|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Autumn Johnson (520) 240-4757 [email protected] Phoenix, AZ - Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted 4-1 to approve Arizona Public Service's (APS) Virtual Power Plant (VPP) pilot program. AriSEIA proposed that APS adopt a VPP in its 2022 rate case. The ACC voted on February 22, 2024 to proceed with a VPP as a pilot program and ordered APS to file a plan of administration to implement that program. That implementation plan was voted on today and passed 4-1 with only Vice Chairman Myers voting no. A virtual power plant allows a utility to aggregate customer owned devices, like batteries, to provide capacity back to the grid. APS' proposal is a pay-for-performance model in which customers are paid only when they provide capacity to the grid and they are paid a rate less than that of comparable wholesale purchases, saving all rate payers money. "Virtual power plants are a win win for customers and the grid. These batteries are paid for with private capital and are already interconnected and ready for use today. This program will help APS meet the growing demand for electricity in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. "Trico already has a VPP and Salt River Project (SRP) just voted to implement one this year. Tucson Electric Power (TEP) plans to propose one in its next rate case. Arizona is moving in the right direction." VPPs are deployed all over the country. There are more than 500 in the US and their capacity is expected to top 60 GW by 2030. According to the US Department of Energy, “VPPs are among the critical solutions to meet the pressing challenges the grid faces today and in the near term to keep electricity rates affordable while maintaining grid reliability and resilience.”[1] According to Brattle, VPPs could save US utilities $15-35 billion in capacity investment over ten years.[2] The full docket can be found here. About AriSEIA AriSEIA is the leading voice of the solar industry in Arizona, dedicated to advancing solar energy through advocacy, education, and collaboration. With a commitment to promoting sustainable energy solutions, AriSEIA serves as a catalyst for the growth and development of Arizona's solar industry. [1] US DOE, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Virtual Power Plants 2025 Update, January 2025, available here https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/LIFTOFF_DOE_VirtualPowerPlants2025Update.pdf. [2] Brattle, Real Reliability: The Value of Virtual Power, May 2023, available here https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Real-Reliability-The-Value-of-Virtual-Power_5.3.2023.pdf.
0 Comments
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: Please approve the APS Virtual Power Plant (BYOD) Pilot Program, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144; Exceptions Dear Chairman and Commissioners, This issue was thoroughly litigated in the last Arizona Public Service (APS) rate case. APS conducted a robust stakeholder process as ordered by the Commission. AriSEIA recommends adoption of the Plan of Administration (POA) as filed. The Grid Needs More Capacity APS is predicting unprecedented load growth over the next decade. To meet this rising need, the utility must aggressively add capacity which, if not done thoughtfully, will put dramatic upward pressure on rates. One way to mitigate that upward rate pressure is to avoid direct utility investments where possible and to leverage customer owned assets to provide services that would otherwise require utility investment and risk increasing ratepayer costs. To this end, the Commission ordered APS to implement the money-saving Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program (also known as a virtual power plant (VPP)) which uses customer owned batteries to meet peak demand. The evidence in the rate case found that such a program could give APS access to batteries at a cost well below the cost of utility owned storage or market purchases. The Company has projected more than 4,000 MW of new capacity need over the following decade, and its integrated resource plan (IRP) shows that it will be procuring copious amounts of centralized generation and battery storage. APS’ 2024 all source request for proposals (ASRFP) sought at least an additional 2,000 MW of resources by 2030.[1] Residential Batteries Can Provide Capacity The Commission has been discussing this concept since at least 2020. In Decision No. 77855, the Commission ordered APS to “permit the aggregation of distributed demand-side resources [DDSR]… and provide compensation for the value each distributed demand-side resource provides, including, but not limited to, compensation for capacity, demand reduction, load shifting, locational value, voltage support, ancillary and grid services…”[2] In Decision No. 78165, the Commission ordered APS to file a DDSR tariff by May 1, 2022.[3] More than a dozen stakeholder meetings were held just in preparation to the filing of the DDSR tariff.[4] Once the tariff was filed, an entirely new docket was opened; workshops were held; national labs were engaged. That docket resulted in an additional year of work that resulted in the Commission finding APS did not go far enough and directing APS to issue a new RFP for the DDSR aggregation tariff.[5] Also in 2020, Commission Staff recommended approval of APS’ original battery pilot program, which had an upfront incentive for installing batteries. Staff said, “a tariff that compensates customers for the specific benefit their systems bring to the grid can also be beneficial and in the public interest.”[6] Staff characterized such a program as a “forward-looking policy that can benefit all APS ratepayers.”[7] When APS first proposed this pilot, it stated this original pilot would “inform a future potential ‘pay-for-performance’ shared storage program and system planning to ensure continued reliability for APS customers.”[8] APS sought to expand the original battery pilot, which was fully subscribed by January of 2023.[9] APS proposed expanding the battery pilot program in its amended 2023 Demand Side Management (DSM) plan. APS stated, “reallocating DSM budget to support expansion of the Residential Battery Pilot-an already-successful program that APS believes represents the best path forward to achieve the Commission's DDSR goals.”[10] The Commission has not voted on the APS 2023 DSM plan or its 2024 plan in which it also requested expanding the program.[11] APS subsequently closed its battery pilot program because the Commission voted to pursue this VPP program instead in Decision No. 79293. At the February 22, 2024 open meeting in which the 2022 rate case was voted on, Vice Chairman Myers specifically asked Staff and the administrative law judge about their opinions on moving forward with the VPP program. Commission Staff said they have “no concerns moving forward” with the VPP program as was directed in the Recommended Opinion and Order.[12] Judge Harpring said the VPP “would present an opportunity that APS currently lacks that could be a lot more meaningful than APS’ battery pilot” and “I think this is an opportunity. APS needs a lot of dischargeable resources. This would provide a new dischargeable resource and I see that as a positive.”[13] Denying the POA would eliminate all battery pilot programs at APS and would set Arizona back more than five years. That is not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars as the Commission has been pursuing this since 2020 or ratepayer dollars since APS has been working to aggregate demand side resources also since 2020. Another rate case would result in an unnecessary delay of at least two more years. There are more than 500 VPP programs in the US.[14] By 2030, VPPs could reduce peak demand in the US by 60 GW. By 2050, VPPs could grow to more than 200 GW nationwide.[15] According to Brattle, VPPs could save US utilities $15-35 billion in capacity investment over ten years.[16] According to the US Department of Energy, “VPPs are among the critical solutions to meet the pressing challenges the grid faces today and in the near term to keep electricity rates affordable while maintaining grid reliability and resilience.”[17] Salt River Project (SRP) just committed to develop a VPP program by the end of 2025.[18] Residential Batteries Add Capacity For Less Than Market Purchases APS provided the quantity and price of its wholesale market purchases from 2018-2022 in the rate case.[19] An analysis of this data shows that the Company routinely paid in excess of $200/MWh for market purchases, with occasional purchases in excess of $1,000/MWh. AriSEIA/SEIA’s analysis showed that the average weekday market purchase cost between 2019 and 2022 was over $100/MWh between 5 PM and 9 PM, the exact hours the VPP program would target.[20] But if one looks at the actual highest-cost purchases, the avoided energy potential is much higher. AriSEIA/SEIA determined the 500 highest cost hourly purchases throughout the year and then analyzed the purchases that fell in the core summer months of June to September from 2018 through 2022.[21] Even in 2019, which was an outlier in terms of the low quantity of high-cost market energy purchases, the average purchase during the high-cost hours was nearly $400/MWh. In 2021 and 2022 (and likely 2023), the price and quantity of high-cost purchases surged, with the average high-cost hour moving north of $800/MWh. Additionally, at $110/kW per year, the VPP program is less expensive that the cost of utility scale battery storage. The evidence in the hearing showed that the revenue requirement for APS-owned utility-scale batteries costs ratepayers $208/kW per year.[22] AriSEIA originally proposed $150/kW. The valuation in the POA is the result of a compromise derived out of the Commission ordered stakeholder process in Decision No. 79293. Please Adopt the APS POA In Staff’s Memorandum, they correctly assert the numerous benefits that this program can provide to the grid and they correctly state that all of these numerous benefits were discussed at length during the six month stakeholder process, which led to the creation of the POA. It is incongruent to argue that APS does not consider enough of the benefits which would “lower the net cost of the BYOD Program” and “increase the availability of customer incentives” while also stating that the program presents a possible cost shift.[23] Making the program a pilot capped at 5,000 customers was a compromise that the Commission already voted on in Decision No. 79293. Changes to the size of the program are not part of the Commission order to APS or Staff and are outside the scope of the POA. Additionally, the costs of the program are already factored into the per-kW valuation. The payments to participating customers are already reduced to cover the costs of the program. Further, while Staff expresses concerns of a cost shift, they also argue that APS should rate base the VPP program, which would allow APS to collect a return on the VPP program, which would increase costs for everyone. As mentioned above, APS’ first battery pilot was fully subscribed. As of January 31, 2025, APS had more than 4,195 customers with batteries and another 1,250 were in the interconnection pipeline. Given the increase in electricity rates and the decrease in the RCP, most installations will soon be solar plus storage. Further, it is the installers who obtain customer enrollment, not APS or EnergyHub. The installers already have direct relationships with qualifying customers and have a natural incentive to educate customers as to the program. APS’ Cool Rewards program currently has 95,000 enrolled customers, capable of conserving 160 MW of energy.[24] The potential for a battery program is significant. As was directed in Decision No. 79293, APS thoroughly considered the kW versus kWh issue, which was resolved in favor of a program design with a $/kW payment structure. We have no recollection of Staff ever raising this issue in the stakeholder process. As a capacity resource, which is the point of the program, kW are the appropriate metric. This was also discussed at length in the rate case testimony. Staff states that, “given the increasing demand for electricity in Arizona, Staff recognizes the importance of leveraging existing capacity resources and supports the advancement of technologies.”[25] We agree. According to APS, “APS resource planners expect peak customer demand to grow to more than 13,000 MW by 2038. For perspective, it took APS 140 years to reach 8,200 MW of peak demand, and customer needs will increase by 60% in only 14 years.”[26] The Commission has been discussing this concept for five years and this exact program for two years. Additional delay is unwarranted and needlessly limits capacity resources that are already available today at a time when we are experiencing significant load growth at a price less expensive than the alternative. As Staff correctly points out “APS was ordered to meet with other interested parties to collaboratively reach an agreement on the language of the BYOD POA.”[27] And against all odds, APS has done just that. Please approve the POA as drafted. AriSEIA has attached AriSEIA Proposed Amendment 1 to modify Staff’s draft order to approve the POA. Respectfully, Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] APS 2024 ASRFP, available here https://www.aps.com/en/About/Our-Company/Doing-Business-with-Us/Resource-Planning/Request-for-Proposals. [2] ACC Decision No. 77855, Docket No. E-01345A-19-0148, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000202797.pdf?i=1741200024102. [3] ACC Decision No. 78165, Docket No. E-01345A-19-0148, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000204280.pdf?i=1741200631832. [4] APS DDSR Tariff, June 1, 2022, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0143, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000019505.pdf?i=1741200030297. [5] ACC Decision No. 78878, March 16, 2023, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0143, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000208710.pdf?i=1741200030297. [6] ACC Decision No. 77762, Docket No. E-01345A-19-0148, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000202207.pdf?i=1741200977874. [7] Id. [8] APS Supplemental to the 2020 RES Plan, August 26, 2020, Docket No. E-01345A-19-0148, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000008576.pdf?i=1741203415780. [9] APS 2023 Demand Side Management Annual Progress Report, March 1, 2024, Docket No. E-00000U-18-0055, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000034300.pdf?i=1741300652460. [10] APS Amended 2023 DSM Implementation Plan, May 31, 2023, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0066, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000027360.pdf?i=1741300107475. [11] APS 2024 DSM Plan, November 30, 2023, Docket No. E-01345A-23-0088, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032472.pdf?i=1741374160495. [12] February 22, 2024 Open Meeting at 7:21:00. [13] Id. [14] Utility Dive, US VPPs Can Meet Summer Demand Peaks Faster, Cheaper Than New Generation and Transmission, July 10, 2024, available here https://www.utilitydive.com/news/us-vpps-can-meet-summer-demand-peaks-faster-cheaper-than-new-generation-an/721024/. [15] RMI, Virtual Power Plants, Real Benefits, January 2023, available here https://rmi.org/insight/virtual-power-plants-real-benefits/. Attachment A [16] Brattle, Real Reliability: The Value of Virtual Power, May 2023, available here https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Real-Reliability-The-Value-of-Virtual-Power_5.3.2023.pdf. Attachment B [17] US DOE, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Virtual Power Plants 2025 Update, January 2025, available here https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/LIFTOFF_DOE_VirtualPowerPlants2025Update.pdf. Attachment C [18] SRP, Board of Directors Approves Pricing Proposal, February 27, 2025, available here https://media.srpnet.com/srp-board-of-directors-approves-pricing-proposal/. [19] AriSEIA 4.03_ExcelAPS22RC03362_Hourly Market Purchases 2018-2022 [20] Lucas Direct at 59. [21] This is twice as many as are allowed in the BYOD program, which authorizes 60 event days with events up to 4 hours. [22] See Kevin Lucas in hearing test. Sept. 1, 2023 at 00:04:31. [23] Utilities Division Memorandum, February 26, 2025, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000041768.pdf. [24] APS Customers Served with Reliable Power During Record-Breaking Heat, October 7, 2024, available here https://www.aps.com/en/About/Our-Company/Newsroom/Articles/APS_Customers_Served_With_Reliable_Power_During_Record-Breaking_Heat#:~:text=APS%20Cool%20Rewards%20acts%20like,small%20power%20plant%20would%20produce. [25] Utilities Division Memorandum, February 26, 2025, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000041768.pdf. [26] APS Secures its Largest-Ever Energy Supply to Reliably Serve Customers, November 20, 2024, available here https://www.aps.com/en/About/Our-Company/Newsroom/Articles/APS_Secures_its_Largest-Ever_Energy_Supply_to_Reliably_Serve_Customers#:~:text=APS%20resource%20planners%20expect%20peak,is%20conducting%20a%202024%20ASRFP. [27] Utilities Division Memorandum, February 26, 2025, Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000041768.pdf. APS has been charging a punitive and discriminatory fee against residential rooftop solar customers for almost a year and AriSEIA has been fighting it every step of the way. Today we joined with the Solar Energy Industries Association and two individual ratepayers in filing for an appeal with the Arizona Court of Appeals.
AriSEIA filed for reconsideration/rehearing today on the APS grid access charge and "legacy adjustment." These are two charges that uniquely punish solar customers for using less power from APS. The fee is currently ~$2.50 a month per customer, but APS has said it should be $88 a month per customer and the ACC has ordered them to increase it in their next rate case, which they plan to file this year. Applying for rehearing is a necessary step towards appealing to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which we plan to do on January 30th.
Arizona Corporation Commission Upholds APS’ Punitive and Discriminatory Fee on Rooftop Solar12/17/2024 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Autumn Johnson 520-240-4757 [email protected] Phoenix, AZ: Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to uphold a fee on all Arizona Public Service (APS) solar customers. APS has nearly 200,000 solar customers, all of whom are paying 15% more than the rate increase approved for all residential customers this year. The ACC upheld the fees after granting a rehearing on this issue at the request of AriSEIA, Vote Solar, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The ACC refused to consider key evidence in the record. In January, the ACC surprised stakeholders by inserting a “grid access charge” into APS’ nearly completed rate case. AriSEIA argued the fee should be removed from the rate case decision, which was unheeded by the ACC. Therefore, AriSEIA and others immediately filed for reconsideration/rehearing, which was granted. After nearly a year of litigation, the ACC upheld the original decision after a number of abnormalities in the execution of the case, such as constraining the evidence to be considered, moving the hearing earlier after APS requested more time for adequate customer notice, an abbreviated briefing scheduled, and then scheduling the vote before the recommendation was even written. AriSEIA demonstrated at the hearing that based on a quantitative analysis of several national expert witnesses, APS had miscalculated the cost of service to solar customers. That miscalculation reflected that solar customers were not paying their fair share, when in fact, the inverse is true. Solar customers pay more than they should and actually subsidize non-solar customers. APS testified that if the ACC eliminated the solar fees, the difference would be $.25 to residential customers. Despite the evidence, the ACC will penalize solar customers several dollars per month and approved an amendment to increase it in APS’ next rate case, which is anticipated to be filed in 2025. “The evidentiary record makes it clear that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers and yet APS and the ACC continue to penalize solar customers with unfounded and discriminatory fees,” said Autumn Johnson, executive director of AriSEIA. An appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals is likely in 2025. The Judge issued a recommended opinion and order (ROO) upholding APS' discriminatory fee on solar customers. The vote by the Commission is on Tuesday, December 17th at 9am. The ROO as drafted fails to resolve many of the underlying issues that prompted a rehearing in the first instance. The ROO is inadequate for the following reasons:
[1] Rehearing ROO at 22:8-9 and 30:20. [2] Id. at 16:7-9. [3] Id. at 39:10-13. [4] Decision No. 75859 at 174:17-19. [5] Rehearing ROO at 23:19-20. [6] Id. at 26:14-15. [7] Id. at 25:15-17. [8] Id. at 22:17-19. [9] Id. at 31:5-6. This is not a “keystone inquiry” and was not challenged by any party. What the Value of Solar decision says on this subject was covered extensively in the hearing. [10] Id. at 32:2-4. [11] Id. at 20:3-4. 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. 
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 NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
March 2025
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit trade association representing the solar, storage, and electrification industry, solar-friendly businesses, and others interested in advancing complementary technologies in Arizona. The group's focus is on education, professionalism and promotion of public policies that support deployment of solar, storage, and electrification technologies and renewable energy job growth and creation. |
FOLLOW Us |
Copyright © 2019 AriSEIA - All Rights Reserved