FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Autumn Johnson 520-240-4757 autumn@ariseia.org Phoenix, AZ: Today, the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee (Committee) voted overwhelming in support of AriSEIA's position in opposition to Unisource Electric's (UNSE) application for a disclaimer of jurisdiction for its Black Mountain Expansion Project. The Committee voted 9-2 to deny UNSE's application and agreed with AriSEIA, Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates (WRA), and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP). UNSE requested the Committee interpret Arizona law in a way it had never done in its 53 year history. ARS 40-360 was enacted by the legislature in 1971 as a means to "provide a single forum for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location of electric generating plants and transmission lines in a single proceeding to which access will be open to interested and affected individuals, groups... to enable them to participate in these decisions." The statute applies to thermal plants (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro) 100 MW or greater. For the first time, UNSE argued the statute should only apply to turbines greater than 100 MW, regardless of how big the plant as a whole is. This would have eliminated regulatory review for all new gas and small modular nuclear plants in Arizona, significantly disadvantaging renewables in any kind of request for proposal process. AriSEIA argued this interpretation was both illogical and also incorrect under the facts of the case. "Reason prevailed today when the Line Siting Committee told one of Arizona's largest utilities that it also must abide by the law," said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. "UNSE has knowingly been violated Arizona law for 16 years and it is time it is held accountable." The Committee will issue a formal Order denying UNSE's request for a disclaimer of jurisdiction in the coming weeks. 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 Comment
AriSEIA filed a response to Commissioner Tovar's letter in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) matter. The letter inquired about the policy statement surrounding the Line Siting statutes and UNSE's interpretation. Read her letter here.
A recent Arizona Republic article thoroughly discussed Mohave Electric Cooperative’s Mohave Energy Park and its local opposition. It also stated that “with a capacity of 98 megawatts – just shy of the 100 MW limit that requires approval under Arizona law by a committee that would provide a ‘forum for interested and affected individuals.'"
What folks in Mohave County may not know is that Unisource Electric (UNSE) is simultaneously planning a 200 MW expansion of Black Mountain Generating Station located in Golden Valley. Not only is the UNSE gas plant expansion twice as big as the Mohave Electric project, but UNSE is arguing that the Arizona law referenced above should be reinterpreted to exempt their project from review, too. UNSE has asked the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee to waive its jurisdiction over the Black Mountain Expansion Project because the individual turbines are less than 100 MW. UNSE argues that Arizona law considers the individual turbines “plants” instead of the entire project and since their turbines are 50 MW each for a total of 200 MW of new gas, they do not need review. Not only would this limit the ability of Mohave County residents to weigh in on the siting of this project, but it would pave the way for all utilities in Arizona to argue the same thing for their projects. If UNSE is successful, essentially all new gas plants in Arizona would be exempt from the law that intended to create a public process and protect the local environment from new power plants. Mohave County residents, like everyone in Arizona, would not have a voice at the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) before these plants are built. April 24 is the time to offer public comment on UNSE’s interpretation of Arizona law. The public can file comments online through the ACC’s website (use Docket No. L-00000F-24-0056-00230) or in person, via Zoom, or via the telephone at the time of the hearing (April 24 starting at 10 a.m.). The hearing will take place at the ACC at 1200 W. Washington Street in Phoenix. Unisource Electric (UNSE) the sister company of Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and subsidiary of Fortis Inc., an international energy company, has asked the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee (and the ACC) to waive its jurisdiction over new gas projects. UNSE is planning a 200 MW expansion of Black Mountain Generating Station located in Mohave County. UNSE is arguing that Arizona law should be reinterpreted to exempt their project from review because the individual turbines are less than 100 MW. The hearing is on April 24, 2024.
AriSEIA filed an objection to UNSE's motion to consolidate all intervenors in their Line Siting matter as one, which would deprive AriSEIA of its due process rights, violate the law, and leave industry with no representation in a proceeding that could change the way all new gas power plants in our state are regulated.
AriSEIA filed a response to a filing by UNSE that opposed the scheduling continuance requested by another party. AriSEIA also asserted that there are factual issues, in addition to legal issues, that will need to be heard by the Line Siting committee before the issue of jurisdiction is resolved.
Unisource Electric, the sister company to Tucson Electric Power (TEP), has filed an application for a 200 MW gas plant in Mohave County and has asked the Power Plant and Line Siting Committee of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to waive its jurisdiction. This is problematic, because if granted, utilities would essentially stop getting ACC approval to build any new gas plants. Review would essentially be limited to transmission lines.
Line Siting Committee
Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2996 RE: Obed Meadows CEC, Docket No. L-21254A-23-0184-00222 Chairman and Committee Members, The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) submits this letter in opposition to requiring a System Impact Study (SIS) in advance of obtaining a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC). The legal briefs of the applicant, Arizona Public Service (APS), and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) all agree that such a requirement is outside the authority of the Line Siting Committee. Further, such a requirement would needlessly delay gen-tie applications. The legislature via HB 2496 and the Commission via dockets RLS-00000A-23-0251 and ALS-00000A-22-0320 and the Governor’s Office via signature of HB 2496, have all indicated that the goal of the State of Arizona is to expedite these renewable energy projects, not add additional bureaucratic hurdles and delay. The Line Siting Committee has been issuing CECs without SISs and it is not clear why that would need to change now. Testimony in this case, as well as the legal brief of APS, make clear that the absence of a SIS is not the fault of the applicant. There is a backlog of these studies, which is outside the control of renewable energy developers. Transmission Providers throughout the state of Arizona, including the state’s two largest utilities: APS and Salt River Project (SRP), are currently working through significant queue reforms to address interconnection backlogs. Proposed queue reforms will materially impact the timeline of interconnection studies, the requirements for projects to enter and stay in the interconnection queue, and the commercial expectations of projects when bidding into Request for Proposals (RFPs). Such queue reform is expected to introduce withdrawal penalties that will fundamentally change the way a project is developed, creating a new model whereby a project is incentivized to first acquire all its permits (including a CEC), obtain off-take, and then enter the interconnection queue. Having a SIS prior to filing for a CEC would be counter to the intent of queue reform, and a third-party power flow study would be expensive and redundant to already required utility interconnection studies. While the timeline around queue reform implementation is uncertain, FERC Order 2023 indicates an effective date is likely by the end of 2023 or in early 2024. AriSEIA strongly advocates that the Line Siting Committee adhere to the purpose and intent of the Line Siting statute (A.R.S. 40-360.06); its prior decisions on applications that did not have a SIS; the clear intent of the legislature, Governor’s Office, and Commission to reduce Line Siting delay; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) queue reform process and not require a SIS prior to obtaining a CEC. A requirement to have a SIS may have unintended consequences that limit the ability for projects to reach operations in a timely manner. Sincerely, /s/ Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 autumn@ariseia.org Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Re: In the Matter of the Five-Year Review of the Rules of Practice and Procedure before the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee, Arizona Administrative Code Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 2, Docket No. ALS-00000A-23-0063 Chairman and Commissioners, We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on changes to the Line Siting rules. Below you can find our joint recommendations regarding changes to R14-3-201 through 220. We Recommend Changes to All Requirements to File Written Copies of Documents and/or Mail Documents. Numerous provisions of the rules require filing hard copies of documents and/or mailing documents. We recommended that all of these sections be updated to permit electronic filing and to remove all requirements to file any print copies. If for some reason a print copy is required, such as an exhibit that may not lend itself well to a print version, only one print copy should be required. Further, service should be permissible via electronic means and should not require mailing. R14-3-217 may be entirely unnecessary given this change. We Recommend Updating Outdated Language. There is no reason that the presiding officer should be presumed to be male. The language should be updated to remove personal pronouns. If this is not possible, alternating pronouns or using something like “s/he” or another generic term would be suitable. Recordings of the Proceedings Should Also be Available on the Arizona Corporation Commission’s “Live” Page for Streaming and for Archived Recordings. All Line Siting proceedings, including meetings and hearings, should be available to watch from the Commission’s “Live” page and a recording of all meetings and proceedings should also be available as an archived video on the same page. We recommend creating a tab for “Line Siting” on the archive portion of the webpage. The Rules Should Allow That Hearings Be Held at State Buildings Other Than the Capitol and That Notice Should Be Provided Electronically. R14-3-208(B)(2) says hearings can be held at the State Capitol in Phoenix. We recommend an option to hold the hearing in Phoenix, but think the Commission and other state buildings should also be an option for hearings. Further, public notice should be provided by means other than filing in the newspaper. Direct outreach to residents within a specific vicinity should be provided, as well as electronic notice via social media, email, radio, etc. should be utilized. The Rule Should Expressly Allow Intervenors to Issue Data Requests. R14-3-211 should be updated to expressly indicate that intervening parties may issue data requests, along with the response time for responses. We Recommend Requiring That a Free Read-Only Version of the Transcript Be Provided to all Intervenors and the Public. Procedural orders for Line Siting already require applicants to provide a read only copy of the hearing transcript to be publicly available on the applicant’s website. R14-3-212 should be updated to reflect this and the transcript should also be available on the Commission’s website, not just the applicant’s website. We Recommend “Days” be Clarified as Calendar or Business Days. R14-3-215 should clearly specify if the Committee is using business days or calendar days to calculate deadlines or time periods provided under the rules, as well as what happens if the final day falls on a non-business day. We Recommend Ex Parte Communications Be Treated More Seriously. R14-3-220(D) should be updated to require disclosure of any ex parte communications received by a member of the Committee, as well as a requirement to recuse oneself, should the Member have initiated or responded to the ex parte communication with anything other than a notice that such communication was prohibited. Thank you for considering our recommendations to this important update to the Line Siting rules. Respectfully, Patrick Woolsey Sierra Club Environmental Law Program patrick.woolsey@sierraclub.org Autumn Johnson Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) autumn@ariseia.org |
AriSEIA NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|