The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) granted rehearing of the APS rate case because it surprise added a new fixed fee on solar customers that was never a part of the case in the final order. Since then, APS has been trying to narrow the scope of the rehearing, no matter how illogical. First, APS has tried to argue that only some solar customers are part of the rehearing, despite the fact the added charges apply to all solar customers. Then APS has tried to argue that the cost of service study upon which the charges are based is not part of the rehearing. AriSEIA has opposed both maneuvers. 

UNSE continues to call for a Motion to Dismiss on AriSEIA's complaint against them for violating Arizona's Line Siting statutes for nearly two decades. AriSEIA argues that position is premature given the likely rehearing or appeal on the underling disclaimer of jurisdiction docket.

The Arizona Corporation Commission sent AriSEIA a letter regarding our UNSE press release, requesting changes. AriSEIA filed the request along with a letter objecting to the inappropriate request in the docket and declined to make the requested changes.

The administrative law judge has imposed a stay on AriSEIA's complaint against UNSE pending the outcome of the UNSE CEC docket, which AriSEIA does not oppose at this time.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Autumn Johnson
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ - Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted 4-1 along party lines to overturn the 9-2 decision of their own Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee. The ACC's vote will eliminate environmental review of new gas plants in Arizona going forward. It reverses 53 years of consistent application of Arizona law regarding the siting of new thermal power plants.

UNE Electric (UNSE), the sister company of Tucson Electric Power (TEP), plans to add 200 MW of new gas at Black Mountain Generating Station in Mohave County. Plants greater than 100 MW are required to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) from the Line Siting Committee. UNSE argued that A.R.S. 40-360(9) should be reinterpreted to only require a CEC for turbines that are greater than 100 MW, regardless of how many there are or the overall size of the plant. This loophole will now mean that no utilities in Arizona will need ACC review of any new gas (or nuclear) plants as long as the individual units are smaller than 100 MW.

"The ACC overturned their own Line Siting Committee and 53 years of legal precedent today to achieve the policy goal of making it as easy as possible to build more gas generation while simultaneously stating that the legislature should require additional regulation of renewables," said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA). "We had a 2 day hearing in front of an 11 member Committee and UNSE lost overwhelmingly because they did not prove their case. And yet, we can now expect that every utility in Arizona will start building new plants with no environmental review. This is a major setback for the clean energy transition."

The intervening parties have 20 days to ask for a rehearing before they can appeal to Superior Court. The full docket can be found here.

About AriSEIA

AriSEIA is the leading voice of the solar industry in Arizona, dedicated to advancing solar energy through advocacy, education, and collaboration. With a commitment to promoting sustainable energy solutions, AriSEIA serves as a catalyst for the growth and development of Arizona's solar industry.

Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: Redlines of the May 13, 2024 Solar Facilities Ordinance Draft
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA is the State’s nonprofit solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active at all levels of government in Arizona, working to advance renewables policy. We worked heavily on Eloy’s 2023 ordinance and are currently working with Mohave County and Pinal County on similar processes. We have been in touch with Matthew Blake and Jeremy Dye regarding the Yavapai County solar ordinance. We attached our redlines as Attachment A to this letter and plan to attend the June 19, 2024 meeting. While we are in the process of completing an economic impact analysis with Elliott Pollack for Yavapai County, it is not yet complete. Therefore, we have attached our equivalent study for Mohave County as Attachment B for your reference.
 
You will note, Attachment A has numerous edits. The Yavapai ordinance is the first we have seen that would include distributed generation (i.e. residential and commercial solar). We would encourage you to reconsider its inclusion in an ordinance that appears to be targeted at utility scale development. Our largest concern for the utility scale portion of the ordinance is that it appears to unfairly single out and target solar development with restrictions that are not applicable to any other land uses. Our overall feedback is that solar should not be subject to restrictions that are not applicable to other types of development. There are also provisions we believe violate Arizona law, namely regarding the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
 
Our two other largest concerns have to do with the caps on the acreage of projects and the cap on solar development in the County in F(1), as well as the setbacks for solar projects in F(2). We also have concerns about the technical feasibility of some of the storage (BESS) components of the ordinance.
 
We encourage you to hold a stakeholder meeting and invite residential and commercial installers, as well as utility scale developers to discuss the feasibility of the provisions of this ordinance before moving further. Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Respectfully,
  
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

On June 11th, the Arizona Corporation Commission will be reviewing a very significant decision from its own Line Siting Committee. In the decision, the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee rejected a request by Unisource to waive its own authority to review new thermal power plants in the state. To do so, the ACC would have to interpret Arizona law differently than it has for the last half century.

The Line Siting Committee is made up of 11 members. Six of those members are appointed by the corporation commissioners themselves. All six of the ACC-appointed members were appointed last year at this time. Roman Fontes representing the counties, David Kryder representing agriculture, Toby Little representing the general public, and Scott Somers representing the cities were appointed by the ACC on May 1, 2023. The appointments of Kryder, Little, and  Somers were unanimous. Fontes was appointed 4-1 with Commissioner Tovar voting no. Dave Richins representing the general public and Jon Gold representing the general public were appointed on July 12, 2023 unanimously.

Five of those six appointees voted no on Unisource’s request after a two-day hearing that resulted in a 463 page-transcript. Richins, Fontes, Little, Somers, and Gold all voted against Unisource. Here are comments taken from the transcript.

Richins questioned Unisource stating, “so you don’t consider a CEC [certificate of environmental compatibility] would be part of the right thing to do, then, in this instance?” Little pointed out that “one of the important parts of the law says that the CEC would provide a single proceeding to which access will be open to interested and affected [persons].”
​
Unisource is attempting to reinterpret A.R.S. § 40-360(9) in a way to absolve them of needing environmental review by the ACC. To do that, they have to prove that the turbines are separate from one another. Richins asked “that natural gas feeds into the whole facility from one location into that plant, into that generating station?”  Fontes asked, “Is it one single gas contract or is it separate gas contracts, because you’re characterizing these as separate units that are operating independent and dispatching.”

Little explained her vote against Unisource saying, “I believe that as a representative of the public, I have a responsibility to assure that the public has the right to express their voice in the siting of environmental impact for generation and transmission, and I think that clumping a bunch of smaller units all in one place does that. And I vote no.”

Richins made the motion to deny Unisource’s request, which was seconded by Fontes. Explaining his vote, Gold said, “I too represent the people of the state of Arizona and while I believe you should build this plant, I believe a CEC in this case is necessary…. I don’t foresee you not getting one. But I have to say, this Committee is here for a reason.”

The committee voted 9-2 to deny Unisource’s request. The committee then issued a written decision including its legal analysis denying Unisource’s request on May 2, 2024. The decision stated, “[Unisource’s] interpretation of A.R.S. § 40-360(9) would circumvent the manifest purpose of the line siting statutes and deprive the people of Arizona who are affected by the construction of these major facilities of their ability to participate in the process to mitigate the adverse impacts on the environment and their quality of life.” Pg. 6.

The ACC commissioners should uphold the overwhelming decision of the committee they just appointed last year – the committee that listened to two days of testimony and oral arguments and reviewed dozens of exhibits. The committee got it right and the ACC should deny Unisource’s request. Doing anything else would needlessly cede half of the authority of the ACC’s own Line Siting Committee.

AriSEIA filed exceptions in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) certificate of environmental compatibility (CEC)) case in which they have asked the ACC for a "disclaimer of jurisdiction." UNSE asks the ACC to interpret AZ law differently than it has for the last 53 years and in a way that would basically waive ACC authority over all new gas plants in the state. AriSEIA also put forward an amendment to improve ACC Staff's Sample Order No. 2 denying the request. The Line Siting Committee already voted 9-2 against UNSE. This is on the June 11th open meeting agenda.

APS has attempted to limit the rate case rehearing to only some solar customers. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) ordered a rehearing on the solar only charge that APS is currently imposing on all solar customers. However, APS has said that the charge being imposed on legacy solar customers is outside the scope of the rehearing. AriSEIA filed asking the judge to clarify to APS that all solar customers are part of the rehearing. The fee cannot only be discriminatory to some solar customers and not others.