CHANGES: RE: Arizona Corporate Commission 09/08/2021 Staff Open Meeting Notice & Agenda

Please note the changes - especially this item on the open meeting

Agenda Item 4

In the Matter of the Commission’s Investigation into Regional Planning, Markets, and Collaboration Among Load-Serving Entities in the Western Interconnection;

> Investigation into the Question of Mandatory or Voluntary Participation in Regional Transmission Organizations, Energy Imbalance Markets, Extended Day-Ahead Markets, and Other Organized Wholesale Energy Markets by Arizona’s Load-Serving Entities:

 

> Consideration of the Cost and Reliability Impacts and Benefits of Participation to the Grid, Arizona Ratepayers, Utility Shareholders, and the State of Arizona;

Consideration of the Needs, Goals, Objectives, and Purposes of Participation; and

Consideration of the Issues of Cost Allocation, Resource Adequacy, and Governance Associated with Participation, as well as Any Other Issue the Commission May Deem Relevant to its Investigation (E-00000A-21-0271)

– Commission discussion and consideration of the process and next steps for proceeding with the docket. No vote will be taken on this matter; however, the Commission may direct the Utilities Division to proceed according to the Commission’s discussion.

========================================================================

ANNOUNCEMENT

ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION

---

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Matthew J. Neubert SECRETARY Carolyn D. Buck Phone: 602-542-3931 CDBuck@azcc.gov

COMMISSIONERS Chairwoman Lea Márquez Peterson Sandra D. Kennedy Justin Olson Anna Tovar Jim O'Connor

 

N O T I C E
STAFF OPEN MEETING
OF THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION

Wednesday, September 08, 2021

10:00 A.M.  (OR UPON ADJOURNMENT
OF THE SEPTEMBER 08, 2021 REGULAR OPEN MEETING,
WHICHEVER IS LATER)

Hearing Room One
1200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

This shall serve as notice of an open meeting at the above location for consideration, discussion, and possible vote of the items on the agenda and other matters related thereto. Commissioners may attend the proceedings in person, or by telephone, video, or internet conferencing, and may use this open meeting to ask questions about the matters on the agenda. The parties to the matters to be discussed or their legal representatives are requested, though not required, to attend. The Commissioners may move to executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of legal advice pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 (A) (3) on the matters noticed herein.

Because of the guidance issued by state and federal officials regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, meetings of 10 or more should be by teleconference only. Only essential Commission staff will attend in person. The public is strongly discouraged from attending in person.  The public will be able to participate by either watching and listening to the meeting online or listening to the meeting via telephone.  For those wishing to enter an appearance or provide public comment for a particular item please use the dial in phone numbers. Once the item for which you are appearing or providing public comment is concluded, please hang up and watch the live stream.

Persons with a disability may request reasonable accommodations by contacting the Commission Secretary listed above

Agendas are also available online at: https://azcc.gov/live

Dial-in Phone Number: 1-866-705-2554 Passcode to Listen Only: 2414978

NOTE: The Commission may choose to take testimony under oath.

AGENDA

1. Division Updates – Updates by Division Directors that have Anything New or Significant Since Update at Previous Commission Staff Meeting. (Matt Neubert)
   
   
   1. IT - Letty Butner
   2. Securities - Mark Dinell
   3. Safety - Chris Watson
   4. Admin - Kim Battista
   5. Corporations - Tanya Gibson
   6. Hearing - Jane Rodda
   7. Utilities - Elijah Abinah
   8. Legal - Robin Mitchell
   9. Executive Director - Matt Neubert
      
      
2. Staff Review and Assessment: Update, discussion, and possible vote to select an independent consultant or agency to conduct a review, survey, or assessment of the Commission’s staffing levels and employee salaries, job descriptions, and job performance; opportunity for Commissioners to review and discuss options, scope, and costs of the review. (Matt Neubert)
   
   
3. FERC Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Commission discussion, consideration, and possible vote to direct Staff to prepare for the Commission’s review and approval comments in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued on July 15, 2021, related to the issues of electrical regional transmission planning and cost allocation and generator interconnection.
   
   
4. In the Matter of the Commission’s Investigation into Regional Planning, Markets, and Collaboration Among Load-Serving Entities in the Western Interconnection; Investigation into the Question of Mandatory or Voluntary Participation in Regional Transmission Organizations, Energy Imbalance Markets, Extended Day-Ahead Markets, and Other Organized Wholesale Energy Markets by Arizona’s Load-Serving Entities: Consideration of the Cost and Reliability Impacts and Benefits of Participation to the Grid, Arizona Ratepayers, Utility Shareholders, and the State of Arizona; Consideration of the Needs, Goals, Objectives, and Purposes of Participation; and Consideration of the Issues of Cost Allocation, Resource Adequacy, and Governance Associated with Participation, as well as Any Other Issue the Commission May Deem Relevant to its Investigation (E-00000A-21-0271) – Commission discussion and consideration of the process and next steps for proceeding with the docket. No vote will be taken on this matter; however, the Commission may direct the Utilities Division to proceed according to the Commission’s discussion.
   
   
5. Attorney General Opinion – Commission discussion, consideration, and possible vote to direct the Legal Division to draft and prepare for Commission review and approval a letter requesting pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(7) an Attorney General Opinion regarding the statutes the Legislature established in A.R.S. § 40-202(B), (C), (D), and (E) and §§ 40-207–208 and the status of A.A.C. § R14-2-1601 et seq. in light of Arizona Constitution, article XV, §§ 3, 6, 12, & 14, Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 207 Ariz. 95 (Ct. App. 2004), and Johnson Utilities, L.L.C. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 249 Ariz. 215 (2020). The Commission may vote to go into Executive Session for discussion and consultation with its attorneys in this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03A (3) and (4), which will not be open to the public.
   
   
6. Arizona Corporation Commission – Code of Ethics – Commission discussion, consideration, and possible vote regarding September 2, 2021 letter from the Legislature regarding concerns with the Arizona Corporation Commission Code of Ethics.

The Commission may vote to go into Executive Session for discussion and consultation with its attorneys in this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03A (3) and (4), which will not be open to the public.

 

The latest robots and technologies of the future | All technology news ...

Use it or Lose It

Right from the source

THE AVENUE

Cities are taking it slow with American Rescue Plan funds

Alan Berube and Eli Byerly-DukeTuesday, September 7, 2021

When President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) into law last March, it was a momentous occasion for local governments around the country. In contrast to past federal fiscal relief efforts—including the CARES Act of 2020—ARP provided a large number of cities and counties with direct, flexible support from the federal government. And the sums on offer were substantial: $130 billion in Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) for cities, counties, and tribes, often amounting to significant shares of local governments’ annual budgets.

Alan Berube

Senior Fellow and Deputy Director -Metropolitan Policy Program

berubea1

Eli Byerly-Duke

Research Assistant - Metropolitan Policy Program

EliByerlyDuke

The Treasury Department began disbursing these dollars in May, requiring larger recipients to submit initial reports by this week on how they are allocating the dollars to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to “build back better” for the future.

In turn, many big cities are telling Treasury: We’ll get back to you on that.

That’s one takeaway from our preliminary examination of plans that 20 large cities around the country have made available. These cities are slated to receive anywhere from $142 million (Charlotte, N.C.) to $827 million (Detroit) in flexible funds from ARP, for a combined total of $7.4 billion—only 18% of which, we’ve found, has been committed so far.

MANY CITIES REPORT NOT YET SPENDING ANY FRF DOLLARS

As part of Treasury’s reporting requirements for ARP, cities and counties with populations of at least 250,000 had to declare the FRF amounts they had spent through July 31 across a series of eligible expenditure categories: public health, economic support to households and businesses, services to disproportionately impacted communities, premium pay for essential workers, broadband/water/sewer infrastructure, and revenue replacement.

Among the 20 city plans we examined, eight reported no expenditures at all through July. A couple others reported spending just tiny shares of their allocated funds. In total, the cities reported committing $1.3 billion, or 18% of their combined $7.4 billion allocation.

This is not necessarily surprising nor worrisome. Cities have received only half of their FRF dollars, with the second half scheduled to arrive in May 2022. Moreover, Treasury counseled cities to not commit all of their dollars immediately, so that they could respond to changing health and economic circumstances over the coming months.

The overall signal from many big cities seems to be that they do not feel under immediate pressure to commit and spend the first tranche of flexible federal dollars. In some cities, plans are still working their way through the legislative process. In others, as researchers from the Nowak Metro Finance Lab note, a bottom-up community engagement process to inform allocations is still playing out. And many cities may be awaiting the publication of the final Treasury FRF rule, so they can be sure their spending priorities meet official eligibility requirements.

AMONG CITIES WITH SPENDING PLANS, SOME PRIORITIES ARE EMERGING

Across both cities that have reported early expenditures to Treasury and cities that have announced detailed spending proposals, a couple areas of emphasis (and non-emphasis) are emerging.

Many cities are reserving a sizable portion of their FRF allocation forrevenue replacement. The Treasury guidance permits cities to use the funds to make up their estimated revenue shortfall from the prior year attributable to the pandemic economic crisis. From there, cities have broad latitude to use those dollars to support government services. Buffalo, N.Y.,Houston, and Kansas City, Mo. report that they are dedicating roughly one-third of their FRF allocation to revenue replacement. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, reports that it will dedicate all of its funds to this purpose—although the city goes on to enumerate a number of specific needs those funds will help it address. Differences in how cities are prioritizing revenue replacement may largely reflect variation in how the pandemic affected their finances, due to different local tax structures. For these cities that reported spending plans, revenue replacement represents 39% of total committed funds.

A number of cities are planning to use—or already have used—significant funds to address challenges facing low-income and otherdisproportionately impacted communities. The interim Treasury rule provides local governments with fairly wide latitude in this area. St. Louis, for instance, has committed nearly $72 million (about 16% of its total allocation) to helping such communities, including shelter and services for the homeless, funds to prevent eviction, and programs for young people. Boston, Minneapolis, and Seattle also plan to dedicate significant FRF dollars to address affordable housing needs and combat homelessness. In Buffalo, investment in city parks—especially in low-income neighborhoods and for child-related amenities—represents one of the largest planned expenditures. Services to disproportionately impacted communities account for 21% of the $1.3 billion the 20 cities have thus far committed. Some cities that have announced plans not yet reflected in official reports—such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, St. Paul, Minn., and Austin, Texas—are poised to make large commitments in this area too.

Other expenditure areas—including support for small businesses and impacted industries, job training, neighborhood/corridor revitalization, and direct cash/nutrition assistance to households—have received varying levels of attention and investment across published city plans. Some of these represent important priorities in cities that have announced plans but not yet reported expending dollars (e.g., Detroit, Syracuse, N.Y., and Akron, Ohio). Meanwhile, infrastructure (broadband, water, and sewer) has received notably less emphasis in initial plans, probably because cities are anticipating even more significant resources soon on offer from the infrastructure package making its way through Congress.

THE BOTTOM LINE: LOTS OF ROOM FOR THOUGHTFULNESS AND CREATIVITY

Perhaps the most important takeaway from this initial scan of city recovery plans is how much room remains for city leaders to adopt thoughtful, evidence-based, equity-oriented approaches to using these substantial one-time funds. Cities that got out of the gate with comprehensive plans bridging high-level goals with project-level details—such as Boston, Buffalo, St. Louis, and Seattle—offer models for how other cities can approach this historic opportunity.

Related

• 

  The Senate infrastructure bill’s four interconnected broadband components

• 

  How cities, states, and tribes can boost entrepreneurship via the American Rescue Plan

• 

  From relief to recovery: Using federal funds to spur a small business rebound | Stage 2: Recovery

At the end of October, cities are scheduled to submit even more detailed reports to Treasury, listing their FRF expenditures at a project level. As more plans hit the streets, Brookings Metro will highlight both the emerging high-level trends as well as the most innovative ways cities are designing their strategies and deploying their resources to recover from the pandemic and make bold, long-term investments.

 

RELATED TOPICS

• Cities & Regions
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Economics
• Economic Development
• U.S. Metro Areas

September Will Be Critical for Markets, Pimco's Browne Says

PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETINGS Wed 09.08.2021 Study Session + Public Hearing (Final Agendas)

Intro

Remarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPATION

========================================================================

MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Agenda Item 2-a

File #:

PZ 21104

Type:

PZ Minutes

Status:

Agenda Ready

In control:

Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing

On agenda:

9/8/2021

Title:

Minutes from the August 25, 2021 study session and regular meeting.

Attachments:

1. P&Z August 25, 2021 Study Session Minutes, 2. P&Z August 25, 2021 Minutes

 

 

======================================================================

FINAL AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING

Meeting Name:

Planning and Zoning Board - Public Hearing

Agenda status:

Final

Meeting date/time:

9/8/2021 4:00 PM

Minutes status:

Draft

Meeting location:

Council Chambers

Published agenda:	Agenda	Published minutes:	Not available

Meeting video:

Not available

Attachments:

• Meeting Items (3)

3 records Group Clear sorting Clear grouping Group by Type Group by Result Export Export to Excel Export to PDF Export to Word Show: Legislation only Legislation only All agenda items

File # Agenda # Type Title Action Result Action Details PZ 21104 2-a PZ Minutes Minutes from the August 25, 2021 study session and regular meeting.     Not available PZ 21105 3-a PZ Zoning - Discuss and Recommend ZON20-00840 District 1. Within the 1000 block of East McKellips Road (south side). Located west of Stapley Drive on the south side of McKellips Road. (4.5± acres). Rezone from Single Residence 9 (RS-9) and Multiple Residence 4 (RM-4) to Multiple Residence 2 (RM-2) with a Planned Area Development Overlay (PAD); and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a multiple residence development. Victoria Snively, United Realty MTA, applicant; Thomas Adhoot, owner. (Continued from August 25, 2021) Planner: Cassidy Welch Staff Recommendation: Continue to September 22, 2021     Not available PZ 21106 3-b PZ Zoning - Discuss and Recommend ZON21-00397 District 6. Within the 6900 to 7200 blocks of East Hampton Avenue (south side) and within the 1500 block of South Clearview Avenue (west side). Located south of Southern Avenue and east of Power Road. (17.5± acres). Rezone from Limited Commercial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (LC-PAD) to Limited Commercial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (LC-PAD-PAD); Council Use Permit and Site Plan Review. This request will allow for a multiple residence development. Brennan Ray, Burch & Cracchiolo, PLC, applicant; Mesa Pavilions Retail LLC & GFI-Mesa Investments Limited Partnership, owner. Planner: Cassidy Welch Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions     Not available

 

=====================================================================