ACC Staff filed a unusual motion this week seeking to arbitrarily restrict the scope of the APS rate case rehearing for no legitimate reason. AriSEIA filed again explaining that the reasons for rehearing apply to all not just some solar customers and that without the cost of service study, you would have absolutely no basis to charge solar customers more than everyone else for the same thing. Therefore, all solar customers and the cost of service are part of the rehearing.

Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: July 18th Planning and Zoning Meeting Agenda Item No. 6: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th. We also submitted an economic impact study of utility scale solar in Yavapai County on June 14th. This study is attached here as Attachment A for your convenience. We do plan to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting on July 18th and will also submit another round of redlines once the second draft of the ordinance is available. In the interim, below are some additional comments as to the first draft.
 
Additionally, AriSEIA would encourage you to consider holding a working session open to all interested stakeholders before the next Planning and Zoning meeting on this topic. Both Eloy and Mohave County held such a meeting and it was incredibly valuable in coming to a final draft. This may require delaying the final vote on this item past September 4th. In Eloy and Mohave County, we spent closer to 6-8 months working on the ordinance.
 
Further, AriSEIA would like to alleviate the concerns that some Supervisors have expressed to date about the toxicity of solar panels and the fire risk of both solar and battery storage. We have included an excerpt from Columbia Law School’s article: Rebutting 33 False Claims about Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles as Attachment B.[1] There is also a very helpful video available as to potential toxicity to soil or water that we recommend.[2] Tim Kreis,[3] the City of Phoenix’s Assistant Fire Chief, presented on the safety of lithium-ion batteries at the Arizona Technology Council E-Mobility and Clean Energy Summit held on June 27th.  Batteries used for electric vehicles and energy storage have less fires than other types of batteries found in the home. We recommend Yavapai County reach out to him with additional questions. Firefighter safety has been addressed by several organizations including Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), resulting in guidelines involving solar products; IAFF, UL and IREC have all developed related training. Finally, we have attached the American Clean Power Association’s fact sheet on utility scale storage safety as Attachment C.
 
Section 501: (3) ground mounted PV panel height.
 
·         We recommend a minimum height of 20’ for ground mounted parking structures with solar at full tilt.
 
Section 501: (6) cap for small scale battery storage in residential. 

• It should refer to the International Residential Code (IRC).  This would allow it to follow the code updates as they come out.
• The limitation of 80 kWh should not apply if the IRC is used.  The 2021 IRC, Section 327.5, allows up to 80 kWh of ESS, unless the system is installed in accordance with Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the International Fire Code (IFC).
• Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the IFC allows larger ESS to be installed.  It does not apply to just multi-family or commercial/industrial use.  It can be used in single family residential dwellings for larger ESS installations.

Section 608: (D) Solar Facility Use Permits

• (D)(2)(l)(4) we talked with two Line Siting attorneys and a member of the Line Siting Committee and we understand that this section is in conflict with the intent of the Line Siting statutes (Article 6.2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes). The Line Siting Committee was specifically established to provide a single venue in which to evaluate transmission impacts.[4] Also, if the ordinance is intended to apply to federal lands, that would also be preempted. Further, what does “other permits related to the solar facility mean”? Finally, permits should be permitted to be pursued in parallel to reduce delay.   

Section 608: (F) Development and Performance Standards

• (F)(1)(a) the maximum development area of three thousand 3,000 acres is very limiting, we suggest >5,000.
• (F)(1)(b) we advocate for removal of the cumulative acreage maximum for all solar facilities located within Yavapai County, but at the very least match what other jurisdictions are doing e.g., the City of Eloy allows for 16% of their total incorporated area v. the 0.15% Yavapai is proposing here.
• (F)(1)(c) we propose 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile instead of more than one mile from incorporated town/city limits.
• (F)(1)(d) we recommend removal of the more than one mile from airports requirement. Anti-glare solar panels are not shown to impact airport activity.
• (F)(1)(f)(1) this is too vague. What “resources” are being contemplated?
• (F)(1)(f)(8) the restriction on development of areas with 25%+ canopy density of woody or cactus species is too low.
  • We typically only see revegetation requirements, not restrictions on developing in areas with a certain perennial coverage. Restrictions are typically reserved for areas with sensitive plants or riparian vegetative communities. We propose replacing this restriction with a requirement for a restoration plan or stipulations (mitigation) to restore back to 25% cover instead.
• (F)(2) Setbacks
  • (F)(2)(a) the setback from any lake, creek, perennial or intermittent stream, river, major tributary, riparian areas, wetlands, seeps, or FEMA floodplain should be 50’-100’.
    • Minor tributaries have a setback of 150’ is also too high.
  • (F)(2)(d) a 500’ setback from “federally managed lands” is unnecessary given there are project on federally managed lands.
  • (F)(2)(g) the slope grade is reasonable, but the distance from the slope is too high, especially if a project complies with the drainage plan requirements.
  • (F)(2)(i) 50-100 feet from a significant scenic, historic, cultural, or archeological sites is reasonable, but how is “significant” defined?  
  • (F)(2)(j) we recommend setbacks of 50’ from public road rights-of-way.
  • (F)(2)(k) 50-75’ setbacks from all property lines is reasonable.
• (F)(8)(c) we confirmed this is already included within the Line Siting requirements and would be redundant.
• (F)(9) We recommend striking “Additional lightning after approval of the Use Permit may require an amendment to the Use Permit” and make clear that lighting plans are preliminary. It is atypical to provide this level of detail (especially if binding) at this stage of permitting
• (F)(10) Noise levels are too low due to battery HVAC units, which usually emit 85dB 3’ away. We suggest increasing to 65dB.

Section 608: (K) Substations

• (K)(1)(a) Substations should be permitted 100’ from any residences. A more onerous requirement will inevitably make the gen-ties longer, which will be more onerous visually and have greater land use impacts.
• (K)(1)(b) severely limits flexibility in design and where substations can be sited, which may result in inefficient electrical design e.g., longer gen-ties and more impacted land. The location of the substation is highly project-specific and depends on the project’s design and POI. This requirement should be removed.

Section 608: (M) Decommissioning and Reclamation

• (M)(1)(e) projects typically need more than 12 months for decommissioning (typically takes as long to decommission as to construct). 24 months is more reasonable or the ordinance should provide flexibility based on project size.
• (M)(5) should be 12 months instead of 6 for a project to be abandoned.

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

[1] The full article can be found here. Toxicity of solar panels is address as False Claim #2, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change.

[2] Are Solar Farms Toxic? Experts Say No, available here https://youtu.be/9f_p1a_S17A?feature=shared.

[3] Tim Kreis’ bio can be found here https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/about-us/executive-staff.

[4] Session Law 1971, Ch. 67, § 1, at pp. 180–183, available here https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/20971?keywords=session%20laws%201971&highlights=eyIwIjoibGF3cyIsIjEiOiJzZXNzaW9uLCIsIjIiOiJzZWN0aW9uIiwiMyI6InNlc3Npb24uIiwiNCI6IjE5NzEpIiwiNiI6InNlc3Npb24iLCI3IjoibGF3cywiLCIxNSI6IjE5NzEsIn0=.

AriSEIA, along with the Attorney General's Office, Western Resource Advocates, and the Sierra Club, filed an Application for Rehearing today in the Unisource Electric (UNSE) Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) case. In this case, UNSE asked the ACC to "disclaim jurisdiction" over essentially all new gas plants in the State. The Line Siting Committee voted against them 9-2 after a two day hearing, but the ACC voted along party lines to overturn that decision. AriSEIA asked for rehearing, which is a necessary next step to appeal.

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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Autumn Johnson
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ - The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA), the State’s leading trade association for solar, storage, and electrification, is proud to announce a new initiative aimed at assisting homeowners with solar systems that were installed by companies that have since closed. Recognizing the importance of ensuring that every solar system operates efficiently and effectively, AriSEIA has curated a comprehensive list of member companies ready to provide support and services.

Homeowners with solar systems often encounter questions or need assistance with maintenance, repairs, or upgrades. Understanding this, AriSEIA has compiled a directory of qualified members who can offer expert assistance. This initiative underscores the solar industry's commitment to being a valuable resource and a reliable partner for all solar system owners in Arizona.

“AriSEIA is dedicated to consumer protection and supporting homeowners,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA. “We understand that navigating the maintenance and troubleshooting of solar systems, especially after a solar installer closure, can be challenging. That’s why we have commenced a homeowner education campaign and have assembled a list of companies who are ready to assist and ensure that solar systems continue to deliver the expected benefits.”

The curated list of members includes a range of service providers, from installation and maintenance experts to companies specializing in solar system insurance and warranty solutions. By reaching out to these members, homeowners can find the help they need to keep their solar systems running smoothly and efficiently.

Despite recent challenges, the solar industry is committed to being proactive, approachable, and helpful, ensuring that every solar system owner has the support they need. Homeowners seeking assistance with their solar systems can visit the AriSEIA website to access the list of members and find the appropriate service provider for their needs.

About AriSEIA: The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s leading trade association dedicated to promoting the adoption of solar, storage, and electrification technologies. AriSEIA advocates for policies that support the growth of Arizona’s solar industry and provides resources and education to ensure that solar energy continues to thrive in the State.

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.

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) granted rehearing of the APS rate case because it surprise added a new fixed fee on solar customers that was never a part of the case in the final order. Since then, APS has been trying to narrow the scope of the rehearing, no matter how illogical. First, APS has tried to argue that only some solar customers are part of the rehearing, despite the fact the added charges apply to all solar customers. Then APS has tried to argue that the cost of service study upon which the charges are based is not part of the rehearing. AriSEIA has opposed both maneuvers. 

UNSE continues to call for a Motion to Dismiss on AriSEIA's complaint against them for violating Arizona's Line Siting statutes for nearly two decades. AriSEIA argues that position is premature given the likely rehearing or appeal on the underling disclaimer of jurisdiction docket.

The Arizona Corporation Commission sent AriSEIA a letter regarding our UNSE press release, requesting changes. AriSEIA filed the request along with a letter objecting to the inappropriate request in the docket and declined to make the requested changes.

The administrative law judge has imposed a stay on AriSEIA's complaint against UNSE pending the outcome of the UNSE CEC docket, which AriSEIA does not oppose at this time.