​Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
RE: Comments on APS 2026 RES Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-25-0140
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) submits these comments in response to the Utilities Division Staff Memorandum and Proposed Order concerning Arizona Public Service Company’s (APS) 2026 Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan.
 
These comments address two discrete issues: (1) Staff’s recommendation to deny continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website, and (2) the proposed waiver allowing Renewable Energy Standard compliance without the use and retirement of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
 
I.                    Objection to Elimination of Arizona Goes Solar Website Funding
 
Staff recommends denial of $360 in annual funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website without articulating any factual or policy basis for doing so. This recommendation is not supported by the record and fails to account for the website’s unique and critical role in Arizona’s energy regulatory ecosystem.
 
The Arizona Goes Solar website is not a discretionary marketing tool. It is a statewide consumer protection, transparency, and grid-awareness resource. It is the only centralized, publicly accessible platform in Arizona that provides neutral information on solar adoption, interconnection, incentives, utility-specific program requirements, and Renewable Energy Standard compliance across every major electric utility operating in the state. No other Commission-sponsored or utility-sponsored resource performs this function.
 
The website serves multiple core public-interest purposes. It provides consumers with clear, comparable information needed to make informed decisions, reduces confusion that can lead to fraud or misinformation, supports proper interconnection by directing customers to accurate utility requirements, and improves grid reliability by promoting informed deployment of distributed energy resources. In practice, the website reduces downstream disputes, complaints, and administrative burdens by improving clarity at the front end.
 
The annual cost of maintaining this resource is $360. This amount is de minimis relative to the overall Renewable Energy Standard budget and has no meaningful rate impact. Eliminating funding would not advance affordability or efficiency. It would instead eliminate the only neutral, statewide informational resource of its kind in Arizona, directly weakening consumer protection and transparency for no discernible benefit.
 
Importantly, elimination of this funding is inconsistent with the Commission’s stated priorities. Chairman Myers has publicly stated that his number one commitment as Chairman is transparency, noting that “transparency is not just about access; it’s about clarity.” The Arizona Goes Solar website embodies that principle. It provides clarity, not merely access, by consolidating complex, utility-specific information into a single, understandable public resource. Defunding the website would move the Commission in the opposite direction.
 
Absent a specific finding that the website is duplicative, inaccurate, unnecessary, or inconsistent with Commission policy, denial of continued funding is arbitrary and unsupported. The Commission has long recognized the value of low-cost educational and transparency tools that support informed participation in Arizona’s energy markets. Continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website is squarely aligned with that history and with the Commission’s stated commitment to transparency.
 
For these reasons, the Commission should reject Staff’s recommendation and approve continued funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website.
 
II.                 Objection to Waiver of REC Use and Retirement
 
AriSEIA also objects to APS’ request for a waiver of Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-1804(A), which would allow Renewable Energy Standard compliance without the use and retirement of RECs.
 
Nationwide, a REC represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour of electricity generated from a qualifying renewable resource.[1] In every established Renewable Portfolio Standard or Renewable Energy Standard program in the United States, the core compliance mechanism is the demonstration that qualifying RECs have been both owned and retired on behalf of customers. Retirement is the act that permanently removes a REC from the market and prevents it from being claimed more than once.
 
This structure is not unique to Arizona. It is the uniform accounting framework used by state regulators, utilities, system operators, and voluntary and compliance markets across the country. The use and retirement of RECs is what ensures environmental integrity, prevents double counting, and preserves the credibility of renewable energy claims. Without retirement, there is no verifiable proof that renewable attributes have been exclusively applied to compliance rather than sold, transferred, or claimed elsewhere. Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-1804(A) reflects this national norm. It is not a procedural preference. It is the substantive mechanism by which Renewable Energy Standard compliance is verified.
 
The waiver requested in this docket would fundamentally depart from this established framework by allowing compliance to be demonstrated without the retirement of RECs. Approval would represent a significant deviation from nationally accepted REC accounting practices and would introduce uncertainty into Arizona’s REC market regarding ownership, exclusivity, and environmental claims.
 
Such a deviation would have consequences extending well beyond this filing. It would affect market confidence, undermine the validity of REC transactions, and create ambiguity for third parties that rely on Arizona RECs for compliance, voluntary procurement, financing, and contractual claims. These impacts would not be limited to APS or the 2026 plan year.
 
Fundamental changes to REC mechanics should not be decided through a single utility’s Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan proceeding. The appropriate venue for reconsideration of REC use, retirement, and compliance accounting is a dedicated rulemaking or policy docket with full stakeholder participation and a comprehensive evaluation of market, regulatory, and legal impacts. Determining the basic mechanics of REC compliance in this docket risks unintended and irreversible consequences that extend beyond the scope of the 2026 plan and beyond APS.
 
For these reasons, the Commission should deny the requested waiver and maintain the existing requirement that Renewable Energy Standard compliance be demonstrated through the use and retirement of RECs, unless and until the Commission considers changes through a broader, deliberate, and transparent policy process.
 
III.              Conclusion
 
For the reasons stated above, AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Commission reject Staff’s recommendation to eliminate funding for the Arizona Goes Solar website and deny APS’ requested waiver of REC use and retirement requirements in this docket. Two amendments are attached for your convenience.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] US Environmental Protection Agency, Renewable Energy Certificates, available here https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/renewable-energy-certificates-recs?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446) (Draft 5v8)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comments on Apache County’s revised draft renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted a detailed comment letter dated December 3, 2025, addressing foundational issues related to definitions, siting criteria, setbacks, noise standards, agency coordination, and decommissioning. This letter is intended to supplement that prior submission and to respond specifically to new or revised provisions in the current draft, as well as to areas where our earlier concerns remain unresolved.
 
AriSEIA represents Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification industry and regularly works with counties and municipalities across the state on renewable energy siting, zoning, and land-use standards. We support the County’s goal of establishing clear, enforceable requirements that protect public health, safety, and environmental resources while enabling responsible renewable energy development. Several aspects of the revised draft reflect thoughtful engagement. However, as currently written, a number of provisions remain unworkable, internally inconsistent, or disconnected from established engineering, environmental, and land-use practice. These issues risk creating unnecessary barriers to projects that are otherwise compatible with Apache County’s planning objectives.
 
Our principal concerns are outlined below:
 
1. Applicability and Definition of “Utility-Scale”
 
The ordinance defines “utility-scale” facilities as projects of 1 megawatt or greater. As we noted in our December 3, 2025 letter, this threshold is far too low and would subject small commercial, agricultural, and community-scale systems to a regulatory framework designed for major infrastructure. A 1-megawatt trigger would sweep in behind-the-meter systems serving schools, farms, warehouses, and other non-utility users that do not function as utility-scale generation.
 
If the County wishes to regulate large infrastructure differently from smaller projects, the distinction should be meaningful. AriSEIA strongly recommends increasing the applicability threshold to at least 20 megawatts and explicitly treating projects below that level as community-scale or commercial facilities regulated under ordinary zoning and building codes.
​
2. Noise Standards and Cumulative Setbacks
 
Consistent with our December 3, 2025 comments, the ordinance continues to establish an absolute noise limit of 55 dBA without accounting for existing ambient conditions and pairs that limit with multiple, overlapping distance-based setbacks. While 55 dBA may appear modest, it is approximately equivalent to ordinary conversation and does not reflect how sound is typically evaluated in rural, agricultural, or infrastructure-adjacent environments.
 
When combined with fixed setbacks, this approach creates a cumulative regulatory structure that is not tied to measurable impact and will effectively preclude development on large portions of otherwise suitable land. If the County’s objective is to protect residential quiet enjoyment, that objective is best achieved through a single, objective noise standard or an ambient-plus methodology, rather than through layered perimeter buffers that operate as de facto prohibitions. Noise compliance should be the primary protection for residences, not secondary to multiple distance formulas.
 
3. Wind Setbacks and Project Boundary Buffers
 
The requirement that wind turbines be set back at least 1.5 times total tower height from the project boundary remains substantially more restrictive than typical safety-based standards. When applied to parcel boundaries rather than to occupied structures or sensitive receptors, this requirement functions as a land-use exclusion zone rather than a public safety measure.
Industry practice generally relies on fall-zone setbacks closer to 1.0–1.1 times tower height, paired with noise standards to protect nearby residences. We recommend revising boundary-based setbacks to reflect safety-driven distances and eliminating redundant buffers that unnecessarily reduce buildable area.
 
4. Solar Standards, Scope, and Setbacks
 
As noted in our prior letter, the ordinance contains internal inconsistency by stating that distributed generation is excluded while later applying provisions to “commercial” solar projects rather than to “utility-scale” facilities. “Commercial” is not a defined scale category and could be interpreted to capture schools, warehouses, farms, and other behind-the-meter systems. All solar provisions should be expressly limited to “utility-scale solar energy projects” to avoid unintentionally regulating distributed or mid-scale generation.
 
The ordinance’s 500-foot setback from “major and scenic highways” is not tied to any demonstrated safety or operational concern. At a minimum, the County should remove “major” from this category, limiting any such provision to designated scenic highways only. Solar setbacks should reflect established fire and access standards rather than roadway classifications. A 100-foot setback is consistent with National Fire Protection Association guidance and widely used in Arizona. Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost.
 
Importantly, extensive setbacks for solar do not serve a safety function in the way they do for battery energy storage systems or other infrastructure. Solar setbacks are generally aesthetic in nature and are often set based on the underlying zoning district or local land-use context. For example, in the City of Eloy, solar setbacks are 75 feet and increase to 100 feet where a project is adjacent to residential zoning. We agree that 100 feet is a reasonable recommendation, but the critical point is that there is no safety basis for a larger setback. The same standard should apply to setbacks from Agricultural-General zoning, which should be reduced from 150 feet to 100 feet.
 
Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost. We do not believe screening or landscaping requirements are necessary here.
 
Additionally, solar panels and related infrastructure should not be painted. Painting solar equipment is not standard practice, is unnecessary, and introduces avoidable cost. If the County wishes to address appearance, a more appropriate standard would be a commitment that solar infrastructure will be non-reflective, rather than a mandate to paint equipment.
 
5. Use of Setback Areas
 
The ordinance requires setback areas to remain in their “existing vegetative state,” which effectively prohibits productive land uses such as grazing or agriculture. As we previously noted, setbacks are intended to provide separation between infrastructure and receptors, not to freeze land use in perpetuity. Setback areas should be permitted for compatible uses such as agriculture, grazing, stormwater management, pollinator habitat, and other low-impact activities so long as safety and access are maintained.
 
6. FAA, FCC, and Transmission Facilities
 
Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission compliance requirements are relevant to wind turbine height, lighting, and potential signal interference. These requirements are not applicable to solar facilities and should be expressly limited to wind energy projects where required by federal law.
 
In addition, transmission lines, interconnection facilities, and utility-owned distribution infrastructure should not be regulated as part of a renewable “facility” under this ordinance. Such infrastructure is already subject to separate state and federal frameworks. At a minimum, the ordinance should exclude transmission and interconnection facilities beyond the project boundary from local setback and siting requirements.
 
7. Wildlife Protection and Agency Coordination
 
Several wildlife-related provisions continue to raise the concerns outlined in our December 3, 2025 letter:
 

• Design mandates to prevent nesting or perching reflect outdated, wind-specific concerns and are not applicable to solar.
• References to “wind guidelines” should apply only to wind projects.
• Requirements that agency letters be received before scheduling a Conditional Use Permit hearing risk allowing third-party agencies to indefinitely delay County review. Where an agency does not respond within a reasonable period, documentation of a good-faith effort to consult and submit required materials should satisfy the requirement.

 
Coordination is appropriate. External agency non-responsiveness should not function as a veto over County land-use authority.
 
8. Interconnection Agreements and Power Purchase Agreements
 
As we previously advised, the requirement for executed interconnection or power purchase agreements prior to issuance of any building or construction permits remains unworkable. Interconnection agreements are often finalized only after land-use approvals, and power purchase agreements are commercial contracts that may not exist at the construction-permit stage.
 
We further recommend that the County stop short of requiring formal “documentation” of these agreements. Negotiations and drafts frequently involve confidential business terms, and written requirements of this type are uncommon. If the County wishes to understand project status, a narrative discussion of overall development progress within the CUP application should be sufficient.
 
9. Perimeter Fencing
 
Rigid fencing requirements can interfere with wildlife movement, agricultural use, and site-specific safety design. Fencing should be risk-based and tailored to site conditions, with flexibility for agricultural compatibility and wildlife passage where appropriate.
 
10. Signage
 
The signage provisions are extremely restrictive. It may be in the County’s best interest to allow for increased signage during construction for safety and site management purposes, including for construction zones, equipment movement, spill kits, muster points, and other health and safety needs. The ordinance should distinguish between permanent signage and temporary construction and safety signage.
 
11. Conditional Use Permit Reviews and Transfers
 
The ordinance requires that projects be reviewed every sixty (60) months. As written, the scope and purpose of this review remain unclear. If retained, this provision must be limited to an administrative compliance review only, with no authority to modify conditions absent demonstrated non-compliance.
 
We also reiterate our recommendation that the ordinance expressly allow partial assignment of Conditional Use Permits to accommodate common project financing and ownership structures.
 
12. Complaints, Inoperability, and Enforcement
 
As discussed in our prior submission, allowing a single complaint to trigger a public hearing sets an unreasonably low threshold. Enforcement mechanisms should be tied to documented non-compliance rather than the mere filing of a complaint.
 
The definition of “inoperable renewable energy generation facility” should be revised to exclude planned or temporary non-operation, including curtailment, repowering, maintenance, or other downtime coordinated with the Community Development Director.
 
The complaint response and hotline provisions also require clarification. The ordinance should specify at what point in the project life cycle the hotline must be available and should include a good-faith standard, requiring reasonable efforts to respond and resolve issues without treating unresolved or frivolous complaints as automatic violations.
 
13. Joint Agency Review
 
Provisions conditioning County permitting on the approval or satisfaction of state or federal agencies continue to present the concerns raised in our December 3, 2025 letter. The ordinance should require submittal and good-faith consultation with applicable agencies, with agency input considered where provided, but should not require final approval as a prerequisite to County action.
 
14. Decommissioning Timelines and Standards
 
As previously stated, the requirement to commence decommissioning within thirty (30) days is not reasonable for utility-scale facilities. We continue to recommend a minimum of twelve (12) months to initiate decommissioning, with defined milestones to ensure timely and accountable progress.
 
Likewise, the requirement for “complete removal… regardless of depth” remains environmentally unsound and technically unnecessary. Removal to a defined depth, commonly approximately three (3) feet below grade, with appropriate surface restoration, is the prevailing standard and should be adopted here.
 
The ordinance’s mandate for complete subsurface removal is also counterproductive to the County’s environmental objectives. In many cases, full extraction of large turbine foundations and similar infrastructure can only be achieved through highly disruptive methods, including blasting or comparable techniques. Requiring such disturbance would result in substantially greater soil disruption, habitat damage, erosion risk, and surface impacts than leaving material in place below a reasonable depth and restoring the site. The County should eliminate this absolute removal requirement and instead adopt a standard that allows for partial removal to a defined depth, consistent with industry practice and environmental best management principles.
 
Financial assurance should be based on net decommissioning cost, accounting for salvage value and updated engineering estimates.
 
15. Preferred Siting Criteria
 
Finally, preferred siting criteria should include commercial and operational viability, in addition to visual, environmental, and locational factors. Proximity to transmission, constructability, and the ability to secure interconnection and offtake are legitimate planning considerations that help ensure projects can actually be built and operated as intended.
 
Conclusion
 
As a supplement to our December 3, 2025 letter, AriSEIA respectfully requests that Apache County revise the ordinance to ensure:
 

• Applicability thresholds that meaningfully distinguish utility-scale projects from community-scale and distributed generation;
• Noise standards and setbacks tied to measurable impacts rather than cumulative exclusion zones;
• Solar provisions limited to utility-scale facilities and consistent with National Fire Protection Association safety standards;
• Agency coordination based on submittal and good-faith consultation rather than mandatory approval; and
• Decommissioning requirements that are environmentally sound, technically feasible, and structured around a twelve-month initiation period with defined milestones.

 
AriSEIA welcomes continued engagement with County staff and the Commission and is available to provide model language or examples from other Arizona jurisdictions.
Respectfully submitted,
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

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)
 
Dear Community Development Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide continued comments on the City of Surprise draft Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance. AriSEIA is the statewide trade association representing solar, energy storage, and electrification companies operating across Arizona. We have previously provided written comments to the City on November 14, 2024, and February 18, 2024, and appreciate the City’s ongoing engagement on this important topic.
 
After reviewing the most recent draft ordinance, we respectfully submit the following comments. While we acknowledge improvements in certain areas, several significant issues remain unresolved. These issues relate to scope, applicability, internal consistency, technical alignment with nationally adopted standards, and practical implementation.
 
1. Applicability and Scope of the Ordinance
The draft ordinance does not clearly and unambiguously limit its applicability to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems. As written, the ordinance does not expressly exclude behind-the-meter residential or commercial battery systems.
 
This creates material ambiguity as to whether the ordinance could apply to:

• Residential battery systems installed in garages or attached structures,
• Commercial batteries paired with rooftop solar at small businesses,
• Batteries installed for onsite resiliency or backup power.

 
Zoning ordinances are interpreted based on their plain language. Reliance on enforcement discretion to narrow applicability is insufficient and exposes the City to appeals, inconsistent enforcement, and potential legal challenges. AriSEIA has raised this concern in prior letters, and it remains unaddressed.
 
The ordinance should clearly state that it applies only to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems and does not apply to residential or commercial behind-the-meter installations. This clarification is essential to avoid unintended consequences and ensure the ordinance functions as intended.
 
2. Zoning Classification and Use Category
The ordinance establishes a standalone “BESS” zoning district and use category. This approach unnecessarily isolates energy storage from other forms of energy infrastructure that are often complementary in generating electricity and improving grid reliability.
 
AriSEIA recommends that the zoning district and use category be titled “Energy,” rather than “BESS,” and that utility-scale solar generation be included as a permitted or accessory use within the same category. This approach is consistent with Maricopa County and other Arizona jurisdictions and avoids the need for future piecemeal amendments as energy technologies continue to evolve.
 
3. Setbacks, Including the 1,500-Foot Residential Setback
The proposed 1,500-foot setback from residential properties remains a significant concern. This setback is not supported by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, peer jurisdiction practices, or empirical safety data. Nationally, BESS-specific setbacks typically range from 50 to 150 feet.[1]
 
In addition, the ordinance does not consistently specify from what point setbacks are measured. Where setbacks are imposed, they should be measured from the BESS structures themselves to the nearest residential dwelling unit, not from property lines or from an overall project boundary that may include solar generation. Excessive setbacks that are not tied to adopted safety standards unnecessarily constrain site availability, reduce project feasibility, and do not provide demonstrable safety benefits.
 
4. Internal Container Separation Distances
The draft ordinance requires a 10-foot separation between battery containers. This requirement exceeds NFPA 855, which allows a 3-foot separation for remote facilities. Deviation from nationally adopted fire codes without a technical justification creates inconsistency, increases costs, and does not improve safety. Separation between containers should be governed by NFPA 855, not by a locally imposed standard that is more than three times more restrictive.
 
5. Noise Standard
The ordinance imposes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA at the nearest existing dwelling unit. This threshold is unusually low for utility or industrial infrastructure and is often equivalent to ambient background noise levels in urban and suburban environments.
 
The ordinance does not distinguish between daytime and nighttime operations, does not account for existing ambient noise, and does not explain why battery energy storage systems should be subject to a more restrictive standard than other permitted infrastructure uses. If a noise standard is retained, it should be aligned with the City’s general noise ordinance, allow for mitigation, and reflect real-world operating conditions.
 
6. Perimeter Walls, Landscaping, and Associated Setbacks
The ordinance requires perimeter walls and landscaping and further requires these features to be set back 150 feet from other property lines. This requirement lacks a clear nexus to safety, aesthetics, or land-use compatibility.
 
Perimeter walls do not improve fire safety, and landscaping setbacks of this magnitude do not enhance screening or community protection. Instead, they significantly reduce developable area and may render otherwise suitable parcels unusable. In addition, the ordinance does not provide flexibility for circumstances where walls and landscaping are unnecessary for aesthetic purposes or where irrigation is not advisable due to water conservation concerns.
 
AriSEIA recommends adding administrative flexibility allowing staff to approve alternative perimeter treatments, including fencing without walls or reduced landscaping, where visual impacts are minimal, water use should be avoided, or site conditions warrant an alternative approach. Similar provisions have been successfully adopted by Buckeye and Maricopa County.
 
7. Timing and Sequencing of Required Plans and Studies
The ordinance requires multiple plans and studies, including emergency mitigation plans, noise studies, security plans, commissioning plans, and decommissioning plans, but does not clearly specify when each must be submitted or approved. This lack of clarity creates uncertainty for applicants and staff and may result in unnecessary delays or duplicative submissions. AriSEIA recommends the following clarifications:

• Commissioning plans should be required prior to building permit issuance.
• Emergency mitigation, noise, security, and decommissioning plans should be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• The ordinance should allow updates to plans when technology-specific details are not available at earlier stages.

 
8. Waivers and Administrative Flexibility
The ordinance limits the ability to modify or waive provisions to City Council action only. This approach is unnecessarily rigid and inconsistent with how similar ordinances are administered elsewhere. AriSEIA continues to recommend inclusion of an administrative waiver or modification process that allows staff to approve reasonable deviations when a project meets the ordinance’s safety and compatibility objectives. This flexibility improves outcomes without compromising public safety.
 
Conclusion
AriSEIA supports reasonable, data-driven regulation of battery energy storage systems. However, the current draft ordinance includes provisions that are internally inconsistent, not aligned with nationally adopted standards, and insufficiently clear as to scope and applicability.
Addressing the issues outlined above will result in an ordinance that is safer, clearer, more defensible, and more workable for the City, applicants, and the community.
 
We appreciate the opportunity to continue engaging with the City of Surprise and look forward to working collaboratively toward an ordinance that reflects best practices and supports responsible energy infrastructure development.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] 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.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-253, AriSEIA submits this Application for Rehearing of the Commission’s Decision that makes significant changes to net metering, export compensation, interconnection treatment, and related rate design elements applicable to solar customers. As set forth below, those changes are legally flawed, unsupported by substantial evidence, procedurally deficient, and inconsistent with governing constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and federal law requirements. Rehearing is necessary to correct errors of law, address unsupported and arbitrary findings, and remedy due process violations that materially affected the outcome of this proceeding.
At a high level, AriSEIA seeks rehearing on the following grounds:

First, the utility failed to meet its burden of proof. The Decision relies on a defective cost-of-service analysis that does not demonstrate justness, reasonableness, or cost causation sufficient to support eliminating net metering or different treatment for solar customers.

Second, the Commission unlawfully eliminated net metering through adjudication without modifying its own net metering rules. Net metering is required by the Commission’s existing rules, which bind the Commission and the utility. Nothing in the rules or Arizona administrative law permits agencies, including the Commission, to ignore binding rules. Changes in substantive policy of general applicability must be accomplished through lawful rulemaking. The Commission’s Decision unlawfully skips rulemaking and changes net metering treatment through an ad hoc adjudication decision.

Third, the avoided cost methodology reflected in the Decision does not correspond to the definition of avoided cost under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The utility’s calculation of avoided cost fails to reflect the utility’s marginal costs that would be incurred but-for solar customer’s exported solar electricity and in a non-discriminatory way compared to how the utility’s other sources of supply are treated.

Fourth, the Decision reflects arbitrary and capricious ratemaking. The Commission’s choice to eliminate the 10-year export rate lock and the premature termination of grandfathering are unsupported by substantial evidence and constitute unexplained departures from prior regulatory treatment. At the same time, the Decision imposes new interconnection fees and other adverse changes on solar customers without evidentiary support or a reasoned explanation for departing from prior Commission practice, resulting in an internally inconsistent and unsupported ratemaking outcome.

Fifth, the Decision unlawfully discriminates against solar customers. Differential treatment, including interconnection fees, is imposed without a showing of cost causation, in violation of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona statutes, the Commission’s net metering rules, and PURPA.

Finally, the proceeding was marred by due process violations. These include an unexplained reversal by Staff following the settlement process, refusal to respond to data requests or engage on critical issues, reliance on untested and shifting rationales, misrepresentations to the Commission regarding AriSEIA’s willingness to negotiate, and no opportunity for AriSEIA to respond to those allegations during the open meeting.

​For these reasons, and as set forth in greater detail below, AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Commission grant rehearing and provide appropriate relief.

Navajo County
100 East Code Talkers Drive
South Highway 77
Holbrook, AZ 86025
 
RE: Comments on Navajo County’s Analysis of Anticipated Adverse Community Impacts from Renewable Energy Development in Navajo County
 
Dear Navajo County Board and Staff,

AriSEIA appreciates the opportunity to review the County’s recent whitepaper entitled “Analysis of Anticipated Adverse Community Impacts from Renewable Energy Development in Navajo County.” The renewable energy industry recognizes that responsible development requires collaboration with local governments, transparent information sharing, and proactive mitigation of genuine impacts. However, several assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions within the whitepaper require clarification, correction, or reframing to ensure that resulting policy decisions are grounded in accurate data, reflect renewable specific realities, and appropriately balance local benefits and risks. We offer the following overarching concerns and recommendations.

1. The whitepaper conflates impacts of fossil-fuel boomtowns with renewable energy development.
Much of the document relies on case studies from oil and gas boomtowns, man camps, fracking regions, and resource extraction economies in states such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. These industries produce rapid population surges, volatile economic cycles, and development patterns that are entirely different from modern utility scale solar and wind construction. Renewable projects do not create similar workforce influxes, do not rely on temporary housing compounds, and do not involve heavy industrial activity that contributed to the crime and public health outcomes cited in the whitepaper. There is no analog in renewable development to oilfield man camps, drilling pads, or round the clock extraction cycles. Renewable construction workers also do not generate long term population increases. The whitepaper cites studies documenting sexual assault spikes, domestic violence reports, major crime growth, and large scale evictions in oil shale regions, but these effects should not be projected onto renewable development without evidence showing the same causal mechanisms. For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends that the County remove or clearly distinguish fossil fuel boomtown research from renewable specific planning.
  
2. The County’s cost estimates rely on worst-case assumptions and attribute generalized growth pressures exclusively to renewable developers.
The whitepaper assigns more than $4.1 million in first-year costs and $2.3 million in recurring annual costs to renewable energy development, including expanded court staffing; increased public defense and prosecution resources; broad public-health programs; new housing-subsidy infrastructure; countywide economic-development staffing; comprehensive water modeling; recreation master planning and land inventories; a new revolving loan fund; and substantial additions to code enforcement, building inspection, and emergency management operations. Many of these items represent baseline county responsibilities, long-term planning obligations, or government modernization priorities rather than impacts created by individual renewable projects. AriSEIA fully supports reasonable mitigation measures tied directly to documented project-caused impacts, but the cost categories identified in the whitepaper extend far beyond proportional, legally defensible cost causation. Development Agreements cannot be used to backfill countywide underfunding or to finance unrelated planning activities. It is critical that the County distinguish between baseline governmental needs and actual project-attributable impacts, rely on project-specific impact studies rather than generalized countywide assumptions, and align expectations with the approaches taken by other Arizona counties, none of which resemble the magnitude or scope of the costs proposed here.

3. Assertions about crime, substance use, and public safety strain rely on generalized national datasets, not Navajo County–specific data.
The whitepaper suggests that renewable construction may cause increases in sexual assault, domestic violence, impaired driving arrests, drug related arrests, behavioral health emergencies, overdose risks, and court caseloads. However, no Arizona county with significant renewable development has experienced these impacts. Arizona has constructed more than six gigawatts of utility scale solar and multiple wind facilities in the past decade, and counties such as Maricopa, Pima, La Paz, Cochise, Mohave, and Yuma have not documented public safety or public health crises linked to renewable construction workforces. Before imposing large public safety contributions, the County should provide empirical evidence from Arizona demonstrating a causal link between renewable construction and the anticipated impacts. It is also important to distinguish between temporary traffic related impacts, which can be mitigated, and unsupported assumptions about increases in violent or substance related crime. A mitigation framework must be based on evidence rather than extrapolation from unrelated industries.

4. Housing assumptions are overstated and not tailored to actual project workforce plans.
The whitepaper assumes that every project will bring approximately 250 workers who rent locally, absorbing roughly 11% of the County’s available rental stock and doubling impacts when projects overlap. These assumptions do not reflect the substantial variation in workforce size, housing practices, or contractor models across renewable developers. AriSEIA recommends that the County require project-specific housing plans rather than rely on a static estimate of 250 in-county renters for every project regardless of technology, schedule, labor model, or contractor practices.

5. The County’s request for a single developer to cover $650,000 annually for law enforcement is disproportionate.
The whitepaper proposes that the first renewable developer entering a Development Agreement contribute $650,000 annually to fund 5 permanent law enforcement positions, while later developers would not be responsible for similar obligations. This approach is unprecedented in Arizona. A.R.S. § 11-1101 requires that development agreements be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and tied to the impacts of the specific development. Conditioning approval on a recurring and long term financial obligation borne by only 1 developer, particularly when that obligation is not directly linked to the proportional impacts of the project, raises significant concerns under § 11-1101 because it exceeds the scope of what a development agreement may lawfully require. The proposal also conflicts with the County’s statement that no single developer should bear the full burden of countywide impacts. A proportional and time limited approach is more consistent with statutory requirements and with common practice in Arizona.

6. Renewable energy brings substantial economic benefits not acknowledged in the whitepaper.
The whitepaper characterizes renewable development as a “net drain” on the County, but it does not account for the substantial economic and community benefits these projects generate. Construction wages and local spending provide immediate economic activity. Long-term landowner income supports rural economic stability. Renewable development enhances grid reliability for residents and businesses, supports statewide job creation, and strengthens supply chains. Local contractors benefit from transportation, concrete, materials, and trade opportunities. Transmission upgrades associated with renewable development often provide broader system benefits. Arizona law values renewable generation equipment at 20% of its depreciated cost under A.R.S. § 42-14155. Although this lowers assessed valuation, renewable projects still provide substantial lifetime property tax revenue. Many rural counties also negotiate supplemental payment structures through Development Agreements, which the whitepaper does not address. A balanced, data-driven benefits section would provide a more accurate and complete picture of renewable development’s role in supporting county and statewide economic goals. See attachment A.

7. Recommendations for a constructive path forward, including limits on fees
AriSEIA offers the following framework:

1. Require project-specific impact analyses rather than generalized countywide projections.
2. Base mitigation on demonstrable, proportionate impacts, not speculative correlations to oil and gas boomtowns.
3. Create a unified, transparent Development Agreement template that:
   • Applies evenly to all developers
   • Focuses on traffic, road impacts, emergency coordination, and construction-period needs
   • Excludes unrelated long-term county planning costs
4. Establish voluntary community-benefit discussions that are negotiated rather than set via prescriptive dollar amounts unsupported by evidence.
5. Ensure that any fee or contribution is one-time, not annual, and set at a reasonable level that does not dissuade renewable development or undermine statewide grid reliability and electric affordability. A recurring annual charge of the magnitude proposed in the whitepaper creates uncertainty, threatens project viability, and conflicts with Arizona’s broader economic and energy objectives.
6. Convene a working group with industry, county officials, and local stakeholders to refine methodologies.

AriSEIA stands ready to participate in such a process.
​
Conclusion
AriSEIA deeply values its partnership with Navajo County and supports reasonable, evidence-based planning for renewable growth. However, the whitepaper’s assumptions overstate risks, misapply fossil-fuel impact studies, and attribute broad county underfunding to individual renewable projects. A more tailored, data-driven approach will better support both successful project development and long-term community well-being. We welcome continued dialogue and are available to meet with staff and the Board to refine an equitable, lawful, and mutually beneficial mitigation framework.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
​

The Honorable Katie Hobbs
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

RE: Recommendations from AriSEIA of the Governor’s Strategic Energy Working Group

Dear Governor Hobbs,

As part of the Strategic Energy Working Group, AriSEIA appreciates the Administration’s ongoing attention to clean energy, economic development, and long term resilience for Arizona. The following recommendations reflect shared priorities from our members that can inform the Working Group process.

Power Purchase Agreement Reform
A more flexible pathway for Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) would unlock many projects that are ready to move but cannot participate under current structures. A parallel track outside of the traditional Request for Proposals (RFP) process would allow self-initiated projects between one and five megawatts to come forward with clear pricing expectations and predictable timelines. This pathway would support parking lot solar, canal solar, agrivoltaics, and other dual use installations that provide community benefits, heat mitigation, and rapid deployment opportunities. Expanding PPA eligibility beyond nonprofit customers would also create new options for schools, small businesses, and commercial customers that wish to adopt clean energy but struggle with upfront capital.

State Incentives for Urban and Suburban Dual Use Solar
Urban and suburban sites introduce unique challenges, but also significant opportunities. These areas include large rooftops, parking structures, canals, and other developed spaces that can host solar without creating land use conflict. A targeted incentive or grant structure would help bring these projects forward more quickly, support local economic development, and expand clean energy access in areas where energy burdens remain high.

Community Energy Demonstration Projects
Many communities are eager to participate in the clean energy transition but lack funding or technical support to begin. A state funded demonstration program would allow local governments, tribes, schools, and nonprofits to pilot community solar, solar plus storage hubs, and neighborhood shade projects. These small and mid-scale initiatives often deliver immediate community benefits and provide valuable lessons for future statewide efforts.

State Energy Financing Modeled on WIFA
Arizona has a successful model in the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA). A similar clean energy financing tool would help leverage federal funds, bring down the cost of capital, and ensure that rural, tribal, and underserved communities are not left behind. This approach would create a long term, stable structure for financing solar, storage, microgrids, and other resilience projects.

Solar Development on Federal Lands
Recent federal policy changes, including the July 2025 Department of the Interior memorandum, have created real obstacles for solar development on federal lands. Many projects in Arizona depend on these lands, and delays ripple across economic development, workforce planning, and grid reliability. Engagement from the Governor with the congressional delegation would help elevate these concerns and encourage revisions that better support the state’s clean energy goals.

Arizona State Land Department Coordination
The current development process for state land presents several challenges, including long review timelines, limited visibility into application status, and a circular site control requirement that conflicts with utility interconnection policies. Additional staffing, clearer timelines, and the creation of a conditional site control category would significantly improve predictability. Introducing milestone requirements for long inactive projects would also ensure that valuable land is available for projects that are ready to advance. Even small adjustments to communication and cost transparency would relieve pressure on both the State Land Department and project developers.

Registrar of Contractors Licensing Pathways
A more streamlined solar specific license classification within the Registrar of Contractors would help build the workforce needed for a clean energy economy. Clearer requirements, more targeted training pathways, and simplified classification rules would support safety and quality while making it easier for qualified contractors to enter the market.

Statewide Green Bank
A statewide green bank with broader authority than the current Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund would provide flexible, accessible financing for solar, storage, electrification, and community resilience projects. This tool would help reduce upfront costs and expand clean energy opportunities for households and businesses that do not have access to traditional financing.

Community Solar Development
Many AriSEIA members have expressed strong interest in a community solar framework for Arizona. A well designed program would expand access for renters, low income households, and residents who cannot install rooftop solar. Thoughtful design elements, such as subscriber protections and low income carveouts, would ensure that benefits flow to communities that stand to gain the most.

Solar for All Implementation
The federal Solar for All program is currently subject to a freeze and ongoing litigation, creating uncertainty regarding timelines and implementation pathways. AriSEIA encourages continued pursuit of all available legal and administrative solutions to protect Arizona’s award and to ensure that the program can resume once federal restrictions are lifted. Preparation for a future rollout, including community engagement, program design refinement, and coordination with potential partners, will position Arizona to move quickly when authorization is restored.

Renewable Energy Standard
A statewide Clean Energy Standard would provide a clear signal to investors and utilities and help align long term planning with climate and resilience goals. A target of zero carbon by 2050, combined with interim benchmarks, would support regulatory certainty and economic development.
​
Support for the Residential Utility Consumer Office
Strengthening the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO) would help ensure that all customers are represented in regulatory matters, including customers who rely on distributed generation and customers who benefit from clean energy programs. Additional resources or expanded authority (such as in cooperative rate cases) would improve RUCO’s ability to engage across a wider range of energy issues.

Legislative Opportunities
The past several sessions have included both promising clean energy proposals and bills that would have introduced significant barriers. Continued vetoes of harmful legislation, along with support for bills such as SolarApp, Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (CPACE), community solar authorization, and PPA reform, would help reduce red tape and accelerate clean energy growth.

State Level Preemption for Siting and Permitting
Many AriSEIA members have expressed concern about inconsistent local rules for clean energy siting and permitting. Limited state level preemption that establishes consistent statewide minimum standards, while still preserving local input, would support predictable development timelines and reduce uncertainty for both utilities and private developers. AriSEIA also encourages direct engagement from the Administration regarding ongoing county and city efforts to restrict solar and battery siting, as these local actions create significant uncertainty and may undermine broader statewide clean energy and economic objectives.

Review of State Assets and Operations
AriSEIA recommends a comprehensive review of all state owned machines, buildings, fleets, and operational processes to support development of a statewide electrification plan. Clear purchasing plans for electric equipment and vehicles would demonstrate meaningful leadership and send a strong market signal. AriSEIA also encourage aggressive pursuit of solar and battery projects on state owned properties, particularly given the availability of federal Direct Pay incentives.
 
Cooling Standards for Data Centers
AriSEIA encourages stronger engagement with data center operators to support adoption of closed loop cooling systems, which would significantly reduce water consumption and strengthen long term sustainability in a desert environment.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the Administration’s leadership and collaborative approach. These recommendations reflect a shared vision for an energy system that is resilient, affordable, community focused, and positioned for long term success. We look forward to continued partnership and collective progress.

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

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a nonprofit trade association representing Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification industry. AriSEIA participates regularly in proceedings at the Arizona Corporation Commission and frequently work with Arizona counties and municipalities on renewable energy siting and land-use issues. Our engagement has included jurisdictions such as Maricopa, Yavapai, Mohave, and Navajo Counties, as well as cities like Buckeye, Surprise, Chino Valley, Gila Bend, Eloy, and Mesa. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft renewable energy ordinance under consideration in Apache County.
 
Section 436–437: Purpose, Applicability, and Definitions
Sections 436 and 437 establish the scope and terminology that govern the ordinance. Several areas appear to require clarification to support clear administration and to prevent unintended inclusion of facilities that are not utility-scale projects. Definitions in these sections distinguish utility-scale facilities by whether they “feed residual power into the electrical grid as defined by the Arizona Corporation Commission.” This phrasing does not align with the Commission’s current treatment of distributed generation and may lead to uncertainty for smaller commercial systems or medium-scale projects. AriSEIA recommends removing this language and instead distinguishing facilities based on size and primary use. The definition of “setback distance” for solar as “from one to two edges of a solar photovoltaic system” is also unclear and may lead to inconsistent interpretation. A more precise approach would reference the nearest edge of arrays or associated equipment to the applicable property or right-of-way boundary. Battery energy storage systems, which frequently co-locate with solar projects, are not defined in these sections, and AriSEIA recommends adding a definition or clarifying how they are treated for purposes of this ordinance.
 
Section 438: Preferred Criteria
Section 438 identifies preferred siting criteria related to visual resources, proximity to transmission, habitat, distance from population centers, existing land uses, and terrain. Some of the terminology implies that these factors function as requirements. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that these criteria provide guidance rather than mandatory thresholds, allowing the County to consider the overall suitability of a site even when not all criteria are met.
 
Section 439: General Development Standards
Section 439 outlines development standards for renewable energy projects, and several provisions could benefit from clarification. The requirement that collector lines be placed underground except in certain narrow circumstances may create feasibility challenges in rural or rugged terrain and may not always be necessary to address environmental or land-use impacts. AriSEIA recommends allowing undergrounding “to the extent reasonably practicable,” with overhead construction permitted where engineering, environmental, or cost factors justify. The section addressing nesting birds and raptor perching on solar or wind structures may also be difficult to implement as written, since perching and nesting cannot be entirely prevented. A more workable approach would be to require reasonable measures to minimize collision risks and unnecessary perching opportunities, consistent with wildlife agency guidance. Section 439 also requires an Arizona Game & Fish Department letter prior to scheduling a CUP hearing, which could delay the process if agency response times extend. AriSEIA recommends allowing proof of consultation to satisfy the requirement with a defined response window. The ordinance also requires executed interconnection agreements or power purchase agreements prior to issuance of building permits. Solar project development timelines typically involve finalization of these agreements after local land use approvals. AriSEIA recommends allowing documentation of progress toward interconnection and offtake, such as applications, draft agreements, or term sheets, instead of requiring fully executed contracts. Finally, the ordinance authorizes third-party consultant review at the applicant’s expense without clear limits. AriSEIA recommends including a reasonable-cost standard, a mutually agreed not-to-exceed amount for routine review, and qualifications ensuring consultants have utility-scale renewable experience.
 
Section 440: Termination, Decommissioning, and Bonding
Section 440 describes decommissioning obligations and financial assurance requirements. The bond structure appears to allow only upward adjustments for inflation and does not account for salvage value. AriSEIA recommends calculating bond amounts based on net decommissioning costs, including salvage offsets, and allowing the amount to adjust upward or downward based on updated engineering estimates. The requirement that decommissioning begin within thirty days after CUP revocation or expiration may not be workable for large facilities. AriSEIA recommends allowing six to twelve months to initiate decommissioning, accompanied by defined milestones to ensure timely progress.
 
Section 441: Noise Requirements and Mitigation Measures
Section 441 establishes noise limits and related procedures. AriSEIA recommends simplifying Section 441.A.1 by replacing the current phrasing with the following industry standard: “Audible noise due to project operations shall not exceed 55 dBA as measured at the exterior of any legal residence, school, library, or hospital in existence at the time of approval of the Conditional Use Permit.” The ordinance language as written does not align with how sound assessments are conducted. The recommended revision reflects standard acoustic methodology and was confirmed through consultation with external sound specialists. AriSEIA also recommends adopting this single objective standard in place of the more complex formulation currently included in Section 441.A.1 in order to improve clarity and ease of enforcement.
  
Section 442: Setbacks
Section 442 establishes setback requirements for wind and solar facilities. With respect to Section 442.B.2, AriSEIA recommends aligning setbacks for occupied residences with the noise limits established in Section 441.A rather than relying on fixed distance-based setbacks. Distance-based standards can prevent participating landowners from using their own property and may create unnecessary financial harm. A sound-based approach provides a more meaningful method for protecting residential quiet enjoyment and is widely used within the renewable energy industry. Differential noise limits may also be applied to distinguish between participating and non-participating occupied dwellings, such as 45 dBA for non-participating residences and 55 dBA for participating residences, with the latter consistent with the standard already established in Section 441.A. AriSEIA further recommends clarifying that Section 442.B is drafted for wind facilities only and that solar should not be regulated within this subsection, since the structure and terminology of 442.B do not apply to solar development.
 
Section 442.B.4 requires clarification regarding whether the setback applies to contiguous parcels that are also participating in the project. Solar facilities routinely place panels and equipment across internal property lines, and applying an external setback to those internal boundaries would make common solar layouts infeasible. A setback range of fifty to one hundred feet is more consistent with typical solar development practices. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that contiguous participating parcels within a unified project boundary are not subject to internal setbacks and that solar setbacks should reflect distances commonly used in the industry. AriSEIA also recommends removing solar from Section 442.B.4 entirely.
 
Section 442.C imposes a tower-height-based setback from public rights-of-way. That method does not correspond to solar technology and can result in setbacks larger than necessary. AriSEIA recommends removing solar from this subsection and creating a separate solar-specific setback from public rights-of-way. A setback of fifty to one hundred feet is generally workable for solar facilities. AriSEIA recommends explicitly distinguishing between wind and solar to prevent the application of wind-based formulas to solar installations.
 
Section 442.F relates to interference with communications but does not describe how the County will determine whether interference exists or how compliance will be evaluated. The lack of procedural detail creates uncertainty regarding baseline conditions, assessment methods, and expectations for mitigation. AriSEIA recommends clarifying the evaluation process, including how baseline measurements will be established, what criteria will apply to assess interference, and how mitigation will be implemented if required.
 
Section 443: Use of CUP, Terms, and Pre-Application Requirements
Section 443 sets out conditions for the use of a Conditional Use Permit, establishes the timing and nature of CUP review, and details requirements for pre-application and application submittals. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that the five-year review described in Section 443.B is administrative in nature and that the CUP is intended to remain valid for the full life of the project unless the County identifies material non-compliance. This clarification would help ensure that the review process does not inadvertently function as a reopening of project entitlements. The ordinance also requires an extensive set of pre-application materials, including noise assessments, glare analysis, a visual resources inventory, public outreach, and various technical studies. AriSEIA recommends scaling these requirements based on project size so that smaller facilities are not subject to the same analytical and administrative requirements as significantly larger projects.
 
Within the application requirements set forth in Section 443.E, AriSEIA recommends allowing applicants to record memorandums of lease rather than full lease documents for wind or solar projects. Memorandums protect confidentiality of commercial terms and participant identities while still satisfying the County’s documentation and recording needs. AriSEIA recommends making clear within Section 443.E that memorandums of lease or participation are acceptable for submittal so that applicants are not required to disclose sensitive or proprietary contractual information.
 
Section 443.E also requires a visual resources inventory but does not define the term “visual resources” with sufficient specificity for consistent application. AriSEIA recommends that the County provide additional explanation of what constitutes a visual resource for purposes of review. Clear criteria or examples would allow applicants to understand the areas the County considers sensitive, such as scenic corridors, public viewpoints, or culturally significant landscapes. The County may also consider supplying applicants with a map or list of identified visual resources so that project design can account for these considerations early in the process. Providing such definitions or mapping within the materials referenced in Section 443.E would promote consistency and transparency in the review process.
 
Section 443.E further requires notice to “nearby” landowners as part of the public outreach process, but the ordinance does not define what distance or relationship qualifies as “nearby.” AriSEIA recommends defining this term so that notice obligations are clear and uniformly applied. Options include defining nearby landowners as all adjoining property owners or as all owners within a defined buffer such as one half mile. Providing a clear definition within the context of Section 443.E would help ensure predictable and consistent application of the outreach standard.
 
Section 444: Suspension and Revocation of CUP
Section 444 defines conditions under which a CUP may be suspended or revoked, including a definition of “inoperable” facilities based on generating less than one megawatt of electricity for 360 days. This threshold does not reflect how utility-scale facilities operate, particularly during periods of curtailment. AriSEIA recommends instead defining inoperability based on the absence of meaningful energy production over a sustained period, with exceptions for force majeure events or necessary repairs and modernization. Any decommissioning obligations triggered by revocation should align with the recommended decommissioning initiation window described in Section 440.
 
Section 445: Joint Agency Approvals
Section 445 discusses coordination with state and federal agencies. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that County review need not be delayed solely because other agencies operate on longer timelines, provided that the County has sufficient information to evaluate local land use impacts. Any additional requirements imposed by those agencies can be incorporated later as CUP conditions when appropriate.
 
Section 446: Public Outreach
Section 446 establishes extensive outreach obligations, including mailed notice to property owners within one mile of the project boundary, notice along access routes, notice to community officials within three miles, requirements for public meetings, the creation of a project website, and the maintenance of a project hotline with monthly complaint summaries. AriSEIA recommends considering a tiered outreach structure or aligning notice distances with existing Apache County standards so that smaller or medium-scale projects are not subject to burdensome requirements disproportionate to their impact. Notices directed at municipalities or unincorporated communities should be clarified to ensure they are directed to governmental officials rather than interpreted to require notice to every household. AriSEIA also recommends specifying whether mailed notice is required for each resident within a municipality if any portion of that municipality falls within the one half mile buffer. Without clarification, the language could be interpreted to require notice to every resident of a town rather than to boundary-adjacent landowners or municipal officials, which would create unrealistic outreach burdens. AriSEIA further recommends permitting the hotline requirement to be satisfied through existing complaint resolution processes used by developers or utilities, provided that the County receives appropriate summaries. Additional clarifications regarding evaluation of communications interference, standardization of waivers, and distinctions between solar-specific and wind-specific requirements would support consistent administration.
 
Thank you for considering these comments. AriSEIA welcomes the opportunity to continue engaging with staff and the Commission and are available to provide additional technical information or examples from other jurisdictions as needed.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AriSEIA Responds to the Arizona Corporation Commission Vote Ending Solar Protections in Sulphur Springs Rate Case

Phoenix, Arizona — The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) expressed deep concern today after the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted unanimously to approve changes to Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative’s (SSVEC) rate structure that dramatically roll back long standing consumer protections for solar customers in Cochise County.

In a 5 to 0 vote, the Commission approved SSVEC’s request to eliminate net metering for non residential solar customers effective immediately, end the ten year export rate lock for new residential solar customers, and terminate twenty year grandfathering for existing commercial solar systems. The Commission also approved the creation of punitive and discriminatory interconnection fees that apply only to solar customers. The only issue the Commission rejected was a component that would have violated federal law.

These decisions overturn years of established policy. Grandfathering protections were upheld in the original Value of Solar decision, in SSVEC’s last rate case, in the 2023 Resource Comparison Proxy review docket, and in the Trico rate case decided just last month. The Commission also had previously affirmed the ten year export rate lock and the principle that avoided cost is the lawful floor for export rates.

The Commission also declined to require SSVEC to evaluate virtual power plant programs or other modern Demand Side Management innovations that other utilities across the state are actively adopting. These programs reduce peak demand, improve reliability, and lower system costs, yet SSVEC will not be required to even study them.

In addition, the Commission voted not to require SSVEC to reimburse the documented underpayment to residential solar customers in 2023, when the cooperative paid an export rate below its own calculated avoided cost. That payment level was not only contrary to federal requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), but also contrary to SSVEC’s Plan of Administration and the Value of Solar decision.

“For years, the Commission has emphasized the importance of regulatory certainty for businesses and consumers,” Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. “That certainty was abandoned today. Decisions that were reaffirmed again and again were reversed without new evidence and without any demonstration that circumstances had changed. Customers who made investments based on Commission rules are now being told those rules no longer apply.”

AriSEIA will continue to advocate for fair, lawful, and transparent rate design and for policies that support customer choice, reliability, and innovation across all Arizona utilities.

Media Contact:
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director, AriSEIA
[email protected]
www.ariseia.org

AriSEIA submitted Exceptions to the Recommended Opinion and Order (ROO) to address several findings and conclusions that are not supported by the evidentiary record, are inconsistent with Commission practice, or undermine regulatory certainty. The ROO adopts Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s (SSVEC’s) cost-of-service study despite its omission of recognized distributed generation benefits, eliminates commercial net metering without a fair transition period, removes the ten-year export rate lock even though the Commission recently confirmed that it should remain unchanged, and concludes that SSVEC did not underpay distributed generation members in 2023 despite the Cooperative paying below avoided cost and failing to update its export rate as required. It further approves interconnection fees that are unsupported by the record, declines to direct SSVEC to evaluate virtual power plant and critical peak pricing programs despite consistent support for such programs across multiple Arizona utilities, and dismisses the legitimate transparency concerns raised by the settlement process.

For these reasons, and for those set forth in detail in the filing, AriSEIA respectfully requested that the Commission modify the ROO. AriSEIA submitted proposed amendments addressing the phase-in period for commercial net metering, the ten-year export rate lock, reimbursement of the 2023 underpayment, the interconnection fee provisions, and the virtual power plant and critical peak pricing directive.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
Re: AriSEIA Support for the 2024 Arizona Public Service Company Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) respectfully urges the Arizona Corporation Commission (Commission) to approve the Arizona Public Service Company (“APS”) Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management (DSM) Implementation Plan as filed, along with the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order.
 
AriSEIA supports approval of the APS Second Amended 2024 DSM Implementation Plan[1] because the record demonstrates that the proposed measures comply with the Arizona Administrative Code requirements for cost-effective DSM programs and because the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order concludes that the updated portfolio meets applicable evaluation criteria.[2] AriSEIA’s interest is ensuring a stable, predictable regulatory landscape for distributed energy resources and demand-side programs. Approval of the plan, along with the Staff recommendation, provides needed clarity for market participants, customers, and project developers.
 
AriSEIA also strongly urges the Commission to preserve the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Virtual Power Plant Battery Pilot Program even if other changes to the DSM portfolio are considered. The BYOD program has been approved twice by vote of the Commission and resulted from a fully litigated rate case. It is a pay-for-performance-only program designed to compensate customers strictly for verified grid services. The Commission approved BYOD for a five-year term, and the program has not yet operated through even a single summer season. Premature modification or suspension would undermine the purpose of the pilot, create regulatory uncertainty, and diminish the value of distributed demand response resources that the Commission has repeatedly endorsed.
 
The BYOD pilot is also an essential contributor to APS’s projected portfolio-wide capacity savings. APS estimates that BYOD could enroll up to five thousand customers and contribute approximately 17 MW of dispatchable capacity during the pilot period.[3] These distributed, flexible resources play a significant role in meeting peak demand, reducing system costs, and increasing grid resilience for all APS customers.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA supports approval of the Second Amended 2024 DSM Implementation Plan and the Utilities Division Staff Recommended Opinion and Order. If the Commission elects to modify the plan, AriSEIA respectfully asks that the Commission preserve the BYOD pilot in its entirety, including all funding allocated to the program in this plan, consistent with the Commission’s prior decisions and the purpose of the pilot itself.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Application of Arizona Public Service Company for Approval of Its Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (filed June 20, 2025).

[2] Utilities Division Staff, Recommended Opinion and Order, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (Nov. 19, 2025).

[3] Application of Arizona Public Service Company for Approval of Its Second Amended 2024 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088 (filed June 20, 2025) at page 3.