PRC Comments / 2026-NTFP-03

Comment Submission

Tatum B. Arizona Public Service

Submitted Responses

2026-NTFP-03

01. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 1. Introduction

No response submitted.

02. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 1.4 Definitions

No response submitted.

03. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 2. Background

We appreciate the inclusion of Embedded Load Qualifying Contracts in the Forward Showing framework. However, the last paragraph of Section 2 indicating that a JCAF is required “with the seller to the Embedded Load Customer as described below” is not described in detail or specifically referenced any further than the mention.  

04. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 3.1 Resource-Specific Capacity Agreements

In the table of contents, there is a Section 3.3 “Embedded Load Qualifying Contact” referenced, but this section does not exist further in the BPM. Additionally in the table of contents this section notes “Error bookmark not defined.” 

APS would appreciate this addition that could better clarify the contract between the embedded load customer and the seller, along with the minor fix in the Table of Contents.

05. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 3.2. System Sale

The first sentence in this section incorrectly strikes out the word "tracked."

06. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 3.2.1. Participant Buyer - Participant Seller

No response submitted.

07. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 4. Joint Contract Accreditation Forms

We appreciate and support the elimination of the JCAF requirements for Participant to Participant contracts.

Given the Embedded Load construct, explicit language in this section would be helpful.

Because the WRAP Participant is not a party to the underlying contract, it would be useful to explicitly state that the JCAF is executed between the seller and the Embedded Load Customer, and that the Participant relies on this JCAF for its or a Forward Showing. This would align existing principles for non-Participant transactions and provide more clarity on contracts between embedded load customers that have recently been defined in this BPM.  

08. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Section 4.1 Allocation of Over/Under Performance or Forced Outages in the Operations Program

No response submitted.

09. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Appendix A

No response submitted.

10. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes in BPM 106 - Appendix C

No response submitted.

11. Please supply any comments related to the proposed changes to the Join Contract Accreditation Form

Again APS seeks clarification in ensuring there is clear direction for the scenario where the WRAP Participant is not a party to the underlying contract, it would be useful to explicitly state that the JCAF is executed between the seller and the Embedded Load Customer, and that the Participant relies on this JCAF for its Forward Showing.

12. Please supply any comments related to the proposed Embedded Load Acknowledgement and Resource Assurance Agreement

No response submitted.

General Comment

APS supports the removal of the JCAF requirement for Participant-to-Participant contracts, as it would reduce administrative burden and provide relief to customers who have already demonstrated the accuracy of their information through the Forward Showing Demonstration process.

We would like additional information as in Section 2 Background regarding a JCAF that is required “with the seller to the Embedded Load Customer as described below.” As well as the inclusion of Section 3.3 “Embedded Load Qualifying Contact” as it is listed in the Table of Contents.