property tax rates decrease; |
|
· A procedure to allow APS to request rate adjustments prior to its next general rate case related to APS’s proposed acquisition (should it be consummated) of additional interests in Units 4 and 5 and the related closure of Units 1-3 of the Four Corners Power Plant (“Four Corners”); |
|
· Implementation of a “Lost Fixed Cost Recovery” rate mechanism to support energy efficiency and distributed renewable generation; |
|
· Modifications to the Environmental Improvement Surcharge (“EIS”) to allow for the recovery of carrying costs for capital expenditures associated with government-mandated environmental controls, subject to an existing cents per kWh cap on cost recovery that could produce up to approximately $5 million in revenues annually; |
|
· Modifications to the Power Supply Adjustor (“PSA”), including the elimination of the 90/10 sharing provision; |
|
· A limitation on the use of the RES surcharge and the Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge (“DSMAC”) to recoup capital expenditures not required under the terms of the 2008 rate case settlement agreement discussed below; |
|
· Allowing a negative credit that existed in the PSA rate to continue until February 2013, rather than being reset on the anticipated July 1, 2012 rate effective date; |
|
· Modification of the transmission cost adjustor (“TCA”) to streamline the process for future transmission-related rate changes; and |
|
· Implementation of various changes to rate schedules, including the adoption of an experimental “buy-through” rate that could allow certain large commercial and industrial customers to select alternative sources of generation to be supplied by APS. |
|
The Settlement Agreement was approved by the ACC on May 15, 2012, with new rates effective on July 1, 2012. This accomplished a goal set by the parties to the 2008 rate case settlement to process subsequent rate cases within twelve months of sufficiency findings from the ACC staff, which generally occur within 30 days after the filing of a rate case. |
|
2008 General Retail Rate Case On-Going Impacts |
|
On December 30, 2009, the ACC issued an order approving a settlement agreement entered into by APS and twenty-one other parties in APS’s prior general retail rate case, which was originally filed in March 2008. The settlement agreement contains certain on-going requirements, commitments and authorizations that will survive the 2012 Settlement Agreement, including the following: |
|
· A commitment from APS to reduce average annual operational expenses by at least $30 million from 2010 through 2014; |
|
· Authorization and requirements of equity infusions into APS of at least $700 million during the period beginning June 1, 2009 through December 31, 2014 ($253 million of which was infused into APS from proceeds of a Pinnacle West equity issuance in the second quarter of 2010); and |
|
· Various modifications to the existing energy efficiency, demand side management and renewable energy programs that require APS to, among other things, expand its conservation and demand side management programs through 2012 and its use of renewable energy through 2015, as well as allow for concurrent recovery of renewable energy expenses and provide for more concurrent recovery of demand side management costs and incentives. |
|
Cost Recovery Mechanisms |
|
APS has received regulatory decisions that allow for more timely recovery of certain costs through the following recovery mechanisms. |
|
Renewable Energy Standard. In 2006, the ACC approved the RES. Under the RES, electric utilities that are regulated by the ACC must supply an increasing percentage of their retail electric energy sales from eligible renewable resources, including solar, wind, biomass, biogas and geothermal technologies. In order to achieve these requirements, the ACC allows APS to include a RES surcharge as part of customer bills to recover the approved amounts for use on renewable energy projects. Each year APS is required to file a five-year implementation plan with the ACC and seek approval for funding the upcoming year’s RES budget. |
|
On December 14, 2011, the ACC voted to approve APS’s 2012 RES plan covering the 2012-2016 timeframe and authorized a total 2012 RES budget of $110 million. On June 29, 2012, APS filed its annual RES implementation plan, covering the 2013-2017 timeframe and requested 2013 RES funding of between $97 million and $107 million. In a final order dated January 31, 2013, the ACC approved a budget of $103 million for APS’s 2013 RES plan. That budget included $4 million for residential distributed energy incentives and $0.1 million for commercial distributed energy up-front incentives, but did not include any funds for new commercial distributed energy production-based incentives beyond those for previously approved programs. The ACC conducted a hearing to consider APS’s proposal to establish compliance with distributed energy requirements by tracking and recording distributed energy, rather than acquiring and retiring renewable energy credits. In those proceedings, the ACC staff proposed a process whereby if a customer installs distributed generation without an incentive, the customer keeps the renewable energy credits generated and the RES distributed generation requirement is adjusted downward to reflect how much load is being served by renewable generation. APS has endorsed the ACC staff’s proposed solution. Finally, the ACC authorized an APS-led multi-session technical conference to consider APS’s net metering policy and the cost and benefits of distributed energy. The multi-session technical conference concluded on May 28, 2013. |
|
On July 12, 2013, APS filed an application with the ACC proposing a solution to fix the cost shift brought by the current net metering rules. In its application, APS requested that the ACC cause all new residential customers installing new rooftop solar systems to either: (i) take electric service under APS’s demand-based ECT-2 rate and remain eligible for net metering; or (ii) take service under the customer’s existing rate as if no distributed energy system was installed and receive a bill credit for 100% of the distributed energy system’s output at a market-based price. APS also proposed that the ACC: (i) grandfather current rates and use of net metering for existing and immediately pending distributed energy customers; and (ii) continue using direct cash incentives for new distributed energy installations. In its September 30, 2013 report, the ACC staff recognized that net metering shifts costs from solar customers to non-solar customers. The staff recommended that the ACC wait until APS’s next rate case to address the issue. As an alternative, the ACC staff recommended that the ACC assess one of two modest charges on new solar customers with a mechanism to return all incremental revenue collected from such charges to customers. |
|
On July 12, 2013, APS filed its annual RES implementation plan covering the 2014-2018 timeframe. The plan requests a budget for 2014 of approximately $143 million. The plan does not propose any new programs. Rather, the plan requests the funding necessary to fulfill previously approved projects and commitments which are needed to comply with the RES targets and APS’s obligations under its 2008 rate case settlement agreement approved by the ACC, including the remaining 50 megawatts (“MW”) of the AZ Sun Program. AZ Sun is a program that contemplates the development of photovoltaic solar plants which APS owns or will own. On September 30, 2013, the ACC staff issued a report recommending approval of APS’s plan and proposed budget. |
|
Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge. The ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards require APS to submit a Demand Side Management Implementation Plan for review by and approval of the ACC. |
|
On June 1, 2011, APS filed its 2012 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan consistent with the ACC’s Electric Energy Efficiency Standards, which became effective January 1, 2011. The 2012 requirement under such standards is for cumulative energy efficiency savings of 3% of APS retail sales for the prior year. This energy savings requirement is slightly higher than the goal established by the 2008 retail rate case settlement agreement (2.75% of total energy resources for the same two-year period). The ACC issued an order on April 4, 2012, approving recovery of approximately $72 million of APS’s energy efficiency and demand side management program costs. This amount will be recovered by the then existing DSMAC over a twelve-month period beginning March 1, 2012. This amount does not include $10 million already being recovered in general retail base rates, but does include amortization of 2009 costs (approximately $5 million of the $72 million). |
|
On June 1, 2012, APS filed its 2013 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan. In 2013, the standards require APS to achieve cumulative energy savings equal to 5% of its 2012 retail energy sales. Later in 2012, APS filed a supplement to its plan that included a proposed budget for 2013 of $87.6 million. APS expects to receive a decision from the ACC in late 2013 or early 2014. |
|
On June 27, 2013, the ACC voted to open a new docket investigating whether the Electric Energy Efficiency Standards (including cost recovery methodology, incentives, and the determination of cost effectiveness) should be modified or abolished. |
|
PSA Mechanism and Balance. The PSA provides for the adjustment of retail rates to reflect variations in retail fuel and purchased power costs. |
|
The following table shows the changes in the deferred fuel and purchased power regulatory asset for 2013 and 2012 (dollars in millions): |
|
| | Nine Months Ended | | | | | | | | | |
September 30, | | | | | | | | |
| | 2013 | | 2012 | | | | | | | | | |
Beginning balance | | $ | 73 | | $ | 28 | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred fuel and purchased power costs — current period | | (13 | ) | (52 | ) | | | | | | | | |
Amounts (collected from) credited to customers | | (23 | ) | 92 | | | | | | | | | |
Ending balance | | $ | 37 | | $ | 68 | | | | | | | | | |
|
The PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2013 is $0.0013 per kWh as compared to ($0.0042) per kWh for the prior year. This represents a $0.0055 per kWh increase over the 2012 PSA charge. This new rate is comprised of a forward component of ($0.0010) per kWh and a historical component of $0.0023 per kWh. The Settlement Agreement allowed APS to exceed the $0.004 per kWh cap to PSA rate changes in this instance. Any uncollected (overcollected) deferrals during the 2013 PSA year will be included in the calculation of the PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2014. |
|
Transmission Rates, Transmission Cost Adjustor and Other Transmission Matters. In July 2008, the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approved an Open Access Transmission Tariff for APS to move from fixed rates to a formula rate-setting methodology in order to more accurately reflect and recover the costs that APS incurs in providing transmission services. A large portion of the rate represents charges for transmission services to serve APS’s retail customers (“Retail Transmission Charges”). In order to recover the Retail Transmission Charges, APS was previously required to file an application with, and obtain approval from, the ACC to reflect changes in Retail Transmission Charges through the TCA. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement (discussed above), however, an adjustment to rates to recover the Retail Transmission Charges will be made annually each June 1 beginning in 2013 and will go into effect automatically unless suspended by the ACC. |
|
The formula rate is updated each year effective June 1 on the basis of APS’s actual cost of service, as disclosed in APS’s FERC Form 1 report for the previous fiscal year. Items to be updated include actual capital expenditures made as compared with previous projections, transmission revenue credits and other items. The resolution of proposed adjustments can result in significant volatility in the revenues to be collected. APS reviews the proposed formula rate filing amounts with the ACC staff. Any items or adjustments which are not agreed to by APS and the ACC staff can remain in dispute until settled or litigated at FERC. Settlement or litigated resolution of disputed issues could require an extended period of time and could have a significant effect on the Retail Transmission Charge because any adjustment, though applied prospectively, may be calculated to account for previously over- or under-collected amounts. |
|
Effective June 1, 2012, APS’s annual wholesale transmission rates for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $16 million for the twelve-month period beginning June 1, 2012 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. |
|
Effective June 1, 2013, APS’s annual wholesale transmission rates for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $26 million for the twelve-month period beginning June 1, 2013 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (discussed above), an adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover the FERC-approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2013. |
|
As part of APS’s proposed acquisition of Southern California Edison’s (“SCE”) interest in Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners, APS and SCE agreed that upon closing of the acquisition (or in 2016 if the closing does not occur), the companies will terminate an existing transmission agreement between the parties that provides transmission capacity for SCE to transmit its portion of the output from Four Corners to California. On May 1, 2013, APS submitted a request with FERC seeking authorization to cancel the transmission agreement and defer a $40 million payment to be made by APS associated with the termination and recover the payment through amortization over a 10-year period. On September 13, 2013, FERC issued an Order accepting the notice of cancellation, but denying APS’s request for rate recovery of the costs associated with the cancellation. In accordance with its termination agreement with SCE (the “Termination Agreement”), APS believes that the denial by FERC of such rate recovery constitutes the failure of a condition that relieves APS of its obligations under the Termination Agreement. The parties are in discussions concerning this matter. If the matter is not resolved by negotiation, the Termination Agreement requires that disputes be resolved through arbitration. APS is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. |
|
Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (“LFCR”) Mechanism. The LFCR mechanism permits APS to recover on an after-the-fact basis a portion of its fixed costs that would otherwise have been collected by APS in the kWh sales lost due to APS energy efficiency programs and to distributed generation such as roof-top solar arrays. The fixed costs recoverable by the LFCR mechanism were established in the recent rate case and amount to approximately 3.1 cents per residential kWh lost and 2.3 cents per non-residential kWh lost. The kWh’s lost from energy efficiency are based on a third-party evaluation of APS’s energy efficiency programs. Distributed generation sales losses are determined from the metered output from the distributed generation units or if metering is unavailable, through accepted estimating techniques. |
|
APS filed its first LFCR adjustment on January 15, 2013 and will file for its LFCR adjustment every January thereafter. On February 12, 2013, the ACC approved an LFCR adjustment of $5.1 million, representing a pro-rated amount for 2012 since the Settlement Agreement went into effect on July 1, 2012. |
|
Deregulation |
|
On May 9, 2013, the ACC voted to re-examine the facilitation of a deregulated retail electric market in Arizona. The ACC subsequently opened a docket for this matter and received comments from a number of interested parties on the considerations involved in establishing retail electric deregulation in the state. One of these considerations is whether various aspects of a deregulated market, including setting utility rates on a “market” basis, would be consistent with the requirements of the Arizona Constitution. On September 11, 2013, after receiving legal advice from the ACC staff, the ACC voted 4-1 to close the current docket and await full Constitutional authority before any further examination of this matter. The motion approved by the ACC also included opening one or more new dockets in the future to explore options to offer more rate choices to customers and innovative changes within the existing cost-of-service regulatory model that could include elements of competition. |
|
Regulatory Assets and Liabilities |
|
The detail of regulatory assets is as follows (dollars in millions): |
|
| | Remaining | | September 30, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 | |
Amortization |
| | Period | | Current | | Non-Current | | Current | | Non-Current | |
Pension and other postretirement benefits | | | (a) | $ | — | | $ | 754 | | $ | — | | $ | 780 | |
Income taxes — allowance for equity funds used during construction | | 2043 | | 4 | | 105 | | 4 | | 92 | |
Deferred fuel and purchased power — mark-to-market (Note 7) | | 2016 | | 15 | | 24 | | 19 | | 21 | |
Transmission vegetation management | | 2016 | | 9 | | 16 | | 9 | | 23 | |
Coal reclamation | | 2038 | | 8 | | 20 | | 8 | | 24 | |
Palo Verde VIEs (Note 6) | | 2046 | | — | | 40 | | — | | 38 | |
Deferred compensation | | 2036 | | — | | 36 | | — | | 34 | |
Deferred fuel and purchased power (b) (c) | | 2013 | | 37 | | — | | 73 | | — | |
Retired power plant costs | | 2020 | | 3 | | 19 | | — | | — | |
Tax expense of Medicare subsidy | | 2024 | | 2 | | 15 | | 2 | | 17 | |
Loss on reacquired debt | | 2034 | | 1 | | 17 | | 2 | | 18 | |
Income taxes — investment tax credit basis adjustment | | 2042 | | 1 | | 30 | | 1 | | 26 | |
Pension and other postretirement benefits deferral | | 2015 | | 8 | | 6 | | 8 | | 13 | |
Lost fixed cost recovery (b) | | 2014 | | 19 | | — | | 7 | | — | |
Transmission cost adjustor (b) | | 2014 | | 12 | | 2 | | 10 | | — | |
Other | | Various | | 1 | | 22 | | 1 | | 14 | |
Total regulatory assets (d) | | | | $ | 120 | | $ | 1,106 | | $ | 144 | | $ | 1,100 | |
|
|
(a) This asset represents the future recovery of under-funded pension and other postretirement benefit obligations through retail rates. If these costs are disallowed by the ACC, this regulatory asset would be charged to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) and result in lower future revenues. |
(b) See “Cost Recovery Mechanisms” discussion above. |
(c) Subject to a carrying charge. |
(d) There are no regulatory assets for which the ACC has allowed recovery of costs but not allowed a return by exclusion from rate base. FERC rates are set using a formula rate as described in “Transmission Rates and Transmission Cost Adjustor.” |
|
The detail of regulatory liabilities is as follows (dollars in millions): |
|
|
| | Remaining | | September 30, 2013 | | December 31, 2012 | |
Amortization |
| | Period | | Current | | Non-Current | | Current | | Non-Current | |
Removal costs | | | (a) | $ | 26 | | $ | 311 | | $ | 27 | | $ | 321 | |
Asset retirement obligations | | | (a) | — | | 272 | | — | | 256 | |
Renewable energy standard (b) | | 2014 | | 27 | | 22 | | 43 | | — | |
Income taxes — change in rates | | 2042 | | — | | 68 | | — | | 66 | |
Spent nuclear fuel | | 2047 | | 5 | | 37 | | 10 | | 36 | |
Deferred gains on utility property | | 2019 | | 2 | | 11 | | 2 | | 12 | |
Income taxes — deferred investment tax credit | | 2042 | | 2 | | 60 | | 2 | | 52 | |
Demand side management (b) | | 2014 | | 26 | | — | | 4 | | — | |
Other | | Various | | — | | 17 | | — | | 16 | |
Total regulatory liabilities | | | | $ | 88 | | $ | 798 | | $ | 88 | | $ | 759 | |
|
|
(a) In accordance with regulatory accounting guidance, APS accrues for removal costs for its regulated assets, even if there is no legal obligation for removal. |
(b) See “Cost Recovery Mechanisms” discussion above. |
|