|
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 For some unknown reason, this filing never moved forward and was withdrawn one day later.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:
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.
0 Comments
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] Same APS discrimination against solar customers Arizona Public Service likes to tout itself as somehow new and different. It is not the APS we remember involved in scandals at the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) or opposing renewable energy like with Proposition 127. They have new leadership and clean energy goals now. But if you are paying attention, APS consistently makes decisions that undermine renewable energy and hurt solar customers. Last year, APS opposed the adoption of community solar in Arizona. Community solar is an option for customers that want rooftop solar, but cannot install rooftop solar either because they are renters, or live in multifamily housing, or have an older roof. It allows them to participate in the clean energy transition while also increasing a distribution grid resource and saving them money on their electric bills. The ACC ended up adopting a policy to kill any advancement of community solar in Arizona. APS continues to ask for annual decreases in the export rate solar customers are paid for the extra solar power their rooftop panels produce and they sell back to the grid. APS buys it at a fraction of what it sells it to your neighbors for. APS has consistently fought against you having any options to sell that extra power elsewhere, including supporting HB2101 in 2022, which eliminated competition in the electric sector in Arizona. APS simultaneously has advocated for increased fixed fees on solar customers. APS has nearly 200,000 customers with rooftop solar and it has advocated for all of them, every single one, to pay 15% more for the same power than their neighbors without rooftop solar. That new fee is the subject of ongoing litigation at the ACC and APS has most recently advocated for 74,000 of those customers to be completely excluded from the hearing entirely. These customers got solar years ago and are on rate plans called “Legacy Solar.” If APS is successful, not only will these customers be subject to APS’ discriminatory fees on solar, but they will be deprived of their due process rights, as well. APS has also argued (and won!) that the evidence used to substantiate this discriminatory fee on solar customers not be evaluated in the hearing. So, the evidence used to substantiate the fee is not part of the hearing in which the ACC decides if the fee is even legal. Earlier this year, the ACC ordered APS to start a pilot program that aggregates the household batteries that customers pay for with their own money to offset energy APS needs when demand from customers is especially high. APS was ordered to undergo a stakeholder process and work collaboratively with the community to develop a fair program. Instead, APS has come up with a program that will almost certainly fail, because it inadequately pays for the resource it takes from customers. APS will continue to penalize solar customers unless the utility is held accountable. APS does not like solar customers because solar customers pay for their solar panels themselves. APS does not own them and does not earn a profit margin off of them. APS’ nearly 200,000 solar customers need to pay attention and need to tell the ACC that APS must stop its needless attacks on solar customers. Unfortunately, the ACC just sided with APS and determined that some solar customers may, indeed, be excluded from the rate case rehearing and that the underlying evidence APS provided to justify the discriminatory fees on solar customers will not be evaluated. This raises serious concerns about the validity of the rehearing. The public needs to reach out to the ACC in support of solar. You can file a comment with the ACC and be sure to reference Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144. Autumn Johnson is executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association. Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: APS Virtual Power Plant (BYOD) Pilot Program, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144 Chairman, Commissioners, and Staff, Arizona Public Service (APS) is predicting unprecedented load growth over the next decade. To meet this rising need, the utility must aggressively add capacity which will put dramatic upward pressure on rates. One way to mitigate that upward rate pressure is to avoid direct utility investments where possible and to leverage customer owned assets to provide services that would otherwise require utility investment and risk ratepayer funds. To this end, the Commission ordered Arizona Public Service (APS) to implement the money-saving Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program (also known as a virtual power plant (VPP)) which uses customer owned batteries to meet peak demand. The evidence in the rate case found that such a program could give APS access to batteries at a cost well below the cost of utility owned options. AriSEIA/SEIA have raised several concerns about APS’s approach and its valuation methodology during the ongoing BYOD stakeholder process. APS has expressed consistent opposition to this program that could displace some utility investment opportunities from the start so it is unsurprising to AriSEIA/SEIA that APS’s methods and assumptions are designed to skew the outcome of this process in its favor. While we have some questions about the program implementation costs, the primary issue is with the value of avoided capacity and energy. The Company’s approach for valuing these categories does not reflect actual conditions on the ground and, as a result, produces avoided cost values that are substantially lower than justified. Further, under the Company’s value, nearly all potential value from participating perfectly will be eaten up by the opportunity cost of forgoing peak time of use (TOU) reductions. Stated more plainly, APS’s proposal undervalues the important services BYOD can provide to such an extent that ratepayers will be unlikely to participate at all and would be better off simply reacting to the TOU rate. Rather than provide the appropriate price signal to customers to manage their battery for the broader good of the grid and all ratepayers, APS’s proposal will result in retrenchment to optimizing individual bill savings. Capacity Value Issues APS had indicated that it will use the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) avoided capacity cost for the BYOD. Based on its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) filing, this appears to be roughly $80/kW-year. There are two key issues with using the PURPA avoided capacity value as a proxy for avoided capacity costs. First, the Company’s latest PURPA filing assumes that customer-sited microgrids are the capacity resource of choice. This is a non-conventional and inappropriate choice. APS was recently prevented by the Commission from pursuing additional customer-sited microgrid projects due to the impingement of its utility monopoly into a competitive market. This alone disqualifies this technology as the future capacity resource of choice, and any PURPA capacity costs based on this technology. Further, the Company has projected more than 4,000 MW of new capacity need over the following decade, and its integrated resource plan (IRP) shows that it will be procuring copious amounts of centralized generation and battery storage. Using a more conventional avoided resource such as a battery or gas combustion turbine (CT) or Company unit is more appropriate. AriSEIA/SEIA’s filing in this case used the annual revenue requirement of a utility-scale battery as a proxy, finding its avoided capacity value was north of $200/kW-year. Second, PURPA is not driving investment in Arizona. The Company indicated that it has not signed any new PURPA contracts for years and the IRP filing does not rely on this financing mechanism for future procurements. Rather, it is procuring resources through competitive all-source contracts and through market-based purchases. Tying the value of this program to a moribund policy that is not producing new capacity is simply the wrong framework and should not be approved. Energy Value Issues The Company is using a simulated dispatch model to project avoided energy costs. This approach is necessarily tied to the input assumptions used and will necessarily not reflect actual real-world conditions, particularly during the scores of high-load/high-cost hours that the BYOD program will target. APS indicates that the average avoided energy cost is between $33/MWh and $52/MWh, a value that is simply inconsistent with historic market purchases during high-cost hours. APS provided the quantity and price of its wholesale market purchases from 2018-2022 in the rate case.[1] An analysis of this data shows that the Company routinely paid in excess of $200/MWh for market purchases, with occasional purchases in excess of $1,000/MWh. AriSEIA/SEIA’s analysis showed that the average weekday market purchase cost between 2019 and 2022 was over $100/MWh between 5 PM and 9 PM, the exact hours the BYOD program would target.[2] But if one looks at the actual highest-cost purchases, the avoided energy potential is much higher. AriSEIA/SEIA determined the 500 highest cost hourly purchases throughout the year and then analyzed the purchases that fell in the core summer months of June to September from 2018 through 2022.[3] The results show that year after year, the avoided energy cost values during the highest cost hours are at times an order of magnitude larger than what APS proposes. Even in 2019, which was an outlier in terms of the low quantity of high-cost market energy purchases, the average purchase during the high-cost hours was nearly $400/MWh. In 2021 and 2022 (and likely 2023), the price and quantity of high-cost purchases surged, with the average high-cost hour moving north of $800/MWh. Against this irrefutable historic purchase data, which has cost the Company’s customers tens of millions of dollars per year, the Company’s offer of as little as $33/MWh in avoided energy is simply unacceptable. AriSEIA instead recommends a minimum value of $500/MWh for avoided energy purchases for the BYOD program, a value which is roughly 1/3 of the highest cost purchase in recent years. APS’s Proposal Is Eroded by TOU Opportunity Costs By lowballing the avoided cost value on both the energy and capacity side, APS is setting the BYOD program to undercompensate customers for the real services they provide which will cause the program to fail. The residential value available to customers is only $40/kW-year based on the average reduction over the course of a program year. The Company is authorized to call up to 60 events of up to 4 hours each between the hours of 4 PM and 10 PM. Given that only half of these hours fall within the current peak TOU period (and fewer than half if events are called on weekends), customers participating in the BYOD event will have to consider the opportunity cost of peak TOU reductions. In other words, customers electing to participate in BYOD and give APS the ability to access the energy and capacity when they need it, may be inclined to simply participate in the TOU rate design thereby depriving APS and all its customers of the savings possible with BYOD. APS’s current peak and off-peak rates are roughly $0.34/kWh and $0.12/kWh, with a rate spread of $0.22/kWh. Each kWh that a customer discharges their battery during an off-peak hour event call thus has an opportunity cost of $0.22. From this, it is possible to calculate the total opportunity cost that a BYOD customer faces by participating in the program. In a best-case scenario, every event would be as short as possible (perhaps 2 hours) and fall during the peak TOU period. In this case, discharges from the battery would not incur an opportunity cost and the customer could capture the full $40/kW-year benefit the Company proposes. In a worst-case scenario, every event would be 4 hours long and fall on weekends. This means that 100% of the event hours would incur the opportunity cost. A middle of the road scenario might assume event calls from 6 PM to 9 PM weekdays, with 2/3 of the hours occurring off-peak. Suppose one analyzes an 11.5 kWh battery. The results of the three different scenarios are tabulated below. Even in the middle scenario, so much of the value of the program is eaten up by the opportunity cost that it is hardly worth the effort for a customer to sign up for the program. And in a worst-case scenario, it actually costs the BYOD customer money to participate in the program. APS’s Stakeholder Process Violates Order No. 79293 Order 79293 (the “Rate Case Decision”) orders APS to “meet with AriSEIA/SEIA and any other interested parties to discuss collaboratively and attempt to reach agreement on the language of the BYOD Pilot POA.”[4] APS has held several stakeholder meetings in which it has told the stakeholders what it plans to do. AriSEIA requested an additional meeting to walk through the concerns identified above. APS sent out the proposed valuation that same afternoon. At the following stakeholder meeting, several stakeholders pointed out that the APS methodology was flawed and the valuation was too low and would make the program unsuccessful. APS requested stakeholders provide feedback in writing. Stakeholders asked for the Company’s workpapers. Stakeholders received two spreadsheets with two business days to review before the date in which APS asked for written feedback. To date, it does not appear that APS plans to consider any stakeholder feedback in the plan of administration (POA) it intends to file within a month. APS is going through the motions of a stakeholder process, but there is nothing to indicate they intend to discuss collaboratively or attempt to reach agreement with stakeholders. Respectfully, Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] AriSEIA 4.03_ExcelAPS22RC03362_Hourly Market Purchases 2018-2022 [2] Lucas Direct at 59. [3] This is twice as many as are allowed in the BYOD program, which authorizes 60 event days with events up to 4 hours. [4] APS Rate Case Decision, Order No. 79293, 452:17-18, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000210704.pdf?i=1722230808744. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Autumn Johnson (520) 240-4757 [email protected] Phoenix, AZ – Arizona Public Service (APS) is once again advocating for a tax on all solar customers in its service territory. APS seeks a fee increase that amounts to a tax on APS’ nearly 200,000 solar customers where they pay 15% more than all other residential customers. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) recently ruled that this solar tax increase was enacted without proper public notice and deprived parties of due process and ordered a rehearing to fix these important constitutional issues. The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) has opposed this discriminatory solar tax that raises costs for families all over Arizona. AriSEIA asked the ACC to reconsider the APS rate case to evaluate the fairness of this fee and cure due process deficiencies. The ACC granted AriSEIA’s rehearing request, but APS has since fought to exclude approximately 74,000 solar customers on “Legacy Rates” from the rehearing and has fought to limit the evidence the ACC can even consider in determining if the fee is legal. Today the ACC issued a decision siding with APS on these two issues. This decision means that there will not be a fair hearing on this new solar tax and that hundreds of thousands of Arizonans that invested their hard-earned money in solar will not be treated fairly. “APS has proven time and again that they will always take whatever actions they can to try and penalize solar customers,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. “APS fights against rooftop solar for one reason: money. When customers exercise their right to install solar, APS has less justification to build new powerplants that they earn a profit on. Solar customers use their own money to add energy to the grid and reduce peak energy demand, saving all customers money. And these customers increasingly also install batteries that provide APS with power at the exact moment they need it most. Yet, APS, time and again, seeks to hurt solar customers at every opportunity.” The ACC is conducting another hearing in November about these new APS-backed solar taxes that only impact solar customers. It is unclear from the decision today whether or not that hearing will resolve any of the legal concerns of AriSEIA or solar customers, which led to the request for a rehearing in the first place. More information can be found in Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144. About AriSEIA: The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s leading trade association dedicated to promoting the adoption of solar, storage, and electrification technologies. AriSEIA advocates for policies that support the growth of Arizona’s solar industry and provides resources and education to ensure that solar energy continues to thrive in the State. ACC Staff filed a unusual motion this week seeking to arbitrarily restrict the scope of the APS rate case rehearing for no legitimate reason. AriSEIA filed again explaining that the reasons for rehearing apply to all not just some solar customers and that without the cost of service study, you would have absolutely no basis to charge solar customers more than everyone else for the same thing. Therefore, all solar customers and the cost of service are part of the rehearing.
AriSEIA, along with the Attorney General's Office, Western Resource Advocates, and the Sierra Club, filed an Application for Rehearing today in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) case. In this case, UNSE asked the ACC to "disclaim jurisdiction" over essentially all new gas plants in the State. The Line Siting Committee voted against them 9-2 after a two day hearing, but the ACC voted along party lines to overturn that decision. AriSEIA asked for rehearing, which is a necessary next step to appeal.
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: Docket No. E-01575A-23-0299 Chairman, Commissioners, Staff, and Sulphur Springs, AriSEIA was not aware of this docket until recently and we understand that the Company intends to raise this issue in its forthcoming rate case application. However, we want to make it clear that an export rate (in this case the DGEE) below avoided cost is a violation of federal law. The Company’s filing makes it clear that its avoided cost is $.0629 and its current DGEE rate is $.041310.[1] The Company then filed for a withdrawal of the proposed tariff seeking to rectify this discrepancy one day later stating, “[a]fter working with ACC Staff we learned that the last approved export rate year can remain in effect multiple years until SSVEC filed for an update.”[2] The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 for the primary purpose “to lessen the country's dependence on foreign oil” and to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies as alternatives to fossil fuel.[3] The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) develops rules to implement PURPA. PURPA achieves its purpose by requiring electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs).[4] Those rates are set at avoided cost. The utility's avoided cost is the “incremental cost to an electric utility of electric energy or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from the [QF]…, such utility would generate itself or purchase from another source.”[5] The avoided cost rate must be just and reasonable, in the public interest, and nondiscriminatory against QFs.[6] PURPA prohibits utilities from engaging in price discrimination when they borrow supplemental power from or to small energy producers.[7] Congress enacted PURPA to “overcome obstacles imposed by [] utility monopolies for non-utility generation, including customer-sited small renewable generation.”[8] Qualifying small power producers includes residential customers with rooftop solar.[9] Importantly, the courts have determined that QFs are entitled to key protections against discriminatory rates and charges. “For example, when a home or business with solar panels needs to buy extra power from or wants to sell surplus power to the local utility, PURPA bars the utility from charging that home or business different rates than it would any other customer or supplier.”[10] “Section 210(f) requires state public utility commissions and nonregulated independent utilities to ‘implement’ the rules issued by FERC under Section 210(a) by incorporating them into their regulations and procedures.”[11] The Commission’s decision as to the implementation of PURPA can be found in Docket No. 81-0045. The Commission last visited PURPA in Docket Nos. 17-0360, 16-0272, and 18-0087 in 2019. While the Company intends to file a rate case sometime at the end of this year, that means solar customers have been underpaid for at least a year, depending on how long the rate case takes to resolve. AriSEIA believes this delay is in violation of PURPA and that it was inappropriate to withdraw and then close this docket. AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Company include a proposal to rectify this situation in its 2024 rate case, including a mechanism to make these solar customers whole. AriSEIA also requests that future filings that make it clear the export rate is lower than avoided cost be resolved promptly. Respectfully, /s/ Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Tariff Filing, Docket No. E-01575A-23, Filed November 6, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1720586124384. [2] Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Tariff Filing Withdrawal, Docket No. E-01575A-23, Filed November 7, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1720586124384. [3] FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 745-46 (1982). [4] 18 C.F.R. § 292.303. [5] 18 C.F.R. § 292.101(b)(6). [6] 18 C.F.R. 292.304(a)(1)(i)-(ii). [7] 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3-(b). [8] Petition for Enforcement Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 under EL24-54, Docket EL24-54-000, p. 2, filed January 12, 2024, available at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20240112-5029&optimized=false [hereinafter Vote Solar PURPA Petition]; Am. Paper Institute v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Co., 461 U.S. 402, 405 (1983). [9] 16 U.S.C. § 796(7)(A), (C), & (D). See also 18 C.F.R. §§ 293.203(a), 292.201(a)(1), (d)(1), 292.204(b)(1)(i); In re Westar, 460 P.3d 821, 824 (Kan. 2020); Sun Edison LLC, 129 FERC 61,146 at 18 (2009). [10] Solar v. City of Farmington, 2 F.4th 1285, 1287 (10th Cir. 2021); 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3-(b). [11] Id. at 1288. |
AriSEIA NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
August 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit trade association representing the solar, storage, and electrification industry, solar-friendly businesses, and others interested in advancing complementary technologies in Arizona. The group's focus is on education, professionalism and promotion of public policies that support deployment of solar, storage, and electrification technologies and renewable energy job growth and creation. |
FOLLOW Us |
Copyright © 2019 AriSEIA - All Rights Reserved