Commissioner James Danly Statement
October 3, 2023
Docket No. ER23-2398-000
I dissent from this order rejecting numerous aspects of Arizona Public Service Company’s (APS’s) interconnection reform proposal.[1] APS met its Federal Power Act (FPA) section 205 burden to demonstrate that its proposed rate changes were just and reasonable,[2] or specifically in this case, that its proposed changes were “consistent with or superior to” the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Small Generator Interconnection Procedures for non-RTO regions.[3] The majority nevertheless rejects numerous aspects of APS’s filing involving site control,[4] withdrawal penalties,[5] suspension provisions,[6] small generator interconnection procedures for 69 kV lines,[7] letters of credit for existing interconnection customers,[8] cost allocation of cluster study costs,[9] “ride through” capability and performance,[10] commercial operation date extensions,[11] election of Energy Resource Interconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service,[12] definition of “Stand Alone Network Upgrades,”[13] and transferability of queue positions.[14] One gets the distinct impression that the Commission does not in practice allow public utilities much flexibility from our thousands of pages of interconnection rules. I would have accepted APS’s rate proposal.
We have another thousand pages of new interconnection rules now, not yet in effect, that require public utilities to submit queue reform filings.[15] There is an urgent need for such interconnection queue reform, but I still prefer section 205 filings by utilities over Commission mandates.[16] But a section 205 proposal is pointless if the Commission rejects any variation from our rules. To do so goes beyond that which the FPA provides for a just and reasonable rate proposal. My hope is that the Commission will not be so heavy handed in rejecting reasonable variations from Order No. 2023.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[1] Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 184 FERC ¶ 61,188 (2023) (Order).
[2] 16 U.S.C. § 824d.
[3] See Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements & Procs., Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103, at P 826 (2003), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220, order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-B, 109 FERC ¶ 61,287 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-C, 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 (2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
[4] Order, 184 FERC ¶ 61,188 at PP 20-22.
[5] Id. PP 55-60.
[6] Id. PP 66-67.
[7] Id. P 74.
[8] Id. P 84. These letters of credit were intended to cover the rejected withdrawal penalties.
[9] Id. P 86.
[10] Id. P 88.
[11] Id. P 90.
[12] Id. P 92.
[13] Id. P 98.
[14] Id. P 102.
[15] Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procs. & Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2023).
[16] See id. (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 4).