Joint Statement from Solar United Neighbors, Vote Solar, and the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association

Arizona Corporation Commission Disappoints Solar Advocates, Siding with Utility Profits
​
Tucson, Arizona - The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) today approved Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP) and UniSource Electric’s (UNSE) proposal to decrease Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP) rates for 2025, further undermining the opportunity to use solar energy to save money on utility bills for customers across Arizona. The Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP) is Arizona’s solar export rate, which determines how much solar customers are paid for the electricity they send back to the energy grid. Commissioners have the option to limit reductions to the RCP in order to avoid negatively impacting solar adoption, and have previously exercised this option during times of economic turmoil such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With the reduction approved today, utilities will pay less for the energy rooftop solar provides, which will ultimately discourage new installations and force the construction of costly new power plants that all customers will pay for through higher energy bills. Solar installations among TEP’s customers fell nearly 40% in 2024, and the ACC-approved reduction to solar rates will only accelerate this trend.[1]

“Today’s vote is yet another gift to profit-driven utilities at the expense of communities,” said Kate Bowman, Senior Regulatory Director at Vote Solar. “By cutting the value of solar, the ACC is making it harder for Arizonans to invest in solar—just as these same households are facing rising costs of living and utility bills and a phase out of the federal solar tax credit.”

“This decision demonstrates a troubling pattern of behavior by this Commission," said Adrian Keller, Arizona Program Director at Solar United Neighbors. "The ACC consistently approves utility requests while neglecting the ratepayers they are supposed to protect. Following their approval of APS's identical proposal last month, today’s decision continues to penalize families who invest in solar.”

“The Commission likes to say it is for an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, yet its decisions paired with federal policy changes continue to single out renewables punitively,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA). “This Commission has imposed solar only fees, continues to reduce the solar export rate, and is trying to eliminate our renewable standards (REST rule), all while the federal government has cut tax credits, imposed extreme tariffs, and enacted a de facto moratorium on all renewables development.”

Utilities earn a rate of return on every dollar they spend building power plants and transmission lines. When homeowners invest their own savings to install rooftop solar, they help avoid these expensive projects, saving money for all customers—which is exactly why utilities oppose technologies that threaten their bottom line. Shortly before requesting a 10% reduction to the rate paid to solar customers for exporting electricity, TEP filed a rate case asking Commissioners to increase the rates families pay to purchase electricity from the utility by 14%.

Reducing solar export rates will ultimately eliminate jobs, weaken our grid, and force utilities to build new energy generation—a cost that will be passed down directly to customers. On the other hand, increasing access to solar has proven to help families mitigate rising power bills and deliver critical power during record-breaking heat and peak demand.

At a time when energy bills are soaring, the Commission should be making solar more affordable, not less. Arizonans deserve the freedom to choose solar power to reduce their bills and protect against rate hikes. Instead, the ACC continues giving utilities tools to discourage renewable energy adoption and maintain their monopoly control.
 
About Solar United Neighbors
Solar United Neighbors is a national nonprofit organization that helps people go solar, join together, and fight for their energy rights. SUN's Arizona program advocates for policies that expand solar access and protect solar rights for all Arizonans.
 
About AriSEIA
AriSEIA is an Arizona nonprofit trade association working on renewables policies across the state. AriSEIA’s mission is to develop and support policies that create opportunities to advance Arizona’s economy through solar energy, storage, and electrification.
 
About Vote Solar
Vote Solar is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to advance state-level policies that make solar and clean energy solutions accessible to all. Since 2002, Vote Solar has worked to build a just and equitable energy future by leveraging deep policy expertise, strategic partnerships, and public engagement. In the face of powerful opposition, Vote Solar champions bold solutions that expand clean energy access, drive investment in frontline communities, and accelerate the transition to 100% clean energy.

[1] According to TEP’s most recent published solar installation data, comparing the first three quarters of 2023 with the first three quarters of 2024. Available at: https://arizonagoessolar.org/tucson-electric-power-tep/

AriSEIA filed testimony today opposing the settlement agreement entered into in the Sulphur Springs rate case with Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff and the IBEW union. The settlement agreement violates federal law by allowing the export rate for solar to fall below avoided cost. It eliminates grandfathering for customers that already have solar on their businesses with no warning. And it eliminates the 10-year lock in for new solar customers, even though every other utility provides it. The settlement agreement in not in the public interest.

AriSEIA filed joint comments with Vote Solar and Solar United Neighbors today calling on the ACC to not undertake the annual 10% RCP decrease as requested by TEP, APS, and UNSE. There are too many other policy changes at the state and federal level that have negatively impacted the solar industry to further erode it now. 

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Sulphur Springs Docket No. E-01575A-24-0160 and E-01575A-23-0299
 
Chairman and Commissioners,
 
We request that you pull agenda item No. 7 from the consent agenda on the September 5th open meeting and place it on the regular agenda to allow public comment and also so that Commissioners and Staff can ask the utility questions.
 
AriSEIA sent Sulphur Springs (SSVEC) questions about this filing earlier this week and scheduled a call with them to discuss those same questions on August 30th. However, SSVEC was not able to answer any of the questions and abruptly ended the call after only approximately 17 minutes.
 
SSVEC filed a different avoided cost calculation on November 6th, 2023.[1] That avoided cost calculation was $.0629, which is greater than their export rate of $.041310. For some unknown reason, this filing never moved forward and was withdrawn one day later. AriSEIA filed a letter in that docket explaining that an export rate below the avoided cost rate was a violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).[2] Vote Solar and Solar United Neighbors have sued Salt River Project (SRP) in federal court over the same issue.[3]
 
Six days later, SSVEC filed a new avoided cost calculation in a new docket.[4] That avoided cost calculation is $.0307, less than half that of the avoided cost calculation from the prior filing. They filed an amended tariff on August 1st and a Staff proposed order was docketed within a few weeks and it was scheduled for the September 5th open meeting (approximately 6 weeks after being initially filed).
 
Additionally, both tariffs include a meter fee unique to solar customers of $2.70, despite the fact that all residential customers, solar or not, have identical meters. This is the identical issue to the DG meter fee in the last TEP rate case. AriSEIA presented extensive evidence on why that fee was unjustified and it was ended as a result.[5]
 
AriSEIA would like the following questions answered by SSVEC before this item receives a vote:
 

1. Why is the avoided cost calculation so dramatically different between November 2023 and July 2024? Is the methodology the same? Can stakeholders be provided with the workpapers? Has Staff received the workpapers?
2. Why was the November filing withdrawn? How are those customers going to be made whole? It is very concerning that when the utility finds the avoided cost is too low the item does not move, but when the utility finds the avoided cost is too high, the item moves immediately. The process should be applied consistently.
3. Why are solar customers paying more for an identical meter than non-solar customers?

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

[1] SSVEC Tariff Filing, November 6, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1724737112344.

[2] AriSEIA Letter, July 9, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000036580.pdf?i=1725068843076.

[3] Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case 2:24-cv-02021-DJH, August 12, 2024.

[4] SSVEC Amendment to Application, August 1, 2024, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000037043.pdf?i=1724736609230.

[5] TEP rate case, AriSEIA direct testimony, P. 365, January 27, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000023835.pdf. 

Arizona, with its abundant sunshine, seems like a natural leader in solar energy. Yet, according to Autumn Johnson, an advocate for solar energy, the state is facing a significant decline in residential solar installations. Data from Ohm Analytics shows a 31% year-over-year drop in solar permits as of May 2024, marking the lowest level since 2021.

Economic and Policy Challenges
Several factors contribute to this decline. High interest rates, currently above 8%, make financing solar systems more expensive, deterring potential customers despite the federal tax benefits available under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Beyond economic barriers, state policies are also to blame. Arizona has reduced the export rates for excess solar energy, meaning homeowners are paid less for the energy they send back to the grid. Additionally, recent increases in fixed fees for solar customers, such as the grid access charge introduced by the Arizona Corporation Commission, have made solar less financially attractive.

A Missed Opportunity
While other states continue to support solar growth through net metering, Arizona's policies are pushing it in the opposite direction. Johnson points out the irony that Arizona, with over 300 sunny days a year, ranks only fifth in solar capacity nationally—a position that should be much higher given the state’s natural advantages.
​
Looking ahead, Johnson is concerned about the state’s direction. With increasing political skepticism toward both residential and utility-scale solar projects, Arizona risks missing out on a significant economic opportunity. In a state where solar should be thriving, policy and economic barriers are holding it back, leaving the future of solar in Arizona uncertain.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: APS 2024 RCP, Docket No. E-01345A-24-0095; TEP 2024 RCP, Docket No. E-01933A-24-0094  
 
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
 
Both Arizona Public Service (APS) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) have filed in the above noted dockets to request the maximum annual reduction in the Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP).While it is AriSEIA’s position that the underlying Value of Solar decision from Docket No. E-00000J-14-0023 should not be modified in the new export rate Docket No. AHD-00000J-23-0273, we would like to highlight concerning developments in the residential solar sector in Arizona.
 
Recently, Arizona has seen several major residential solar companies leave the Arizona market. Very large residential solar installers based in Arizona have closed entirely. And just in the last week, several AriSEIA members have declared bankruptcy, including companies local to Arizona. Overall, residential solar installations in Arizona are down 31% year over year. Installations in the state are at their lowest level since 2020, a year in which the Commission decreased the RCP by less than the maximum.
  
The decline in residential solar installations, bankruptcies, and company closures are not due solely to the RCP. But a decrease in the RCP will continue to exasperate this alarming situation. Solar represents a significant amount of jobs and economic development in Arizona. Such a significant downturn in this sector in the sunniest state in the country should be cause for concern.
 
Further, distributed generation, including rooftop solar and battery storage, is a critical tool in the toolbox for peak demand reduction and grid reliability. With solar alone, it is possible for rooftop solar customers to completely eliminate or dramatically reduce their peak usage. With a battery, it is possible for them to provide that capacity back to the grid. With well designed policies, these resources can benefit all ratepayers.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 

Same APS discrimination against solar customers 

Arizona Public Service likes to tout itself as somehow new and different. It is not the APS we remember involved in scandals at the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) or opposing renewable energy like with Proposition 127. They have new leadership and clean energy goals now. But if you are paying attention, APS consistently makes decisions that undermine renewable energy and hurt solar customers.

Last year, APS opposed the adoption of community solar in Arizona. Community solar is an option for customers that want rooftop solar, but cannot install rooftop solar either because they are renters, or live in multifamily housing, or have an older roof. It allows them to participate in the clean energy transition while also increasing a distribution grid resource and saving them money on their electric bills. The ACC ended up adopting a policy to kill any advancement of community solar in Arizona.

APS continues to ask for annual decreases in the export rate solar customers are paid for the extra solar power their rooftop panels produce and they sell back to the grid. APS buys it at a fraction of what it sells it to your neighbors for. APS has consistently fought against you having any options to sell that extra power elsewhere, including supporting HB2101 in 2022, which eliminated competition in the electric sector in Arizona.

APS simultaneously has advocated for increased fixed fees on solar customers. APS has nearly 200,000 customers with rooftop solar and it has advocated for all of them, every single one, to pay 15% more for the same power than their neighbors without rooftop solar. That new fee is the subject of ongoing litigation at the ACC and APS has most recently advocated for 74,000 of those customers to be completely excluded from the hearing entirely. These customers got solar years ago and are on rate plans called “Legacy Solar.” 

If APS is successful, not only will these customers be subject to APS’ discriminatory fees on solar, but they will be deprived of their due process rights, as well. APS has also argued (and won!) that the evidence used to substantiate this discriminatory fee on solar customers not be evaluated in the hearing. So, the evidence used to substantiate the fee is not part of the hearing in which the ACC decides if the fee is even legal.

Earlier this year, the ACC ordered APS to start a pilot program that aggregates the household batteries that customers pay for with their own money to offset energy APS needs when demand from customers is especially high. APS was ordered to undergo a stakeholder process and work collaboratively with the community to develop a fair program. Instead, APS has come up with a program that will almost certainly fail, because it inadequately pays for the resource it takes from customers. 

APS will continue to penalize solar customers unless the utility is held accountable. APS does not like solar customers because solar customers pay for their solar panels themselves. APS does not own them and does not earn a profit margin off of them. APS’ nearly 200,000 solar customers need to pay attention and need to tell the ACC that APS must stop its needless attacks on solar customers. 

Unfortunately, the ACC just sided with APS and determined that some solar customers may, indeed, be excluded from the rate case rehearing and that the underlying evidence APS provided to justify the discriminatory fees on solar customers will not be evaluated. This raises serious concerns about the validity of the rehearing. The public needs to reach out to the ACC in support of solar. You can file a comment with the ACC and be sure to reference Docket No. E-01345A-22-0144.
​
Autumn Johnson is executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association.

Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Docket No. E-01575A-23-0299
 
Chairman, Commissioners, Staff, and Sulphur Springs,
 
AriSEIA was not aware of this docket until recently and we understand that the Company intends to raise this issue in its forthcoming rate case application. However, we want to make it clear that an export rate (in this case the DGEE) below avoided cost is a violation of federal law. The Company’s filing makes it clear that its avoided cost is $.0629 and its current DGEE rate is $.041310.[1] The Company then filed for a withdrawal of the proposed tariff seeking to rectify this discrepancy one day later stating, “[a]fter working with ACC Staff we learned that the last approved export rate year can remain in effect multiple years until SSVEC filed for an update.”[2]
 
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 for the primary purpose “to lessen the country's dependence on foreign oil” and to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies as alternatives to fossil fuel.[3] The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) develops rules to implement PURPA. PURPA achieves its purpose by requiring electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs).[4] Those rates are set at avoided cost. The utility's avoided cost is the “incremental cost to an electric utility of electric energy or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from the [QF]…, such utility would generate itself or purchase from another source.”[5] The avoided cost rate must be just and reasonable, in the public interest, and nondiscriminatory against QFs.[6] PURPA prohibits utilities from engaging in price discrimination when they borrow supplemental power from or to small energy producers.[7] Congress enacted PURPA to “overcome obstacles imposed by [] utility monopolies for non-utility generation, including customer-sited small renewable generation.”[8] Qualifying small power producers includes residential customers with rooftop solar.[9]

Importantly, the courts have determined that QFs are entitled to key protections against discriminatory rates and charges. “For example, when a home or business with solar panels needs to buy extra power from or wants to sell surplus power to the local utility, PURPA bars the utility from charging that home or business different rates than it would any other customer or supplier.”[10] “Section 210(f) requires state public utility commissions and nonregulated independent utilities to ‘implement’ the rules issued by FERC under Section 210(a) by incorporating them into their regulations and procedures.”[11] 

The Commission’s decision as to the implementation of PURPA can be found in Docket No. 81-0045. The Commission last visited PURPA in Docket Nos. 17-0360, 16-0272, and 18-0087 in 2019.
 
While the Company intends to file a rate case sometime at the end of this year, that means solar customers have been underpaid for at least a year, depending on how long the rate case takes to resolve. AriSEIA believes this delay is in violation of PURPA and that it was inappropriate to withdraw and then close this docket. AriSEIA respectfully requests that the Company include a proposal to rectify this situation in its 2024 rate case, including a mechanism to make these solar customers whole. AriSEIA also requests that future filings that make it clear the export rate is lower than avoided cost be resolved promptly.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Tariff Filing, Docket No. E-01575A-23, Filed November 6, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1720586124384.

[2] Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Tariff Filing Withdrawal, Docket No. E-01575A-23, Filed November 7, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/E000032051.pdf?i=1720586124384.

[3] FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 745-46 (1982).

[4] 18 C.F.R. § 292.303.

[5] 18 C.F.R. § 292.101(b)(6).

[6] 18 C.F.R. 292.304(a)(1)(i)-(ii).

[7] 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3-(b).

[8] Petition for Enforcement Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 under EL24-54, Docket EL24-54-000, p. 2, filed January 12, 2024, available at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20240112-5029&optimized=false [hereinafter Vote Solar PURPA Petition]; Am. Paper Institute v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Co., 461 U.S. 402, 405 (1983).

[9] 16 U.S.C. § 796(7)(A), (C), & (D). See also 18 C.F.R. §§ 293.203(a), 292.201(a)(1), (d)(1), 292.204(b)(1)(i); In re Westar, 460 P.3d 821, 824 (Kan. 2020); Sun Edison LLC, 129 FERC 61,146 at 18 (2009).

[10] Solar v. City of Farmington, 2 F.4th 1285, 1287 (10th Cir. 2021); 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3-(b).

[11] Id. at 1288.

Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff issued a second set of questions regarding the new Value of Solar docket. AriSEIA responded to the first set and submitted responses today to the second set. We continue to oppose any increase in the annual step down or any decrease in the 10-year lock in period.

ACC Staff issued questions to "interested parties" regarding the export rate (Resource Comparison Proxy (RCP)). AriSEIA has opposed reopening the Value of Solar decision. You can read our full responses above.