AriSEIA filed its second and final brief today opposing APS' discriminatory fee on all solar customers. The recommended opinion and order is expected this week, because the ACC has indicated it will be vote on on 12/17.

AriSEIA filed its first post-hearing brief in the APS rate case rehearing. In the original rate case, APS imposed a new fee targeted only at solar customers. AriSEIA asked for a rehearing, which was granted. AriSEIA filed a pre-hearing brief, available here, and also filed its first of two post-hearing briefs. The reply brief is due next week. A vote is scheduled at the Arizona Corporation Commission on 12/17/24.

City of Surprise
Community Development
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
RE: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (Chapter 106, Article X, Sec. 106-10.22)
 
Dear Mr. Abrams and Community Development Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active on energy policy issues at every level of government in Arizona. We have previously engaged on the City of Eloy, Mohave County, and Yavapai County solar ordinances. We only became aware of this pending ordinance draft on November 6th and apologize that our comments were not provided to you earlier in your process. We very much hope to continue to be engaged with the City as this process progresses. Our primary comments for the purposes of this letter pertain to the setback from residences and the lack of a waiver provision. We recommend that the City reduce the BESS 1,500’ setback from residential property (B) requirement to 150’. We also recommended adding a waiver provision to the Article.
 
AriSEIA understands and is sensitive to the fact that the McMicken Battery Energy Storage System failure happened in Surprise and that many City Staff were personally involved and impacted. We believe that APS and local governments have learned greatly from that experience.[1]
 
Setbacks
The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150 feet from property lines.[2] The BESS 1,500’ setback requirement is significantly above BESS setback standards in other jurisdictions and will restrict clean energy development in the City of Surprise.[3] We recommend 150’ based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[4] The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ that covers questions about battery safety and air emissions.[5] ACP also has a Claims v. Facts one-pager on battery safety, included here as Attachment A. “It should also be noted that the average emissions rates of equivalent masses of plastics exceed those of batteries.”[6] Additionally, sampling was done by the Environmental Health Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the Moss Landing incident and “no threat to human health or the surrounding environment” was found.[7] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[8] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels.
 
In (B) we agree that any setback required should be from the dwelling unit, not the property line. However, the second half of that section makes it unclear from which we are measuring. What does “residential properties” mean when referencing PAD, R-1, R-2, or R-3? We recommend it measure from the dwelling unit or residence.
 
Waiver Provision
The current Ordinance draft covers the primary land use matrix for all zoning districts in Surprise. The Ordinance should include a waiver provision in the event a project proposal conflicts with some component of the Ordinance, but is otherwise an ideal site. The City of Eloy Solar and BESS Ordinance includes such a provision.[9] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s Ordinance.
 
Other
We appreciate the references to NFPA 855. We also appreciate the specificity of the site plan requirements in (G). Finally, it seems this is a discretionary process. It would be helpful to clarify on what basis a permit may be denied even if all requirements are met and whether there is any appeal process or ability to cure.
 
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to continuing to engage with the City on this Ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] APS, McMicken Battery Energy Storage System Event Technical Analysis and Recommendations, July 18, 2020, available here https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Our-Company/Newsroom/McMickenFinalTechnicalReport.pdf?la=en&hash=37F06DD16761765FD61DDA9AE7C9C4EF.

[2] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf.

[3] We have included our Maricopa County economic impact study as Attachment B and our water analysis as Attachment C.

[4] City of Phoenix, Battery Energy Storage Systems, April 2023, available here https://www.phoenix.gov/firesite/Documents/205.20A%20Battery%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems.pdf.

[5] American Clean Power Association, Energy Storage: Safety FAQ, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2023/07/ACP-ES-Product-4-BESS-Safety-FAQs-230724.pdf.

[6] Consolidated Edison and NYSERDA, Considerations for ESS Fire Safety, Feb. 9, 2017, at iii, available here https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Project/Nyserda/files/Publications/Research/Energy-Storage/20170118-ConEd-NYSERDA-Battery-Testing-Report.pdf.

[7] County of Monterey, Air Quality Testing Information and Process During Moss Landing Fire Incident, Sept. 30, 2022, available here https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9345/1336.

[8] California Public Utility Commission, Energy Storage Procurement Study: Safety Best Practices, 2023, available here https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/energy-storage/2023-05-31_lumen_energy-storage-procurement-study-report-attf.pdf.

[9] Eloy Ordinance, 21-3-1.39, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/eloyaz/latest/eloy_az/0-0-0-9381. 

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
1015 Fair Street
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: November 6th Board of Supervisors Meeting, Hearing No. 4, Section 608 Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance  
 
Chairman and Supervisors,
 
AriSEIA recommends that the Board of Supervisors delay a vote on the revised Solar Ordinance because:

• The Ordinance is in conflict with the County’s own Comprehensive Plan,
• The Draconis Project, which is in Chino Valley and not subject to the County’s Ordinance has created confusion as to the terms of the Ordinance, and
• County Staff has stated that the Ordinance and its numerous restrictions will apply on public land, which was never addressed during the stakeholder process.

 
Additionally, this Ordinance is in conflict with economic development opportunities in the County and water conservation. Even a single solar project would generate ~$16.8 million in tax revenues during the life of the project and the total economic output from a single project over its life would be ~$201 million.[1] Solar uses much less water than other types of electricity generation and less water than alternative land uses.[2]
 
This Ordinance is essentially a de fact solar moratorium. It includes a cap on solar development of 10,000 acres in a county with more than five million acres; thereby limiting solar development to a fraction of a percent of the County’s land, a restriction that does not appear to exist for any other industries. Additionally, numerous issues from our initial letters and redlines are still outstanding:

• The acreage caps are extreme both on a per project and on an aggregate basis,
• The setbacks are onerous and unreasonable, and
• The waiver provision creates veto power for a single County employee.

 
Additional comments on the final draft are included as Attachment A.
 
Comprehensive Plan
The Ordinance as drafted is inconsistent with the Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan. Arizona law establishes baseline requirements for county comprehensive plans including the “planning for energy use that: encourages and provides incentives for the efficient use of energy [and] identifies policies and practices for greater use of renewable energy.”[3] Arizona law requires the comprehensive plan’s purpose and effect “shall be primarily as an aid to the county planning and zoning commission and to the board of supervisors in the performance of their duties.”[4] “The zoning ordinance and all rezonings and zoning regulations amendments under this article shall be consistent with and conform to the adopted comprehensive plan.”[5]
 
The 10,000 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.”[6] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[7] 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.”[8] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[9] The acreage caps are arbitrary and will inhibit, not promote, solar development in Yavapai County. Additionally, the onerous and unreasonable setbacks are also at odds with the Comprehensive Plan.
 
Waiver Provision
The waiver clause in Section 608(D)(2)(g) stipulates a two-tier review process. Presently, this clause grants veto power to both the Development Services Director and the Board. We suggest limiting this discretion solely to the Board for these projects. We propose rephrasing the language to state: “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.”  
 
Bureau of Land Management (Federal Land)
Almost 75% of Yavapai County is public land, with nearly half of that being federal land. The Ordinance conflicts with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) updated 2012 Western Solar Plan.[10] The BLM oversees over 19 million acres of public land for utility-scale solar production, including in Arizona. The updated 2024 Plan emphasizes locating solar projects within 15 miles of existing or planned transmission corridors to minimize environmental and cultural impacts.[11] Yavapai County contains BLM's section 368 energy corridor, ideal for solar development due to its proximity to transmission lines, as well as significant planned transmission zones.[12]
​
Conclusion
There are numerous outstanding legal considerations for the County before it moves forward with this Ordinance, including conflicts with its own Comprehensive Plan and the relationship between the Ordinance and State and Federal land. Please either modify the per project acreage cap and eliminate the aggregate County acreage cap or postpone the vote until these issues can be resolved.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] See Attachment B.

[2] See Attachment C.

[3] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-804(B) (4) (a-b) (2024).

[4] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-804(A) (2024).

[5] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-811(A) (2024).

[6] 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).

[7] Id. (emphasis added).

[8] Id. (emphasis added).

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

[10] Natural Resources Defense Council, BLM’s Solar Plan: Balancing Efficiency, Flexibility, and Conservation, Aug. 27, 2024, available here https://www.nrdc.org/bio/josh-axelrod/blms-solar-plan-balancing-efficiency-flexibility-and-conservation#:~:text=With%20the%20FPEIS%2C%20the%20BLM,accelerating%20the%20clean%20energy%20transition.

[11] Id.

[12] U.S. Department of the Interior, Solar Programmatic EIS Proposed Plan in Arizona, Aug. 2024, available here https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200540728/20118384/251018364/Final%20Solar%20PEIS%20Proposed%20Plan%20Arizona%20map.pdf. See Attachment D. 

The Judge in the APS rate case rehearing on the grid access charge fees imposed against all APS solar customers asked parties to submit briefs before the hearing on whether or not the fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory. Read AriSEIA's position at the link above. The hearing starts on Monday, October 28th.

AriSEIA filed rebuttal testimony of our expert witness, Kevin Lucas, rebutting the testimony of APS, IBEW, and Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff, all who support opposing new fixed fees on all APS solar customers. Read the full filing above. The hearing commences October 28th.

In a bold move, Arizona Public Service (APS) has moved to entirely exclude the testimony of the Arizona Attorney General and the Arizona Governor's Office from the rate case rehearing on its discriminatory charge on all solar customers. In so doing, APS also seeks to exclude most of the testimony of AriSEIA and Vote Solar. APS argues that any evidence used to create the solar charge is not to be examined in the rehearing, thereby rendering the entire process a sham. AriSEIA, Vote Solar, the Attorney General, individual ratepayers, and the Governor's Office through the consumer advocate (RUCO) have all filed in opposition.

In Arizona, a state blessed with abundant sunshine, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) holds a crucial role in shaping the future of solar energy. This independent regulatory body influences policies that directly impact how solar energy is adopted, integrated, and managed across the state. 

As voters prepare to cast their ballots, understanding the ACC’s significance and the importance of electing pro-solar candidates is absolutely essential for both solar customers and the general public, especially when considering the down-ballot position of this race.

The ACC is responsible for regulating utilities, overseeing corporate practices, and ensuring consumer protection. Among its many duties, the ACC plays a pivotal role in determining policies related to energy, including solar power. In addition, the ACC approves long-term resource plans provided by the utilities, including the balance of how many of those resources are distributed on residential or commercial properties versus sited upstream of transmission lines. This is a critical function when considering the future of our grid given substantial load growth projections across the state and the need for an “all of the above” approach to reliability.

What Does a Pro-Solar Candidate Look Like?

Promoting solar adoption: Electing pro-solar candidates ensures that the ACC supports policies conducive to a more modern and sustainable grid. These candidates advocate for distributed solar and energy storage as an important tool in Arizona’s toolbox to complement continued utility-scale investment in the same technology as the lowest-cost resource. As a result, more Arizona communities are likely to invest in solar technology, and will benefit from cleaner, renewable energy.

Protecting consumer interests: Commissioners are constitutionally dedicated to protecting the interests of ratepayers. Regulated monopoly utility companies are enshrined with a similar responsibility. It is important as a ratepayer and a voter to look into the true cost of energy infrastructure and operations. Generally, solar with energy storage remains cheaper than fossil fuels even without environmental considerations. 

Enhancing energy independence: Investing in local solar energy infrastructure reduces reliance on imported energy resources. By supporting pro-solar policies in Arizona, the ACC can accelerate our path to energy independence, which is crucial for a stable and secure economy. Pro-solar candidates promote policies that enhance local energy production and contribute to a more resilient energy infrastructure.

Addressing environmental impact: Arizona has a significant opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through solar investment. Pro-solar candidates prioritize environmental sustainability and support policies that align with climate goals. Their efforts help to mitigate environmental impacts and promote a healthier, cleaner state.

Boosting the economy: The solar industry creates jobs, stimulates economic growth and drives technological innovation. As larger companies relocate to Arizona, they will prioritize sustainability factors due to evolving state, national, and global regulations that require mandatory disclosures, and because investors are increasingly focused on these factors. A diversified grid that includes renewable energy is instrumental in company decisions to establish offices in Arizona. 
​
In conclusion, the Arizona Corporation Commission is the key player in shaping the state’s solar energy landscape. Voting for pro-solar candidates is essential for advancing solar adoption, protecting consumer interests, promoting energy independence, addressing environmental concerns, and boosting the economy. Be sure to vote for 3! The ACC race is below national and legislative candidates, but before judges and ballot propositions.

The Hidden Power of the Arizona Corporation Commission: Why Your Vote Matters

There are a lot of really important issues on your ballot this fall. But it is not just the presidential candidates and the ballot propositions that you need to pay attention to. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) also has three out of its five members up for a vote in November. The ACC is the body that regulates water, gas, and electric utilities in Arizona. A five-member body sets the rates you pay to your monopoly utility every month. They are also in charge of energy policy in Arizona, meaning they decide if we keep using fossil fuels or transition to clean energy.

If you get electricity from Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power (TEP), Unisource, or a rural cooperative, the ACC impacts you. If you get gas from Southwest Gas, the ACC matters to you. If you get water from Global Water, EPCOR, Liberty, or any of these hundreds of companies, the ACC impacts you. If you have or ever hope to have solar panels, an electric vehicle, or an energy-efficient home, the ACC impacts you. If you are concerned about Arizona’s air quality or whether or not we will run out of water, the ACC impacts you.

Just since the last election, the ACC has made important decisions on rates for TEP, APS, Unisource, and Southwest Gas. They voted to prevent community solar from developing in Arizona. They have increased fixed fees on solar customers and decreased the value of the solar those same customers sell back to the grid. They have curtailed several energy efficiency programs. They have also voted to repeal renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements. Solar and energy efficiency are the only ways customers can meaningfully reduce their electric bills. Renewable energy uses less water than fossil fuels and does not contribute to air pollution.

Candidates for the ACC run statewide, meaning there are no districts, so all voters will have the same choices. You will find this race after other statewide and legislative candidates, but before judges and ballot propositions. You should vote for three, not just one, like a lot of other races. A lot of people that fill out a ballot just skip this race. That is because a lot of people do not know what the ACC is, think it only has to do with “corporations,” and do not realize that three people (because simple majority rules) decide nearly everything about electric, water, and gas utilities in the State. 57,000 votes was the difference between winning this election in 2022 and losing. That means your vote matters. And nearly 100,000 people who voted in the 2022 gubernatorial race did not vote in the ACC race.

Six candidates are running for three seats. All of these candidates have websites and social media. In alphabetical order, they are: Ylenia Aguilar (D) (website and social), Jonathon Hill (D) (website and social), Rene Lopez (R) (website and social), Lea Marquez Peterson (R) (website and social), Joshua Polacheck (D) (website and social), and Rachel Walden (R) (website and social). Only Marquez Peterson is an incumbent.

Ballots are mailed out on October 9th. You can request a mail-in ballot until October 25th. You need to mail back your ballot by October 29th. The last day to vote in-person, early is November 1st. Election day is November 5th and polls are open 6am-7pm. Get all of your voting info at the Secretary of State’s website. The ballot is going to be long this year, but take your time and complete all of it. Research the candidates. If you are voting from home, you have a lot of time to review the voter guides, candidate websites, and candidate social media accounts. If you are voting in person, plan ahead. The ACC race impacts you.

Autumn Johnson is the Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association.
​

​Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Comments on the August 30, 2024 Utilities Division Memorandum and Amendments, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
On August 30, 2024, Commission Staff filed a Memorandum with their recommendations as to the Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) of Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power (TEP), UNS Electric (UNSE), and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO).[1] AriSEIA participates on the Resource Planning Advisory Council (RPAC) for APS and TEP and has for many years.
 
        I.            AriSEIA IRP Engagement
 
AriSEIA first filed in this docket on April 28, 2023 expressing concerns about the delay with APS and TEP providing the modeling licenses that were required from the 2020 IRP Order (Decision No. 78499).[2] It had been 15 months and stakeholders still did not have nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) executed, licenses, or utility data. At that time, we asked for an IRP filing extension, as it takes months to review these models. AriSEIA reiterated these concerns verbally at the June 21, 2023 Open Meeting.
 
AriSEIA also hired a consultant and obtained a modeling license for this IRP. AriSEIA filed two different sets of comments in this docket on January 31, 2024. The comments we filed with our consultant, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), are 263 pages long.[3] These comments included comprehensive slides as to their review of the modeling done by APS (60 slides) and TEP (63 slides). We presented this work one on one with each utility and to each RPAC (four total presentations). Plus, RMI provided a presentation to each RPAC on IRP best practices (another two presentations, for six total presentations). We also provided an abbreviated version of the slides to Commission Staff, which we presented at the IRP workshop on July 31, 2024. AriSEIA also attended all of the modeling trainings and briefed APS on what we intended to do with the model before we ever obtained a license. AriSEIA also filed individual comments on the IRP on January 31, 2024, which were 142 pages in length.[4] Those comments focused on our recommendations for the next IRP (the 2026 IRP). Those recommendations are worth repeating here, as many of them are not included in Staff’s recommendation. Namely we recommend retaining the following requirements from the 2020 IRP Order:

• A comprehensive analysis of power system resiliency to extreme weather[5]
• Discussion of the load serving entities’ (LSE) gas price assumptions[6]
• A variety of potential portfolios[7]
• An analysis of resource adequacy[8]
• A requirement to provide stakeholders with modeling licenses[9]
• A requirement to eliminate must run designations,[10] as well as restrictions on the economic cycling of plants[11]
• A requirement that the utilities accurately account for the costs of hydrogen[12]
• A requirement that the utilities continue to include relevant tax credits in their modeling[13]
• A requirement that the utilities evaluate the emissions reductions of their portfolios[14]
• A requirement for the utilities to select a preferred portfolio[15]
• A requirement that both TEP and APS use capacity expansion modeling[16]

We also recommended the inclusion of the following new requirements:

• That the next IRP be filed in 2026.
• That TEP and APS be required to continue using a Resource Planning Advisory Council (RPAC) process to hold at least monthly meetings and commence at least one (1) year in advance of the next IRP filing deadline.
• That TEP be required to file a complete plan and actually use capacity expansion modeling similar to APS’ modeling and plan in this docket.
• That TEP and APS be required to continue using ASRFPs for procurement of new resources.
• That the RPAC be utilized to improve the ASRFPs prior to release and be apprised of the results thereafter.
• That modeling licenses, nondisclosure agreements, any necessary training, and preliminary data be provided to stakeholders at least six (6) months prior to the IRP filing deadlines.
• That the final data be provided to stakeholders at least three (3) months prior to the IRP deadline.
• That the preferred portfolio be provided to the RPAC at least two (2) months prior to the IRP filing deadline.
• That the utilities be required to run at least ten (10) different portfolios that evaluate a variety of different scenarios developed in concert with their RPACs.

The majority of these recommendations were not included in Staff’s recommendation. AriSEIA also filed a letter to this docket on August 27, 2024 in response to APS and TEP comments that stakeholders that obtained modeling licenses had not appropriately used those licenses.[17] That letter noted that fifteen different organizations filed stakeholder comments on the IRP on January 31, 2024. To our knowledge, the only stakeholder groups to obtain licenses were AriSEIA, Western Resource Advocates (WRA), and Sierra Club. All of those organizations hired consultants to evaluate the models. All of those groups filed comments on January 31, 2024, and presented at the Commission’s IRP workshop on July 31, 2024. All of the slides the stakeholders presented at that workshop were also filed in the docket.[18]

The Sierra Club filed 36 pages of single spaced comments on the APS plan[19] and 26 single spaced comments on the TEP plan[20] on January 31, 2024 and hired Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. to review the models. WRA filed 24 pages of single spaced comments on the TEP plan[21] and 49 pages of single spaced comments on the APS plan.[22] WRA hired Energy Strategies as their consultant on the model analysis, as well as to conduct their own modeling. Sierra Club and WRA also presented their work to the RPAC. Other than Staff, AriSEIA is not aware of any other stakeholder obtaining a modeling license. Collectively, the stakeholders that obtained modeling licenses filed 540 pages of analysis and gave at least 11 presentations on our work between the RPAC, the utilities, and the Commission. And that is despite the fact that we received the licenses and data from the utilities very late in the process. Until TEP filed comments on May 31, 2024, it had never before been asserted that the stakeholders had used the licenses insufficiently.[23] APS did not assert there was any deficiency with the stakeholder use of the licenses until August 26, 2024, nearly seven months after the stakeholders filed their comments.[24]
 
     II.            Staff Recommendation
 
AriSEIA did no less work than Staff did with the modeling license. In Staff’s recommendation, they wrote:
 
"Staff did find value in being able to navigate the software and step through the inputs in the project files…. Staff believes this software is important for Staff’s analysis in the IRP process. Staff recommends that APS, TEP, and UNSE continue to provide Staff` with a license to the Aurora Modeling Software."[25]
 
Staff then acknowledges the numerous issues stakeholders had in obtaining licenses from the utilities, stating:
 
"Stakeholders in the RPAC stated that they experienced difficulties with fully utilizing the licensing that was provided because of timelines and insufficient data sharing. As a result, stakeholders modeling effects were not as impactful as they could have been. APS only provided the project files for its reference case and TEP and UNSE only provided the project files for its base case."[26]
 
Despite Staff stating that even though they did not do their own modeling and acknowledging the many issues stakeholders encountered with the utilities in being able to access the models, Staff removes the requirement to provide modeling licenses to stakeholders. The 2020 IRP order stated:
 
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Power Company, and UNS Electric, Inc. shall in future Integrated Resource Plans negotiate a project-based licensing fee that permits up to 12 Resource Planning Advisory Council members and Staff the ability to perform their own modeling runs in the same software package as these load serving entities, and to provide all necessary data and support to fully utilize the models. The load serving entities shall absorb the cost of the licensing fees."[27]

Despite recommending removal of this requirement, Staff then states that “Staff believes that transparency in the IRP process is important to develop comprehensive IRPs.”[28] However, removing the requirement to provide access to the modeling inhibits transparency. Staff’s only stated reason for removing the modeling requirement for stakeholders is cost.[29] However, a reimbursement model would not lower costs. In fact, because it would create additional administrative burdens, it would likely cost more. There is nothing in the Staff Recommendation that articulates the process by which Staff or the utilities will manage a reimbursement program. Some initial questions include:
 
·         Who will manage and monitor this program?
·         By what date must the utilities reimburse the costs of the modeling licenses?
·         What is the deliverable that stakeholders must provide to the utilities and by when?
·         What is the remedy process should there be a dispute?
 
Additionally, it is unclear if the utilities will be able to negotiate a reduced rate license if the stakeholders are to procure the licenses on their own to be potentially reimbursed someday if the utilities, in their sole discretion, deem it warranted. For example, WRA objectively met the never before stated requirement to model their own portfolios (something Staff admits they did not do). Therefore, if only WRA is entitled to reimbursement and that license is astronomically more expensive than the negotiated bulk licenses procured by the utility, the reimbursement could be higher than it is with the current system.
 
Further, a reimbursement program would make it impossible for small nonprofits, such as AriSEIA, to participate at all. AriSEIA has never missed an RPAC meeting. AriSEIA has objectively actively engaged in this docket. It has never been asserted that we do not participate or contribute and yet, under the Staff Recommendation, we are the stakeholder that would be excluded from this process going forward. AriSEIA reached out to Staff three times before this filing in an attempt to understand what problem they are trying to solve with their recommendations, but we were not provided the opportunity to discuss this issue.
 
AriSEIA objects to Staff recommendations 7 and 8 (also known as G and H). Those recommendations will not increase transparency. There is also no evidence that those recommendations will save ratepayers’ money.
 
AriSEIA also objects to Staff recommendation 13 (also known as M). The proper way for the Commission to modify a prior order is through A.R.S. § 40-252. Also, the Staff Recommendation is missing several of the items listed on page 2 above from the 2020 IRP Order that are still very valuable, such as:

• A comprehensive analysis of power system resiliency to extreme weather like heat and wildfires,
• Discussion of the LSE’s gas price assumptions,
• An analysis of resource adequacy,
• A requirement to eliminate must run designations as well as restrictions on the economic cycling of plants,
• A requirement that the utilities accurately account for the costs of hydrogen,
• A requirement that the utilities continue to include relevant tax credits in their modeling, and
• A requirement that both TEP and APS use capacity expansion modeling.

AriSEIA also recommends the utilities model ten, not seven, portfolios in the 2026 IRP. Staff recommended only seven in its recommendation 14 (also known as N).
 
The Commission removed the requirement for Staff to obtain a consultant to provide an independent review of the IRPs.[30] This is reason enough for continued stakeholder access to the models. Removing the third party requirement and limiting stakeholder participation in the IRP docket is a step in the wrong direction and takes us back to the backbox utility IRPs that we not acknowledged by the Commission in prior years.[31] This is the first time the utilities have ever provided modeling access and no evidence has been provided that those licenses were misused. No evidence has been provided that removing that requirement will save ratepayers money. Therefore, AriSEIA has provided two Proposed Amendments below.
 
  III.            Battery Storage
 
Baseload resources are resources that run consistently all or most of the time. Nuclear is an example. You are not going to ramp up and down a nuclear plant based on changes in demand. Dispatchable resources are resources that can be increased or decreased on demand as the needs of the grid change. Some resources are both, such as geothermal and hydropower. They can be run consistently or they can be ramped up and down based on needs. Some resources like gas peakers (combustion turbines (CTs)) and batteries are dispatchable, but are not baseload. Batteries can be dispatched as needed.[32]
 
There are many kinds of storage, batteries are one type. There are many different kinds of battery technologies and they have different capabilities. There are lithium ion batteries, redox flow batteries, lead batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, sodium sulfur batteries, iron-chromium flow batteries, and zinc-bromine flow batteries.[33] The durations of these technologies range from two hours to ten hours.[34] Indeed, Salt River Project (SRP) has a ten hour flow battery expected to be operational by Q1 of 2026.[35]
 
Batteries are dispatchable. Therefore, they should not be excluded from the Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Myers Joint Proposed Amendment No. 1. Further, singling out specific technologies undermines the utilities’ usage of all source requests for proposals (ASRFPs). The entire point of moving to ASRFPs is so that all resources have a level playing field on which to compete on cost and utility needs. The Commission singling out specific technologies that cannot be used for capacity or resource planning will jeopardize affordability. Further, it undercuts innovation. Why would the Commission want to choose winners and losers in a game with constantly improving technology? Additionally, specifically eliminating certain technologies makes the utilities more vulnerable to supply chain constraints. A war, natural disaster, new political administration, global pandemic, port strike, etc. can all impact which technologies are available and affordable at any given time. Why would the Commission want to constrain those options?
 
As the amendment is drafted, the only resources that appear to count as “dependable and dispatchable capacity, not including battery storage” but also “approved” after December 31, 2024 and before 2031 would be gas peakers (CTs). Specifying how much of what kind of resource a utility must buy and when, in order to make an additional decision about which plants to retire, is very prescriptive and may be more of a managerial decision than a regulatory one.
 
Finally, because APS first announced it was closing Four Corners in 2020. It is not clear why the new capacity resources that APS must procure to replace Four Corners need be procured only after December 31, 2024. All capacity resources APS procures to replace Four Corners should count for resource adequacy purposes.
 
That being said, AriSEIA understands the purpose of the Amendment and has suggested a friendly amendment below to maintain the spirit of the Amendment while being technology agnostic.
 
  IV.            Commissioner and Staff Amendments
 
AriSEIA has reviewed the documents filed by Staff, Commissioner Myers, and Commissioner Thompson.
 
AriSEIA supports Staff Proposed Amendment No. 1. The utilities have been clear that the coal retirement dates are economic decisions.

AriSEIA opposes Staff Proposed Amendment No. 3. This amendment makes the data that the utilities are to provide to stakeholders with the modeling licenses more ambiguous. “Portfolios” are more specific. If Staff wishes to add “information” it should be additive to and not in lieu of the “portfolios.”

AriSEIA opposes Staff Proposed Amendment No. 2. This language is removed by AriSEIA Proposed Amendment No. 1. Further, this language is redundant. For the stakeholder to have modeling results, they would have to use the software.

AriSEIA supports Commissioner Myers Proposed Amendment No. 3. Ensuring the accuracy of load forecasts is essential for maintaining reliability and ensuring affordability.

AriSEIA supports Commissioner Myers Proposed Amendment No. 6. Regional markets participation is a relevant factor that can impact resource selections and costs and should be included in long term planning.

AriSEIA has offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Myers Joint Proposed Amendment No. 1. AriSEIA supports efforts to ensure resource adequacy, but does not think the Commission should exclude any technologies that provide “dependable and dispatchable capacity.” Please see AriSEIA Proposed Amendment No. 3.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Arizona Corporate Commission, Staff’s Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) Recommendation, August 30, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037784.pdf [hereinafter Staff Recommendation].

[2] AriSEIA, Letter to Commission on IRP, April 28, 2023, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000026311.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[3] AriSEIA, Vote Solar, and Advanced Energy United, Joint Comments to Commission on IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033451.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[4] AriSEIA, Comments to Commission on IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, at 4-5, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033415.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[5] Arizona Corporate Commission, Staff Assessment of 2020 IRP, March 2, 2022, Decision No. 78499, at 11:1-2,  available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000206081.pdf?i=1700515655944 [hereinafter 2020 IRP Order].

[6] Id. at 11:8-13.

[7] Id. at 13:10-16.

[8] Id. at 14:5-8.

[9] Id. at 14:9-14.

[10] Id. at 14:15-17.

[11] Id. at 14:22-25.

[12] Id. at 15:1-3.

[13] Id. at 15:4-6.

[14] Id. at 15:7-9.

[15] Id. at 15:14-16.

[16] Id. at 17:15-17.

[17] AriSEIA, Letter to Commissioners, August 27, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037591.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[18] Utilities Division Staff, IRP Memorandum, July 29, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000036917.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[19] Sierra Club, Comments on the APS 2023 IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033488.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[20] Sierra Club, Comments on the TEP 2023 IRP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033487.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[21] WRA, Notice of Filing Comments on the 2023 IRP of TEP, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033471.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[22] WRA, Amended Notice of Filing Comments on the 2023 IRP of APS, January 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000033473.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[23] TEP, Response to Stakeholder Comments, May 31, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000035982.pdf?i=1727931647086.

[24] APS, Response to Commissioner Questions, August 23, 2024, Docket No. E-99999A-22-0046, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037555.pdf?i=1727931647086 (APS asserts they purchased a total of six licenses for stakeholders. It is unclear if this number includes Staff. It is unclear who the additional licenses were for and contradicts information APS has provided as to the total amount spent on the licenses. It also falsely asserts that “APS is not aware of whether any other stakeholders utilized the remaining licenses,” despite us presenting at least 11 total times.)

[25] Staff Recommendation at 86.

[26] Id. at 86-87.

[27] 2020 IRP Order at 14:9-14.

[28] Staff Recommendation at 87.

[29] Id.

[30] Arizona Corporate Commission, Order, June 20, 2024, Decision No. 79385, Docket No. E-00000V-15-0094, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000211300.pdf?i=1727936736722.

[31] Arizona Corporate Commission, Order, March 29, 2018, Decision No. 76632 at 53:4-6, Docket No. E-00000V-15-0094, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000186964.pdf?i=1727936284687.

[32] American Clean Power, Clean Energy Storage Facts, available here https://cleanpower.org/facts/clean-energy-storage/.

[33] American Clean Power, Battery Storage, available here https://cleanpower.org/facts/clean-energy-storage/battery-storage/.

[34] Id.

[35] Salt River Project and CMBlu Energy Announce Launch of Innovative Long-Duration Energy Storage Project, Aug. 31, 2023, available here https://media.srpnet.com/salt-river-project-and-cmblu-energy-announce-launch-of-innovative-long-duration-energy-storage-project/.