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 For some unknown reason, this filing never moved forward and was withdrawn one day later.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 Why was the November filing withdrawn?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 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.