Yavapai County Development Services 1120 Commerce Drive Prescott, AZ 86305 RE: August 8th Planning and Zoning Meeting: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608 Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff, AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th, we submitted a second letter on July 11th, and this letter includes redlines on the second draft as Attachment A. We only had four business days between receiving the second draft of the ordinance and the deadline for comments on the final draft. We encourage you to take more time with this ordinance and not vote to send it on to the Board on August 8th. Our two largest concerns continue to be the acreage caps and the setback requirements found in Section 608(F). The acreage caps are arbitrary. 3,000 acres per project is too low. We recommend 5,000 acres per project, if you feel you need a cap at all. There should be no cumulative cap on acreage development in the County. The 8,000 acre cap is in conflict with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2023. The Energy Element of the Comprehensive Plan “promotes the use of clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels.”[1] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[2] 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.”[3] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[4] Solar uses very little water. We have included some data on lifecycle water uses of various electric generating resources in Figures 1 and 2 below. The acreage cap will limit solar development in Yavapai County. Our member companies have confirmed that they will not apply for a waiver in a jurisdiction with a cap, if they do not already own land, because it is simply too risky. This limits the economic development opportunities of the County, as well as the electric reliability of our grid. As the economic impact assessment we provided reflects, even a smaller (200 MW) project would bring more than $200M in economic activity to the County over the life of the project, as well as hundreds of jobs during construction. A cap could also result in a race to build projects and not result in the best projects being built. We encourage you to remove the cap entirely and review these projects qualitatively on a case-by-case basis. If a project is not a good fit for the County you can deny it, regardless of how many acres are or are not being utilized for solar within the County. The setbacks continue to be a concern, as well. They are simply too large. We recommended specific parameters for buffer zones in our July 11th letter and in our redlines in Attachment A. Section 8.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to mitigate some of the environmental impacts of large scale energy projects, such as solar. The Plan says that “the County finds it preferable for utility-scale projects to be sited as close as practical to existing transmission lines and power substations.”[5] The numerous restrictions, including onerous setbacks reduce the plausibility of this stated preference. Finally, given the tight turnaround time in between rounds of comments, we were not able to research and answer Commissioners’ questions regarding vehicle to grid storage, off grid systems, or wildfire shutoffs. However, we have included information as to the waste generated by solar panels. I have also included a fact sheet on Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal as Attachment B. Columbia Law School’s Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles, False Claim #3 is also included as Attachment C.[6] While solar produces a small amount of waste, relative to other waste streams (see Figures 3 and 4 below), considerable effort is being spent to reduce its waste. The national Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has a PV recycling program[7] and the Department of Energy (DOE) is also working on innovative ways to reduce waste.[8] AriSEIA has member companies that work on refurbishment and recycling of solar panels, as well as second life utilization of lithium-ion batteries. At the August 8th meeting we encourage you to slow the pace of the ordinance so that the Staff has time to incorporate the feedback received in the next version. We still recommend a joint stakeholder working session to discuss any outstanding redlines. When the ordinance is ready for a vote, we strongly recommend that it not include a countywide acreage cap. Respectfully, /s/ Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] 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). [2] Id (emphasis added). [3] Id (emphasis added). [4] Id. at 108 (emphasis added). [5] Id. at 105. [6] 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 [7] SEIA National PV Recycling Program, available here https://www.seia.org/initiatives/seia-national-pv-recycling-program. [8] DOE, Beyond Recycling: Reducing waste from Solar Modules Before They’re Even Made, March 5, 2024, available here https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/beyond-recycling-reducing-waste-solar-modules-theyre-even-made. Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments
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.
Yavapai County Development Services 1120 Commerce Drive Prescott, AZ 86305 RE: July 18th Planning and Zoning Meeting Agenda Item No. 6: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608 Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff, AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th. We also submitted an economic impact study of utility scale solar in Yavapai County on June 14th. This study is attached here as Attachment A for your convenience. We do plan to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting on July 18th and will also submit another round of redlines once the second draft of the ordinance is available. In the interim, below are some additional comments as to the first draft. Additionally, AriSEIA would encourage you to consider holding a working session open to all interested stakeholders before the next Planning and Zoning meeting on this topic. Both Eloy and Mohave County held such a meeting and it was incredibly valuable in coming to a final draft. This may require delaying the final vote on this item past September 4th. In Eloy and Mohave County, we spent closer to 6-8 months working on the ordinance. Further, AriSEIA would like to alleviate the concerns that some Supervisors have expressed to date about the toxicity of solar panels and the fire risk of both solar and battery storage. We have included an excerpt from Columbia Law School’s article: Rebutting 33 False Claims about Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles as Attachment B.[1] There is also a very helpful video available as to potential toxicity to soil or water that we recommend.[2] Tim Kreis,[3] the City of Phoenix’s Assistant Fire Chief, presented on the safety of lithium-ion batteries at the Arizona Technology Council E-Mobility and Clean Energy Summit held on June 27th. Batteries used for electric vehicles and energy storage have less fires than other types of batteries found in the home. We recommend Yavapai County reach out to him with additional questions. Firefighter safety has been addressed by several organizations including Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), resulting in guidelines involving solar products; IAFF, UL and IREC have all developed related training. Finally, we have attached the American Clean Power Association’s fact sheet on utility scale storage safety as Attachment C. Section 501: (3) ground mounted PV panel height. · We recommend a minimum height of 20’ for ground mounted parking structures with solar at full tilt. Section 501: (6) cap for small scale battery storage in residential.
Respectfully, /s/ Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] The full article can be found here. Toxicity of solar panels is address as False Claim #2, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change. [2] Are Solar Farms Toxic? Experts Say No, available here https://youtu.be/9f_p1a_S17A?feature=shared. [3] Tim Kreis’ bio can be found here https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/about-us/executive-staff. [4] Session Law 1971, Ch. 67, § 1, at pp. 180–183, available here https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/20971?keywords=session%20laws%201971&highlights=eyIwIjoibGF3cyIsIjEiOiJzZXNzaW9uLCIsIjIiOiJzZWN0aW9uIiwiMyI6InNlc3Npb24uIiwiNCI6IjE5NzEpIiwiNiI6InNlc3Npb24iLCI3IjoibGF3cywiLCIxNSI6IjE5NzEsIn0=. Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document. 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. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Autumn Johnson (520) 240-4757 [email protected] Phoenix, AZ - The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA), the State’s leading trade association for solar, storage, and electrification, is proud to announce a new initiative aimed at assisting homeowners with solar systems that were installed by companies that have since closed. Recognizing the importance of ensuring that every solar system operates efficiently and effectively, AriSEIA has curated a comprehensive list of member companies ready to provide support and services. Homeowners with solar systems often encounter questions or need assistance with maintenance, repairs, or upgrades. Understanding this, AriSEIA has compiled a directory of qualified members who can offer expert assistance. This initiative underscores the solar industry's commitment to being a valuable resource and a reliable partner for all solar system owners in Arizona. “AriSEIA is dedicated to consumer protection and supporting homeowners,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. “We understand that navigating the maintenance and troubleshooting of solar systems, especially after a solar installer closure, can be challenging. That’s why we have commenced a homeowner education campaign and have assembled a list of companies who are ready to assist and ensure that solar systems continue to deliver the expected benefits.” The curated list of members includes a range of service providers, from installation and maintenance experts to companies specializing in solar system insurance and warranty solutions. By reaching out to these members, homeowners can find the help they need to keep their solar systems running smoothly and efficiently. Despite recent challenges, the solar industry is committed to being proactive, approachable, and helpful, ensuring that every solar system owner has the support they need. Homeowners seeking assistance with their solar systems can visit the AriSEIA website to access the list of members and find the appropriate service provider for their needs. 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. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff issued a second set of questions regarding the new Value of Solar docket. AriSEIA responded to the first set and submitted responses today to the second set. We continue to oppose any increase in the annual step down or any decrease in the 10-year lock in period.
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.
|
AriSEIA NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|