# Palmer Rebuttal Testimony on Ironwood [[J. David Palmer]]'s rebuttal testimony as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at [[Entergy Arkansas]]. **The Company's substantive answer to [[APSC Staff Testimony on the GAJA Rider|Mark Herring]]'s recommendation to exclude the Ironwood combustion turbine from the [[Generating Arkansas Jobs Act (GAJA) rider|GAJA Rider]].** Filed 2026-04-20, ten days before the evidentiary hearing. ## What's inside - 26-008-TF_68_1.pdf — 15 pages (8 pages of testimony plus appendix summary). ## Key takeaways - **Staff's Argument** (per Palmer's summary): Staff witness [[Mark Herring]] argues that "a specific Commission finding that [[Ironwood]] is a Strategic Investment is required" for it to be in the GAJA Rider, and concludes that "EAL does not have approval to allocate 100 percent of the costs of Ironwood to retail customers as a Strategic Investment eligible for cost recovery under the GAJA Rider." Staff would not object if the Commission designates Ironwood as a Strategic Investment in this proceeding, but argues an explicit designation finding has not been made (p. 3). - **Palmer's response** rests on three statutory provisions: 1. **Ark. Code Ann. § 23-4-1303(10)(A)** defines "Strategic Investments" as "investments, either construction or purchase, and associated operating expenses made by a electric public utility or natural gas public utility, and approved by the Arkansas Public Service Commission under § 23-3-201 et seq., the Utility Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act, § 23-18-501 et seq., or a notice under § 23-18-104..." for purposes including "Support growth and economic development," "Maintain and improve the provision of reliable electric utility service," "Support the license extension for existing nuclear generation resources," and "Ensure that electric utilities maintain adequate dispatchable generation resources." (p. 4) 2. **§ 23-4-1303(10)(B)(i)** includes "A new electric generating facility... designed for or capable of operation at a capacity of one hundred megawatts (100 MW) or more for a single facility." Palmer: "**It is not in dispute that Ironwood meets the definition of a Strategic Investment. Mr. Herring agrees that all three of EAL's resources, including Ironwood, meet one of these approval criteria.**" (p. 5) 3. **§ 23-4-1304(w)** — the pre-Act 373 transition provision: "**a resource filed prior to Act 373 is eligible for recovery in the GAJA Rider pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 23-4-1304(w)**." (p. 5). Ironwood's CECPN application was filed in [[Ironwood|Docket 24-072-U]] on **November 1, 2024** — "well in advance of Act 373's consideration or passage by the General Assembly." Palmer says Herring concedes this point. 4. **§ 23-4-1304(f)(1)** provides: "At the election of the investor-owned electric utility or the investor-owned natural gas utility, **strategic investments shall be recovered through the rider**" (emphasis Palmer's). Palmer argues this election is the only statutory step required for inclusion. (p. 7) - **EAL's election.** "EAL designated Ironwood to be included in the GAJA Rider and provided notice to the Commission, which is all that is statutorily required" — citing "Docket No. 24-072-U, Notice of Intent to Include in GAJA Rider filed September 23, 2025." (p. 5) - **Prior Commission recognition.** Palmer argues the Commission already recognized Ironwood's designation: "The Commission recognized EAL's designation in Docket No. 25-049-TF when it directed EAL on September 24, 2025, to provide bill impacts of the inclusion of Ironwood in the GAJA Rider." Footnote 13 cites Docket No. 25-049-TF, Order No. 4, Question 10, and Supplemental Direct Testimony of [[Matthew S. Klucher]]. (p. 7) - **The "major utility facility" analogy.** Palmer: "This is no different than the Commission's observation of the fact that certain facilities are 'major utility facilities' under the Utility Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act. A utility files for a CECPN because a facility meets the definition of a major utility; a Commission order is not required first stating that the facility meets the definition before the utility files the CECPN application." (p. 6) - **The distinguishing-the-other-plants point.** Palmer argues Herring's comparison to the CECPN orders for [[Jefferson Power Station]] and [[Arkansas Cypress]] is inapposite because those applications were filed *after* Act 373 was passed and thus a different statutory regime applies. - **CECPN-cited testimony.** Palmer cites the following testimony in [[Ironwood|Docket 24-072-U]] (the Ironwood CECPN) as establishing that the Commission found Ironwood meets the Strategic Investment criteria: "Cunningham Direct Testimony at 4, 22-25; Cunningham Rebuttal Testimony at 9, 12-14; Fielder Direct Testimony at 7-8; Fielder Rebuttal Testimony at 11-15; and EAL Rebuttal Exhibit KF-2" (Order No. 9 at 20, 25-26, 44, 53) and "Fielder Direct Testimony at 6-12" plus "Cullipher Direct Testimony at 14-15" on reliability. - **Palmer's prior testimony list** confirms a connecting docket: "Docket Nos. 16-027-R, 20-052-U, 87-166-TF, 16-036-FR, 25-055-P, and 26-001-U" — including **25-055-P** (another P-suffix special-rate-contract docket) and **26-001-U** (the base rate case where Palmer signed certificates of service). (p. 3) ## People and orgs mentioned - [[J. David Palmer]] — author - [[Mark Herring]] — the witness being rebutted - [[Matthew S. Klucher]] — Palmer references his Supplemental Direct Testimony in 25-049-TF - "Cunningham" — Entergy witness in [[Ironwood|24-072-U]] (likely Kelley Cunningham per Entergy norms; person page deferred — 24-072-U was ingested as a curated subset on 2026-05-22, but Cunningham's testimony is not in the retrieved subset) - "Fielder" — Entergy witness in [[Ironwood|24-072-U]] (likely Kim Fielder) - "Cullipher" — Entergy witness in [[Ironwood|24-072-U]] - [[Entergy Arkansas]] — Palmer's employer - [[Arkansas Public Service Commission]] — addressee ## Concepts invoked - [[Strategic Investment]] — § 23-4-1303(10)(A) / (B)(i) - "[[Generating Arkansas Jobs Act (GAJA) rider|GAJA Rider]] § 23-4-1304(w)" pre-Act eligibility - The CECPN process (Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need) - The 100 MW threshold for single-facility Strategic Investment classification ## Cross-references - Surface production: [[APSC Staff Testimony on the GAJA Rider]] (the testimony being rebutted) - CECPN dockets ingested as curated subsets on 2026-05-22: [[Ironwood|24-072-U]] (the pre-Act application Palmer relies on), [[Jefferson Power Station|25-047-U]], [[Arkansas Cypress|25-054-U]] — see each docket's production overview - 24-072-U Order No. 9 (CECPN grant) — retrieved 2026-05-24; see [[docket-24-072-u-order-9-2026-05-24/_overview|Ironwood Order No. 9 CECPN Grant]] - Act 373 of 2025 enrolled bill — archived 2026-05-24 (primary public record, [Act 373 archive](../../../../web%20archive/2026-05-24/arkleg.state.ar.us/act-373-of-2025.md)) - Prior GAJA Rider docket Palmer cites: 25-049-TF (not ingested) ## Role in T002 dialectics This rebuttal is the **Statement A primary anchor** for [[T002 - Ironwood Strategic Investment Designation Requirement|T002]] and the source-of-record for both [[D002 Thesis]] and [[D004 Thesis]]. **Notably**: the (10)(A) chapeau quotation at p. 4 — Palmer's own primary source for the Strategic Investment statutory definition — was leveraged by [[D002 Antithesis]] and [[D004 Antithesis]] **against** Palmer's reading: the chapeau's "approved by the Arkansas Public Service Commission... TO: [four enumerated purposes]" structure requires both an approval pathway AND a purpose finding, conjunctively, and Palmer's "per se inclusion" argument from (10)(B)(i)'s 100 MW threshold renders the chapeau and the four purposes surplusage. This was characterized in the [[D002 Synthesis|D002 verdict]] as a construction-canon problem visible in the thesis's own primary source. The full dialectical record is preserved in [[T002 - Ironwood Strategic Investment Designation Requirement]] `## Resolution status` and in the four D002/D004 phase files. ## Open questions / follow-ups - ~~The 24-072-U Commission Order No. 9~~ — **retrieved 2026-05-24**; see [[docket-24-072-u-order-9-2026-05-24/_overview|Ironwood Order No. 9 CECPN Grant]]. The order makes substantive findings on reliability and dispatchable generation but never invokes the Strategic Investment framework — see [[T002 - Ironwood Strategic Investment Designation Requirement|T002]] for the implications. - 25-049-TF Order No. 4 (Question 10) and Klucher's Supplemental Direct Testimony in that docket — the alleged prior Commission recognition of Ironwood's strategic-investment status. Not ingested. The single remaining adjacent corpus gap for T002. - The Notice of Intent to Include in GAJA Rider filed in 24-072-U on 2025-09-23 — the statutory election Palmer says is all that's required. Not ingested. - 25-055-P — newly surfaced docket from Palmer's prior-testimony list; another P-suffix special-rate-contract proceeding. Ingested 2026-05-22 — see the [[psc/docket-26-008-tf-hearing-2026-05-22/_overview|25-055-P production overview]].