NAVAJO COUNTY–A controversial ballot initiative claiming to propose clean energy in Arizona is being challenged as misleading and not in the best interest of Arizonans.
The initiative, bankrolled by California billionaire Tom Steyer would require public utilities in Arizona to generate at least 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Steyer and his Super PAC, NextGen Climate Action, have already spent $4.5 million on the campaign under the name of Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona (CEHA), but critics say his aims are bigger than just Arizona.
Steyer is pushing a similar ballot measure in Nevada. “Steyer’s energy initiatives in Arizona and Nevada are not a coincidence,” said Matthew Benson, spokesman for Arizonans for Affordable Electricity (AAE), a group that is opposing the proposal. “Arizona and Nevada are considered possible swing states for the 2020 presidential election. Steyer is using these initiatives to build campaign teams and massive email lists that he will rely on when running for president in two years.” Steyer has not hid his political motivation and has been open about plans to spend $40 million as part of his ongoing national campaign to encourage the impeachment of President Trump.
Unfortunately, Steyer’s political ambitions would mean higher electricity bills for Arizona families if the initiative should pass.
While the initiative is firmly on the Nevada ballot, the AAE is now in a heated battle in the Maricopa County Superior Court over the matter that started with a preliminary hearing on July 23, challenging the validity of approximately 390,000 of 480,464 signatures that CEHA submitted on July 5, with 225,963 signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot.
The signatures are being challenged by AAE, which is claiming that 195,339 signatures were from individuals not registered to vote in Arizona; 74,227 were included on improperly or non-notarized petitions; 20,092 signers did not provide a first and last name or failed to sign their full name, as required by law; 12,591 individuals signed the petition more than once; and 20,021 signatures were collected by 85 petition circulators with felony criminal records. “Convicted felons are barred by law from circulating an initiative petition unless the individual has had his or her rights restored,” noted Benson.
On the surface, the CEHA initiative sounds good: clean energy, healthier air, more jobs. A closer look at the details in the four-page document reveals one section that defines renewable resources as “an energy resource that is replaced rapidly by a natural ongoing process and that is not municipal solid waste combustion, trees larger than 12 inches in diameter, nuclear or fossil fuel.”
Definitions within the initiative exclude carbon-free nuclear from consideration as a “clean” energy source, while providing a regulatory loophole that exempt the Salt River Project (SRP), Arizona’s second largest power provider, from the initiative.
SRP Spokesperson Patty Garcia-Likens said, “The initiative language calls for the requirements to be placed on a utility that is a public service corporation that is regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. SRP is a community-based, not-for-profit public power utility and the largest provider of electricity in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, serving more than one million customers. SRP is governed by an elected board of directors.”
On the valley floor west of Phoenix is the Palo Verde Generating Station, owned by a number of different power companies, including APS and SRP. The nuclear plant is the largest producer of emissions-free electricity in the country.
APS, which operates Palo Verde, says approval of the initiative would make the plant uneconomical and force its closure. “Forcing the Palo Verde Generating Station out of the energy mix will cost 3,000 Arizona families their jobs, and Arizona schools and public safety $60 million annually in lost tax revenues,” said APS Manager of Media Relations Jenna Rowell, who added, “Looking beyond Palo Verde, when our coal plants are forced out of the mix by the early 2020s, rural communities will lose those high-quality jobs as well. And looking beyond APS to the co-ops and other companies this measure includes, the economic impacts only worsen.”
The CEHA website states: “APS’s vision for the future is risky: continued reliance on fossil fuels for electricity. Under this measure, utilities like APS and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) would build low-cost renewables instead of building more fossil fuel-fired power plants and begin to reduce reliance on existing, dirty fossil fuel-fired power plants. This will protect consumers from natural gas price spikes.”
Rowell countered that currently APS serves customers with an energy portfolio that is 50 percent clean, including nuclear energy and solar power. “Steyer’s constitutional mandate would actually force Arizona to add more carbon-emitting resources or compromise reliable service when the sun goes down,” she said. “That’s because the output from solar energy drops off quickly at sunset or on cloudy days and requires a fast-start resource like natural gas to continue serving customers.”
Both sides of the issue have produced studies that support their statements but, in the end, APS points to an estimated cost of $15 billion that the initiative would require for additional grid infrastructure, including large-scale solar farms in the desert, transmission lines, massive battery storage systems and more. These costs will ultimately be passed along to Arizona families, businesses and other ratepayers, resulting in the sticker shock anticipated by initiative opponents.
APS estimates the average Arizona household would see its bills double under the initiative, meaning more than $1,000 in added costs over the course of a year.
Low and fixed-income Arizonans, including seniors, would be hit hardest. “The initiative is a job-killer that will raise electricity bills for families and small businesses across Arizona,” said Benson. “An independent analysis by Arizona State University found that the proposal will eliminate thousands of Arizona jobs and reduce property tax revenues paid to Arizona public schools by nearly $860 million over the coming years.
“The initiative mirrors a renewable energy mandate already in California law,” Benson added. California energy prices have been increasing at a rate three times the national average since that state enacted its clean-energy rules in 2015. Arizona electricity is at least 50 percent cheaper than California.
Regardless, the campaign is shaping up to be a multi-million dollar fight. To date, in the readership area of the Tribune News, Navajo County, REAL AZ and the Town of Snowflake have formally opposed the initiative. AAE, which is primarily funded by Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the parent company of APS, has spent $6.8 million opposing the initiative.
SRP also issued a statement regarding their future energy goals, stating: “The SRP Board has established a goal that by 2020, SRP will meet a target of 20 percent of its expected retail energy requirements with sustainable resources including energy efficiency programs and renewable energy. We are on track to meet that goal with 18 percent sustainable energy projected for 2019.”
The Tribune was unable to make contact with a representative with the CEHA group as of press time.
