Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
1015 Fair Street
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: September 4th Supervisors Meeting, Hearing No. 7, Solar Ordinance  
 
Chairman and Supervisors,
 
AriSEIA has previously submitted three prior letters and two rounds of redlines on prior versions of the draft ordinance. Our third round of redlines is included here as Attachment A. We also plan to attend the September 4th meeting.
 
Acreage Caps and Setbacks 
Our major issues continue to be related to the acreage cap and setback requirements spelled out in Section 608(F). A cumulative acreage cap is unnecessary and conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Yavapai County spans 8,125 square miles, equating to 5.2 million acres. A 12,000-acre cap represents only 0.23% of Yavapai's total area. In comparison, Eloy’s 2023 solar ordinance includes an 11,744-acre cap, or 16% of the city’s incorporated area, and introduces a process for increasing this cap.[1]
 
An acreage cap conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. The Energy Element of the Comprehensive Plan “promotes the use of clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels.”[2] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[3] It goes on to say that “[t]hrough the Energy Element, the County can encourage the efficient use of energy and promote clean, renewable energy production.”[4] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[5] Solar uses very little water. We included data on water usage for solar in our July 26th letter to the County.
 
The acreage cap on solar development in Yavapai County will deter our member companies from applying for waivers if they do not already own land, due to increased business risk. This restriction hampers the County's economic development and grid reliability. As shown in our economic impact assessment, even a 200 MW project could generate over $200M in economic activity and create hundreds of construction jobs.

Moreover, a cap might lead to a rush to build, potentially compromising project quality. We recommend removing the cap and evaluating projects on a case-by-case basis. You can still reject projects that aren't suitable for the County, regardless of acreage. If you keep an acreage cap, we recommend adding language, like that of Eloy, to increase the cap when needed without a modification to the entire ordinance.

The setbacks continue to be a concern as they are too large and overly complicated. We recommended specific parameters for buffer zones in Attachment A. If the Board keeps all of the setbacks as is, we recommend increasing the per project acreage cap to 5,000 acres.
​
Waiver Provision
The waiver provision located in Section 608(D)(2)(g) requires two levels of review. As is currently written, the waiver provision allows the Development Services Director veto authority over a waiver and then also provides that same authority to the Board. We recommend only the Board have that level of discretion over these projects. We recommend revising the language to say, “If the waiver request proposal is deemed to be complete and in compliance with the above tenets by the Development Services Director, the waiver request will be submitted for consideration as part of the final application to the Board of Supervisors.”  

Grid Reliability
The utilities anticipate very significant load growth over the next decade. That load growth requires additional generation. That generation improves reliability for everyone in Arizona, regardless of the county they live in. Outages like have been seen in California and Texas will not spare Yavapai County. We are all in this together. Whether or not a project solely benefits the community next to it is not the primary factor. Everyone in Arizona benefits from electricity that was generated from somewhere else. Yavapai County residents get power from wind turbines and coal plants in New Mexico and solar panels in California and hydropower from the pacific northwest and gas plants in Maricopa County. We have an interconnected grid and that geographic diversity of resources makes the grid more reliable. It is not cloudy or still everywhere at once. It is not hot or cold everywhere at once. This is an asset. The utilities cannot just build solar in Pinal and Maricopa Counties. We all benefit from generation and geographic diversity
 
Renewables Misinformation 
Over the course of this process, we have heard significant disinformation stated about renewable energy. We have included a fact sheet on Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal as Attachment B.[6] Columbia Law School’s Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles is included as Attachment C.[7] We have attached a battery safety fact sheet as Attachment D.[8] And our economic assessment as to the financial benefit to the County from even a single solar and storage project is included again as Attachment E.[9]
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Eloy, Az., Code of Ordinances Code § 21-3-1.39(B) (2024).

[2] Comprehensive Plan Update 2023, Yavapai County Government, Section 8.0, P.101, available here https://www.yavapaiaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/development-and-permits/development-services/documents/yavapai_cty_comp_plan.pdf (emphasis added).

[3] Id (emphasis added).

[4] Id (emphasis added).

[5] Id. at 108 (emphasis added).

[6] American Clean Power, Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal, August, 30, 2022, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2022/08/ACP_FactSheet_SolarDisposal_220830.pdf.

[7] Columbia Law School, Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles, False Claim #3 Solar Panels Generate Too Much Waste and Will Overwhelm Our Landfills, P.4, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change.

[8] American Clean Power, Energy Storage Leading on Safety, December 2023, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2023/12/ACP_Energy-Storage-Leading-on-Safety_FactSheet.pdf.

[9] AriSEIA, Yavapai County Solar (Example Project) Economic Impact and Tax Revenue, July 2024, available here https://www.ariseia.org/myths-busted.html. 

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Sulphur Springs Docket No. E-01575A-24-0160 and E-01575A-23-0299
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
We request that you pull agenda item No. 7 from the consent agenda on the September 5th open meeting and place it on the regular agenda to allow public comment and also so that Commissioners and Staff can ask the utility questions.
 
AriSEIA sent Sulphur Springs (SSVEC) questions about this filing earlier this week and scheduled a call with them to discuss those same questions on August 30th. However, SSVEC was not able to answer any of the questions and abruptly ended the call after only approximately 17 minutes.
 
SSVEC filed a different avoided cost calculation on November 6th, 2023.[1] That avoided cost calculation was $.0629, which is greater than their export rate of $.041310. For some unknown reason, this filing never moved forward and was withdrawn one day later. AriSEIA filed a letter in that docket explaining that an export rate below the avoided cost rate was a violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).[2] Vote Solar and Solar United Neighbors have sued Salt River Project (SRP) in federal court over the same issue.[3]
 
Six days later, SSVEC filed a new avoided cost calculation in a new docket.[4] That avoided cost calculation is $.0307, less than half that of the avoided cost calculation from the prior filing. They filed an amended tariff on August 1st and a Staff proposed order was docketed within a few weeks and it was scheduled for the September 5th open meeting (approximately 6 weeks after being initially filed).
 
Additionally, both tariffs include a meter fee unique to solar customers of $2.70, despite the fact that all residential customers, solar or not, have identical meters. This is the identical issue to the DG meter fee in the last TEP rate case. AriSEIA presented extensive evidence on why that fee was unjustified and it was ended as a result.[5]
 
AriSEIA would like the following questions answered by SSVEC before this item receives a vote:
 

1. Why is the avoided cost calculation so dramatically different between November 2023 and July 2024? Is the methodology the same? Can stakeholders be provided with the workpapers? Has Staff received the workpapers?
2. Why was the November filing withdrawn? How are those customers going to be made whole? It is very concerning that when the utility finds the avoided cost is too low the item does not move, but when the utility finds the avoided cost is too high, the item moves immediately. The process should be applied consistently.
3. Why are solar customers paying more for an identical meter than non-solar customers?

 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] SSVEC Tariff Filing, November 6, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1724737112344.

[2] AriSEIA Letter, July 9, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000036580.pdf?i=1725068843076.

[3] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case 2:24-cv-02021-DJH, August 12, 2024.

[4] SSVEC Amendment to Application, August 1, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037043.pdf?i=1724736609230.

[5] TEP rate case, AriSEIA direct testimony, P. 365, January 27, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000023835.pdf. 

Arizona, with its abundant sunshine, seems like a natural leader in solar energy. Yet, according to Autumn Johnson, an advocate for solar energy, the state is facing a significant decline in residential solar installations. Data from Ohm Analytics shows a 31% year-over-year drop in solar permits as of May 2024, marking the lowest level since 2021.

Economic and Policy Challenges
Several factors contribute to this decline. High interest rates, currently above 8%, make financing solar systems more expensive, deterring potential customers despite the federal tax benefits available under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Beyond economic barriers, state policies are also to blame. Arizona has reduced the export rates for excess solar energy, meaning homeowners are paid less for the energy they send back to the grid. Additionally, recent increases in fixed fees for solar customers, such as the grid access charge introduced by the Arizona Corporation Commission, have made solar less financially attractive.

A Missed Opportunity
While other states continue to support solar growth through net metering, Arizona's policies are pushing it in the opposite direction. Johnson points out the irony that Arizona, with over 300 sunny days a year, ranks only fifth in solar capacity nationally—a position that should be much higher given the state’s natural advantages.
​
Looking ahead, Johnson is concerned about the state’s direction. With increasing political skepticism toward both residential and utility-scale solar projects, Arizona risks missing out on a significant economic opportunity. In a state where solar should be thriving, policy and economic barriers are holding it back, leaving the future of solar in Arizona uncertain.

Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Bella Project, L-21314A-24-0144-00233
 
Dear Chairman and Committee Members,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) was not originally planning to engage in this docket. However, in observing the start of the hearing, we noticed the attorney for the Applicant lie to the tribunal in the opening statement. Mr. Moyes said that gas plants are “clean.” Rule 42 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. ER 3.3. Gas is not clean by any definition. The Department of Energy (DOE) lists clean energy types as: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, bioenergy, nuclear, and hydrogen.[1] According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), “clean energy” means energy resources that produce no greenhouse gases, which includes hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, and sometimes bioenergy.[2] According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), clean energy is renewable energy, energy efficiency, and efficient combined heat and power.[3]
 
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas has less greenhouse gas emissions than coal or oil. However, even then, “[t]he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 2021, methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems and from abandoned oil and natural gas wells were the source of about 33% of total U.S. methane emissions and about 4% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”[4] We are not aware of any credible resource that defines gas a “clean.”
 
The Applicant lying to the tribunal at all, let alone within a few minutes of the hearing commencing, should be cause for concern and we encourage you to strenuously review the veracity of the information presented by the Applicant and, certainly, by their attorney.
 
Further, within the first panel of witnesses, the panel seems to be attempting to speak under oath for the Arizona utilities. The Applicant is not a utility and has no ability to speak for the utilities or their coal retirement plans. The Arizona Corporation Commission just held an integrated resource plan (IRP) workshop last week in which the utilities confirmed their coal retirement dates. It is entirely speculative and inappropriate for the Applicant to be testifying under oath about any changes to those retirement dates or any other utility business plans.
 
The Applicant also mischaracterized California Independent System Operator (CAISO) outages. It was unclear from the testimony, but presumably the panel was speaking to 2020 outages in California. Gas plant outages played a significant role in those outages. CAISO has issued a Root Cause Analysis.[5]
 
We are gravely concerned with the credibility of this Applicant and would encourage you to strenuously review this application. We recommend you ask who is buying this power and also ask questions about a) Arizona gas pipeline constraints and b) whether or not these turbines can be run on 100% hydrogen by when and at what cost. It may be more appropriate to deny this application and focus on applications from known entities in Arizona that can at least avoid lying on the record.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] U.S. DOE, Clean Energy, available here https://www.energy.gov/clean-energy.

[2] MIT, Climate Portal, available here https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-clean-energy-any-kind-energy-completely-clean.

[3] U.S. EPA, Lean About Energy and its Impact on the Environment, available here https://www.epa.gov/energy/learn-about-energy-and-its-impact-environment#:~:text=reduce%20my%20impact?-,What%20is%20clean%20energy?,pollution%20emitted%20as%20a%20result..

[4] U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Explained, available here https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php. 

[5] CAISO, Root Cause Analysis, available here https://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid-August-2020-Extreme-Heat-Wave.pdf. 

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: APS 2024 RCP, Docket No. E-01345A-24-0095; TEP 2024 RCP, Docket No. E-01933A-24-0094  
 
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
 
Both Arizona Public Service (APS) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) have filed in the above noted dockets to request the maximum annual reduction in the Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP).While it is AriSEIA’s position that the underlying Value of Solar decision from Docket No. E-00000J-14-0023 should not be modified in the new export rate Docket No. AHD-00000J-23-0273, we would like to highlight concerning developments in the residential solar sector in Arizona.
 
Recently, Arizona has seen several major residential solar companies leave the Arizona market. Very large residential solar installers based in Arizona have closed entirely. And just in the last week, several AriSEIA members have declared bankruptcy, including companies local to Arizona. Overall, residential solar installations in Arizona are down 31% year over year. Installations in the state are at their lowest level since 2020, a year in which the Commission decreased the RCP by less than the maximum.
  
The decline in residential solar installations, bankruptcies, and company closures are not due solely to the RCP. But a decrease in the RCP will continue to exasperate this alarming situation. Solar represents a significant amount of jobs and economic development in Arizona. Such a significant downturn in this sector in the sunniest state in the country should be cause for concern.
 
Further, distributed generation, including rooftop solar and battery storage, is a critical tool in the toolbox for peak demand reduction and grid reliability. With solar alone, it is possible for rooftop solar customers to completely eliminate or dramatically reduce their peak usage. With a battery, it is possible for them to provide that capacity back to the grid. With well designed policies, these resources can benefit all ratepayers.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]