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 by approximately 6.6%. On January 6, 2012, APS and other parties to the general retail rate case entered into an agreement (the “2012 Settlement Agreement”) detailing the terms upon which the parties agreed to settle the rate case. On May 15, 2012, the ACC approved the 2012 Settlement Agreement without material modifications.

Settlement Agreement

The 2012 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 2012 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 2012 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 2012 Settlement Agreement.

Other key provisions of the 2012 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 increases in property taxes 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 acquisition of additional interests in Units 4 and 5 and the related closure of Units 1-3 of Four Corners (APS made its filing under this provision on December 30, 2013, which would result in an average bill impact to residential customers of approximately 2% if approved as requested);


•	Implementation of a Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (“LFCR”) 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 APS’s 2009 retail rate case settlement agreement (the “2009 Settlement Agreement”);


•	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 2012 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 2009 Settlement Agreement to process subsequent rate cases within twelve months of sufficiency findings from the ACC staff, which generally occurs within 30 days after the filing of a rate case.

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 July 12, 2013, APS filed its annual RES implementation plan, covering the 2014-2018 timeframe and requesting a 2014 RES budget of approximately $143 million. In a final order dated January 7, 2014, the ACC approved the requested budget. Also in 2013, 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. On February 6, 2014, the ACC established a proceeding to modify the renewable energy rules to establish a process for compliance with the renewable energy requirement that is not based solely on the use of renewable energy credits. On September 9, 2014, the ACC authorized a rulemaking process to modify the RES rules. The proposed changes would permit the ACC to find that utilities have complied with the distributed energy requirement in light of all available information.

In accordance with the ACC’s decision on the 2014 RES plan, on April 15, 2014, APS filed an application with the ACC requesting permission to build an additional 20 MW of APS-owned utility scale solar under the AZ Sun Program. In a subsequent filing, APS also offered an alternative proposal to replace the 20 MW of utility scale solar with 20 MW of APS-owned residential solar. This matter is still pending with the ACC and the ACC staff has recommended that it be addressed in our 2015 RES implementation plan.

On July 1, 2014, APS filed its 2015 RES implementation plan and proposed a RES budget of approximately $154 million.

Demand Side Management Adjustor Charge. The ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards require APS to submit a Demand Side Management Implementation Plan (“DSM Plan”) for review by and approval of the ACC.

On June 1, 2012, APS filed its 2013 DSM Plan. In 2013, the standards required 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.

On March 11, 2014, the ACC issued an order approving APS’s 2013 DSM Plan. The ACC approved a budget of $68.9 million for each of 2013 and 2014. The ACC also approved a Resource Savings Initiative that allows APS to count towards compliance with the ACC Electric Energy Efficiency Standards, savings for improvements to APS’s transmission and delivery system, generation and facilities that have been approved through a DSM Plan. Consistent with the ACC’s March 11, 2014 order, APS intends to continue its approved DSM programs in 2015.

On June 27, 2013, the ACC voted to open a new docket investigating whether the Electric Energy Efficiency Rules should be modified. The ACC held a series of three workshops in March and April 2014 to investigate methodologies used to determine cost effective energy efficiency programs, cost recovery mechanisms, incentives, and potential changes to the Electric Energy Efficiency and Resource Planning Rules.

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 2014 and 2013 (dollars in millions):



	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2014			2013
Beginning balance	$	21		$	73
Deferred fuel and purchased power costs — current period	27			(13		)
Amounts charged to customers	(32		)	(23		)
Ending balance	$	16		$	37

The PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2014 is $0.001557 per kWh, as compared to $0.001329 per kWh for the prior year. This new rate is comprised of a forward component of $0.001277 per kWh and a historical component of $0.000280 per kWh. Any uncollected (overcollected) deferrals during the 2014 PSA year will be included in the calculation of the PSA rate for the PSA year beginning February 1, 2015.

Transmission Rates, Transmission Cost Adjustor and Other Transmission Matters. In July 2008, the United States Federal 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 2012 Settlement Agreement, however, an adjustment to rates to recover the Retail Transmission Charges will be made annually each June 1 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, 2014, APS’s annual wholesale transmission rates for all users of its transmission system increased by approximately $5.9 million for the twelve-month period beginning June 1, 2014 in accordance with the FERC-approved formula. An adjustment to APS’s retail rates to recover FERC-approved transmission charges went into effect automatically on June 1, 2014.

Lost Fixed Cost Recovery 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 rooftop solar arrays. The fixed costs recoverable by the LFCR mechanism were established in the 2012 Settlement Agreement and amount to approximately 3.1 cents per residential kWh lost and 2.3 cents per non-residential kWh lost. The LFCR adjustment has a year-over-year cap of 1% of retail revenues. Any amounts left unrecovered in a particular year because of this cap can be carried over for recovery in a future year. 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 a LFCR adjustment every January thereafter. On February 12, 2013, the ACC approved a LFCR adjustment of $5.1 million, representing a pro-rated amount for 2012 since the 2012 Settlement Agreement went into effect on July 1, 2012. APS filed its 2014 annual LFCR adjustment on January 15, 2014, requesting a LFCR adjustment of $25.3 million, effective March 1, 2014. The ACC approved APS’s LFCR adjustment without change on March 11, 2014, which became effective April 1, 2014.

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. The ACC opened a new docket on November 4, 2013 to explore technological advances and innovative changes within the electric utility industry. A series of workshops in this docket were held in 2014 and no future workshops are currently scheduled.

Net Metering

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. On December 3, 2013, the ACC issued its order on APS’s net metering proposal. The ACC instituted a charge on customers who install rooftop solar panels after December 31, 2013, and directed APS to provide quarterly reports on the pace of rooftop solar adoption to assist the ACC in considering further increases. The charge of $0.70 per kilowatt became effective on January 1, 2014, and is estimated to collect $4.90 per month from a typical future rooftop solar customer to help pay for their use of the electricity grid. The new policy will be in effect until the next APS rate case.

In making its decision, the ACC determined that the current net metering program creates a cost shift, causing non-solar utility customers to pay higher rates to cover the costs of maintaining the electrical grid. ACC staff and the state’s Residential Utility Consumer Office, among other organizations, also agreed that a cost shift exists. The fixed charge does not increase APS’s revenue because it is credited to the LFCR, but it will modestly reduce the impact of the cost shift on non-solar customers. The ACC acknowledged that the new charge addresses only a portion of the cost shift. The ACC also required APS to file its next rate case in June 2015, the earliest date contemplated in the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

In May 2014, the ACC began conducting a series of workshops to, among other things, evaluate the role and value of the electric grid as it relates to rooftop solar and other issues regarding net metering.

On July 22, 2014, the ACC Commissioners voted to reopen the December 2013 net metering decision for the limited purpose of deciding whether to eliminate the requirement that APS file its next rate case in June 2015. The vote included a request that parties comment in the docket about their thoughts on removing the filing date requirement and on the process for the broader discussion regarding rate design. On August 12, 2014, the ACC Commissioners voted to lift the requirement that APS file its next general rate case by June 2015. On September 29, 2014, the staff of the ACC filed in a new docket a proposal for permitting a utility to request ACC approval of its proposed rate design outside of and before a general rate case. On October 20, 2014, APS and other interested stakeholders filed comments to this proposal. APS supports the concept of considering rate design outside of its next rate case, but cannot predict whether the ACC will ultimately approve staff’s proposal.

Four Corners

On December 30, 2013, APS purchased SCE’s 48% ownership interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. The 2012 Settlement Agreement includes a procedure to allow APS to request rate adjustments prior to its next general rate case related to APS’s acquisition of the additional interests in Units 4 and 5 and the related closure of Units 1-3 of Four Corners. APS made its filing under this provision on December 30, 2013. If approved, these adjustments would result in an average bill impact to residential customers of approximately 2%. This includes the deferral for future recovery of all non-fuel operating costs for the acquired SCE interest in Four Corners, net of the non-fuel operating costs savings resulting from the closure of Units 1-3 from the date of closing of the purchase. The 2012 Settlement Agreement also provides for deferral for future recovery of all unrecovered costs incurred in connection with the closure of Units 1-3. The deferral balance related to the acquisition of SCE’s interest in Units 4 and 5 and the closure of Units 1-3 was $67 million as of September 30, 2014. ACC staff and other intervenors have filed testimony in this matter with the ACC, and APS has filed rebuttal testimony. Both ACC staff and the Residential Utility Customer Office have proposed adjustments to the return to be applied to the Four Corners investments until APS’s next rate case, which would result in a lower level of recovery than proposed by APS. Hearings on this matter are completed and we anticipate a decision by the end of 2014. APS cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

As part of APS’s acquisition of SCE’s interest in Units 4 and 5, APS and SCE agreed, via a “Transmission Termination Agreement,” that upon closing of the acquisition, the companies would terminate an existing transmission agreement (“Transmission Agreement”) between the parties that provides transmission capacity on a system (the “Arizona Transmission System”) for SCE to transmit its portion of the output from Four Corners to California. APS previously submitted a request to FERC related to this termination, which resulted in a FERC order denying rate recovery of $40 million that APS agreed to pay SCE associated with the termination. APS and SCE negotiated an alternate arrangement under which SCE would assign its 1,555 MW capacity rights over the Arizona Transmission System to third-parties, including 300 MW to APS’s marketing and trading group. However, this alternative arrangement was not approved by FERC. In late March 2014, APS and SCE filed requests for rehearing with FERC. Both requests for rehearing were denied on August 14, 2014. Although APS and SCE continue to evaluate potential paths forward, it is possible that the terms of the Transmission Termination Agreement may again control. As we previously disclosed, APS believes that the original denial by FERC of rate recovery under the Transmission Termination Agreement constitutes the failure of a condition that relieves APS of its obligations under that agreement. If APS and SCE were unable to determine a resolution through negotiation, the Transmission Termination Agreement requires that disputes be resolved through arbitration. APS is unable to predict the outcome of this matter if it proceeds to arbitration. If the matter proceeds to arbitration and APS is not successful, APS may be required to record a charge to its results of operations.

Cholla

In the third quarter of 2014, after considering the costs to comply with environmental regulations, APS determined that it was probable that it will retire Unit 2 at the Cholla Power Plant ("Cholla") in April 2016. Specifically, on September 11, 2014, APS announced that it will close Unit 2 of Cholla by April 2016 and stop burning coal at the other APS-owned units (Units 1 and 3) at the plant by the mid-2020s, if EPA approves a compromise proposal offered by APS to meet required environmental and emissions standards and rules. Previously, APS estimated Cholla Unit 2’s end of life to be 2033. APS is currently recovering depreciation and a return on the net book value of the unit in base rates and plans to seek recovery of all of the unit’s retirement-related costs in its next retail rate case.

If APS closes Cholla Unit 2, APS believes it will be allowed recovery of the remaining net book value of Unit 2 ($130 million as of September 30, 2014), in addition to a return on its investment. In accordance with GAAP, in the third quarter of 2014, Unit 2’s remaining net book value was reclassified from property, plant and equipment to a regulatory asset. If the ACC does not allow full recovery of the remaining net book value of Cholla Unit 2, all or a portion of the regulatory asset will be written off and APS’s net income, cash flows, and financial position will be negatively impacted.

Regulatory Assets and Liabilities

The detail of regulatory assets is as follows (dollars in millions):



	Remaining Amortization Period	September 30, 2014				December 31, 2013
	Remaining Amortization Period	Current		Non-Current		Current		Non-Current
Pension and other postretirement benefits	(a)	$	—	$	286	$	—	$	314
Income taxes — allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”) equity	2043	4		117		4		105
Deferred fuel and purchased power — mark-to-market (Note 7)	2016	14		20		5		29
Transmission vegetation management	2016	9		7		9		14
Coal reclamation	2038	8		12		8		18
Palo Verde VIEs (Note 6)	2046	—		39		—		41
Deferred compensation	2036	—		36		—		34
Deferred fuel and purchased power (b) (c)	2015	16		—		21		—
Tax expense of Medicare subsidy	2023	2		14		2		15
Loss on reacquired debt	2034	1		17		1		17
Income taxes — investment tax credit basis adjustment	2043	2		46		1		39
Pension and other postretirement benefits deferral	2015	6		—		8		4
Four Corners cost deferral	2024	—		67		—		37
Lost fixed cost recovery (b)	2015	33		—		25		—
Transmission cost adjustor (b)	2015	4		—		8		2
Retired power plant costs	2033	10		139		3		18
Deferred property taxes	(d)	—		26		—		11
Other	Various	1		11		2		14
Total regulatory assets (e)		$	110	$	837	$	97	$	712


(a)	This asset represents the future recovery of 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. See Note 4 for further discussion.


(b)	See “Cost Recovery Mechanisms” discussion above.


(c)	Subject to a carrying charge.


(d)	Per the provision of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.


(e)	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, Transmission Cost Adjustor and Other Transmission Matters.”

The detail of regulatory liabilities is as follows (dollars in millions):



	Remaining Amortization Period	September 30, 2014				December 31, 2013
	Remaining Amortization Period	Current		Non-Current		Current		Non-Current
Removal costs	(a)	$	31	$	284	$	28	$	303
Asset retirement obligations	(a)	—		277		—		266
Renewable energy standard (b)	2015	40		8		33		15
Income taxes — change in rates	2043	1		72		—		74
Spent nuclear fuel	2047	5		53		6		36
Deferred gains on utility property	2019	2		9		2		10
Income taxes — deferred investment tax credit	2043	3		92		3		79
Demand side management (b)	2015	39		—		27		—
Other postretirement benefits	(c)	33		221		—		—
Other	Various	—		19		—		18
Total regulatory liabilities		$	154	$	1,035	$	99	$	801


(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.


(c)	See Note 4.