RE AdvocatesUtility Proposal Comparison

1
RE Advocates/Utility Proposal Comparison

• TEP
• DEPS
• 1.1 by 2007
• ECMs
• Returns DSM
• Increases caps, triples Surcharge rate
• CRRES
• No set or date
• Assessment study
• Funded by adjustor mechanism

• APS
• EPS goal of 3.5 5 by 2015
• Two options
• 5 goal removes technology restrictions
• 3.5 goal DG set-aside
• Assumes 20 million annually (APS only)
• Annual adjustment factor
• Keeps DSM

• RE Advocates
• DEPS
• 1.1 by 2007
• ECMs
• Returns DSM
• Existing Surcharge rate, no caps
• DG set-aside
• Self-directed option
• CRRES
• 8 by 2010
• Funded by adjustor mechanism
• RDEPS
• Funded by shareholders
• Transition to DEPS
• 1.0 ECM

2
Meeting Demand Growth with DSM, DEPS CRRES

• Conclusions
• Leveraging DSM savings providing sufficient EPS
  funds can help meet portion of demand growth with
  energy efficiency solar electric technologies
• Realistic energy efficiency renewable energy
  resource combination can meet significant portion
  of future demand growth
• An integrated package of DSM, DEPS, 8 retail
  electricity sales from CRRES reduces customer
  costs
• See attached charts

3
A Perspective Meeting Demand Growth with
Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency
4
Effect of Integrated Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Portfolio on Demand Growth
5
Cost to Meet Demand Growth with DSM, DEPS, AZ
Biomass/LFGas Wind/Geothermal