The Holbrook City Council met on Oct. 9 and among the items on the agenda was a request by Councilwoman Francie Payne for support by the council in the form of a resolution opposing Proposition 127.
The proposition, funded by California billionaire Tom Steyers, would modify the Arizona’s constitution to mandate that most of Arizona’s utilities generate 50 percent of their energy from renewable resources such as wind and solar by 2030. The current requirement is 15 percent by 2025. While on the surface such a proposition may sound appealing, those in opposition to the proposition say it would come at a very high price.
As Payne told the council, “I believe the passage of Proposition 127 would be devastating to the City of Holbrook and to its residents.” She went on to state that Arizona Public Service (APS) is estimating that utility bills will double and that the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO) out of the Governor’s Office estimates a minimum increase of 52.5 percent.
“APS is saying that residents will pay, on average, an extra $1,200 a year. That means an extra $630 if it comes in as low as RUCO says it may.”
She noted that the city’s bill with APS averages $41,444 a month so if APS’s projections are correct, that’s nearly a half million more a year, if RUCO’s are it’s $260,000 more a year.
“APS has estimated another $100,000 for elementary schools and $200,000 a year for high school, which translates to $63,000 or $126,000, all of which would be just crazy to pay that much for the same thing.”
She went on to say that the residents would not only be facing their own increases they would also see increased costs or decreased services from the city, the schools, the county and the state. “It’s back breaking,” she concluded.
Councilman CJ Wischmann added his concern for the residents and those on fixed income. Councilman Tim Dixon stated that ordinarily he would not make public his stance on how he would vote. “But in this case seeing outside sources trying to dictate what the State of Arizona does, especially in our constitution, is upsetting to me. I think we should get Mr. Steyers fax number and send this to him. I don’t like outside interference from these kind of people.”
Councilman Earl Kester agreed, stating that he believed Steyers motives to be for financial gain and that the resulting closure of Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant would mean a tremendous loss of jobs.
Vice Mayor Richard Peterson pointed out that as city council members they were all appointed in a non-partisan election. “We have to be extremely careful if we are going to take a side in what may be a partisan issue. On the other hand, I think this particular proposition is less partisan and more about an issue such as environment, economics, science and the roll of government.
Councilman Adam Marsh stated that he didn’t feel that the council had the obligation to tell their constituents which way to vote. “It’s a ballot measure for a reason and I am uncomfortable a little bit in two ways. One is I’m not really sure this is in the scope of our duties and two, I am not yet convinced as a personal voter one way or the other so how can I sit and basically advise our constituents which way to vote themselves? There are arguments for and against this proposition, there are absolute falsehoods for and against this proposition and my vote tonight will reflect my position not based on my personal voting decision but based on what I think of the policy that the city council should remain without a stance.”
Peterson then explained that the utilities in Arizona are on a grid and if needed, the utility companies can request additional power from others on the grid throughout the country. “If those companies are still using fossil fuels we won’t be able to do that in the future.” He went on to say that the proposition would lock in mandates that would not account for technology that may come in the future and would require additional mandates to modify.
The vote went to the council with Payne making the motion that was seconded by Wischmann, followed by a vote of support by Peterson, Dixon and Kester, with Marsh voting against the proposition. Mayor Bobby Tyler had notified the council he would not be present and was absent from the meeting. The resolution lists the concerns regarding the resolution and ends by stating that the council is opposed to Proposition 127 and urges residents to vote no on the initiative.
