The three Republicans running to become state utility regulators are warning that putting Democrats in charge of the regulatory panel would turn Arizona into California.
And they don’t mean that in a good way.
At a debate Wednesday, all three criticized the self-named “solar team’’ of Democrats Bill Mundell, Anna Tovar and Shea Stanfield would mean higher rates as consumers are forced to buy what they contend is more expensive power from renewable resources, just as what has happened in California.
“I am a free-market capitalist,’’ said Jim O’Connor.
He said that the added costs borne by utilities to purchase power from wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources is passed on to consumers, complete with utilities even taking a markup.
“It’s a fantasy to believe that there’s some company with an endless pot of gold that can pick up the check for all this social redistribution,’’ O’Connor said.
“Any time the commission mandates or subsidizes something, Arizonans end up paying more for something than they should have,’’ said Eric Sloan, estimating the current requirement for utilities to purchase more solar power has cost ratepayers $1.2 billion.
Lea Marquez Peterson, the lone incumbent seeking one of the three open seats, said she sees the issue through a different lens.
She said California has vigorously forced utilities to move away from fossil fuels and that that led to rolling blackouts this summer and utilities there trying to buy power from Arizona utilities.
Democrats have their own arguments.
On the financial side, Bill Mundell, who was a commissioner for nearly a decade until 2009 – and a Republican at the time – argued that the mandates that he helped approve at the time have saved $2 billion. The key, he said, is encouraging things like rooftop solar.
“You don’t have to build big, gigantic new fossil fuel plants, you don’t have to build transmission lines,’’ Mundell said, noting utilities can legally pass new construction costs to ratepayers.
Anna Tovar said making the state the “solar capital’’ of the nation “will be a win-win situation.’’
“It will create a new economy with green jobs … that will be creating the thousands of jobs that we desperately need,’’ she said.
Shea Stanfield took her own swipe at utilities, saying they don’t appear interested in clean and affordable energy and that’s why they need to be “strongly encouraged with mandates and standards and held accountable for steps to get to those mandates.’’
Some of the debate about current and potential mandates could end up being academic.
In a recent ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court appears to have narrowed the legal role of the commission strictly to setting rates.
That could undermine the existing requirement by the commission that utilities generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025. And it also would call into questions other proposals – including some by Republicans – to wean utilities here away from fossil fuels.
Despite the differences over such mandates, five of the candidates say they believe that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity.
Only O’Connor said he has his doubts.
The other key issue in the race could come down to who voters believe is least likely to be influenced by the utilities they are supposed to be regulating.
Next month’s election comes as the commission is coming off of years of low public trust, much of that directly related to the fact that Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, funneled millions of dollars into prior campaigns for Republicans in the 2014 and 2016 races.
APS appears to have stayed out of the 2018 race after its practices were unveiled and there is no evidence it is backing any of the contenders, all of whom are running with public financing.
“The dark money has corrupted the commission,’’ Mundell said. “It’s led to those non-justified rate increases and the crushing of rooftop solar.’’
Sloan countered that it hasn’t just been Republicans who have benefited from outside spending, noting the $2.8 million that Chispa Arizona, the political arm of the League of Conservation Voters, put into trying to elect Democrats in 2018.
But Sloan’s own background made him a target.
He ran the Arizona Coalition for Reliable Energy in 2016. That was the fund financed by APS which pushed for election of Republicans.
That $10,000 contract, said Mundell, makes him suspect as someone who could be an independent voice and properly regulate utilities.
Sloan described his activities as simply a “get-out-the-vote’’ effort. That drew a sharp retort from Tovar.
“It was a get-out-to-vote for three Republicans on the commission,’’ she said.
Both Mundell and Tovar did not dispute that they took money from an APS political action committee when they were members of the legislature. But she said that was a different time.
“We didn’t have these issues with APS,’’ Tovar said.
Mundell also found himself defending his previous time on the commission, acknowledging he probably voted for some rate increases for APS but saying he also voted against each other.
Prior cash from Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the parent company of APS, also became an issue during the debate. Maquez Peterson not only got $2,500 for her 2018 congressional race from the company but also $5,000 from David Hutchens, chief executive of Tucson Electric Power.
Marquez Peterson said that is irrelevant to the job she wants to keep after Gov. Doug Ducey appointed her.
“It in no way unduly influences me as commissioner,’’ she said. And Marquez Peterson also said that she was involved since joining the commission in approving a new code of ethics for regulators.
“I think that we’ve turned the tide’’ on the commission’s reputation. Beyond that, Marquez Peterson said that the individuals who were leading APS at the time are since gone.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding