Home » Arizona

Voters Deliver Split Decision On Parallel RPS Ballot Initiatives

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Tom Steyer is waking up this morning to the realization that when you get involved in politics – particularly clean energy politics – sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

In Arizona and Nevada, Steyer had worked tirelessly to support two constitutional amendments, one in each state, that would have cemented the goal of a 50% renewable portfolio standard by 2030 into law. And just like the rest of the country, the results from those initiatives turned out to be a mixed bag.

In Nevada, voters decided to pass the amendment with 60% of the vote, paving the way for solar to flourish in the state a mere three years after the Public Utilities Commission tried to destroy the rooftop industry by unceremoniously (and suddenly) eliminating net metering without warning.

[wds id=”3″]

Now the vote in Nevada isn’t final. Voters will have to approve it again in two years for it to take effect. But with 60% of the vote in favor, it appears likely that it will find its way to approval in two years and then into the state’s constitution. The state’s current RPS is 25%, putting it well behind other states with equal insolation rates.

On the other hand, Steyer’s attempts to pass a similar amendment in Arizona went down in flames. The ballot initiative faced heavy opposition from the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, which spent hand over fist to defeat Proposition 127, which would have done for Arizona what Question 6 could do for Nevada.

In a particularly provincial, gloating manner, an spokesman for the issues group funded by APS told Arizona Central that Arizonans wouldn’t have their energy decisions dictated to them by outsiders all the way from … California.

“Arizonans support clean energy, but not costly, politically driven mandates,” said Matthew Benson, chairman of the opposition group funded by APS’ parent company. “Arizonans support solar power and renewable technology, but not at the expense of an affordable, reliable energy supply. Arizonans prefer to choose our own energy future rather than have it dictated to us by out-of-state special interests.”

So while the rest of the country is trying to figure out what effects the midterms will have on national politics, clean energy advocates are looking at the results in Nevada and Arizona and asking themselves the same questions. Only time will tell which of these outcomes dictate a trend (if, in fact, either of them do).

More:

Arizona voters reject clean-energy measure Proposition 127 by large margin

SEIA’s Closing Argument To Nevada: Yes On Question 6

Memo To Forbes Writer: Nuclear Energy Is NOT Clean Energy

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

As I was scrolling through my LinkedIn feed this weekend, I ran across an article from Forbes magazine writer Michael Shellenberger that both made me laugh out loud and shake my head.

The headline of the article was “Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power.” Which, if you think about it, is like saying, “If my dog meowed, she’d be a cat.”

Shellenberger bases his article on a study by Environmental Progress, which a quick glance at their website shows is a shill organization for the nuclear power industry. Something you’d think Shellenberger, who writes about energy and the environment, might either be aware of or at least might want to disclose in the article.

[wds id=”3″]

Instead, Shellenberger wants to pretend that this is an organization like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace that are just interested in preserving the environment. He wags his finger at the denizens of the Global Climate Action Summit for not mentioning nuclear, and then goes ahead with his analysis of Germany and California, shaking his head at their foolishness for not investing enormous amounts of money in the nuclear energy.

Here are a couple of key issues that Shellenberger, in full nuclear hawk mode, ignores. First off, and most importantly, nuclear power is not a clean energy source. Even if you ignore the potential safety concerns about having a nuclear power plant in your back yard (and as someone that has two within 100 miles of his home in two directions, I have those concerns), there’s still the question of what to do with the spent fuel rods. Until you finally build that storage facility inside Yucca Mountain, you’re going to have to put those fuel rods somewhere – and right now there’s no safe place to put them.

Furthermore, he conveniently ignores the costs of storing those rods in his evaluation of costs of nuclear plants, which is something that get ignored by most nuclear proponents. And given the most recent struggles in constructing nuclear plants in Georgia and elsewhere, I’m going to respectfully suggest that the construction costs on which Environmental Progress based its projections may be a little understated.

This discussion is not academic. They are currently debating whether to include nuclear as a clean energy in Arizona’s renewable portfolio standard. So articles like this one from Forbes, dishonest as they are, are important to call out when they appear. Let’s make sure this one doesn’t go unanswered.

More:

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

Vote Solar Comes Out In Favor Of Tom Steyer’s Arizona Proposition

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Vote Solar announced today that it and the Arizona small business community have come out behind Proposition 127, a ballot initiative that would enshrine a 50% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) by 2030.

Arizona’s current RPS is 15%.

Prop 127, backed by progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, has been mired in controversy as the state’s three largest utilities – Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and the Salt River Project (SRP) – have all funded political action committees to oppose the proposition. APS even brought a lawsuit challenging the signatures on the ballot petitions, a suit that was settled when a judge decided enough of the signatures were valid to keep the initiative in front of voters in November.

[wds id=”3″]

In offering its support, Art Terrazas, Interior West director at the Vote Solar Action Fund said:

Arizona is one of the sunniest states in the nation, and the people of Arizona overwhelmingly support putting more of that plentiful sunshine to work supporting good jobs and healthier families. Proposition 127 gives Arizonans the opportunity to vote for that brighter energy future at the ballot this fall. “We are proud to be speaking up for Proposition 127 and a stronger solar powered Arizona with these local business leaders and community stakeholders across the state.

Arizona is the third pillar in Steyer’s three-state strategy. Under the leadership of state-level groups funded by him, Steyer already has an initiative on the ballot in Nevada, and his efforts in Michigan led to a negotiated settlement in which the state’s three largest utilities have pledged to eliminate coal from their portfolios by 2045 and increase their investments in renewable energy.

Rooftop solar installers, as you might imagine, support Prop 127 and are thrilled to have Vote Solar on their side.

“Thanks to innovation and the individual choices of thousands of consumers who have demanded new energy choices, solar energy has become one of the most affordable energy resources across the United States,” said Louis Woofenden with Tucson-based Net Zero Solar. “That’s especially true here in sunny Arizona. It just makes sense that Arizona should be using more of our plentiful and affordable renewable energy resources to power our homes, businesses and communities with a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 127.”

APS Is Trying To Kill Steyer-Backed RPS Initiative

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, is again trying to stifle solar development in the state that has the most insolation in the country, because reasons.

The utility behemoth, which wields enormous power in the state’s politics, is trying to kill a ballot initiative backed by progressive billionaire Tom Steyer that would raise the state’s RPS to 50% by 2030.
To counter the measure, APS is pushing hard for a bill in the legislature that would make the penalty for not making the RPS goals almost laughably negligible – $1,000-$5000, a penalty APS could pay with the change they find in their couch cushions.
Arizona is the third known Steyer-backed RPS initiative that is being considered for November’s elections. The other two initiatives are in Michigan and Nevada.

SolarWakeup’s View: I was once at a meeting in Arizona where there was a panel discussing the relationship between utilities and the solar industry, which I missed because of a bad burrito the night before. And what I heard about it afterward made me so sorry I’d missed it.

Apparently, a representative from Arizona Public Service (APS) – the state’s largest utility – nearly got into a fistfight with another panelist who dared criticize their solar policies. There was most certainly shouting and (allegedly) some shoving, which gives you a sense of the lengths APS will go to protect its electricity-production monopoly from an ever-increasingly powerful solar industry.

I use that story as a backdrop to the current attempt by the utility to beat the state’s solar industry into submission. This time, they are trying to stop a ballot initiative that would amend the state’s constitution to increase the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 50% by 2030.

The initiative is the third known attempt by progressive billionaire Tom Steyer to get such an issue on the ballot (right now, attempts are being made in Michigan and Nevada). What’s interesting is that APS’ attempts to use a sledgehammer to kill a flea are happening before the ballot initiative even has enough signatures to get on the ballot – which may indicate how frightened they are that it just might pass.

The counter to the initiative that APS has concocted is a breathtaking display of the terrifying power they have in the state’s political structure and the shamelessness they have about wielding it so publicly. They have, through the legislature, introduced a bill that would limit the fines the state could levy on it for not making the modest RPS increase in time would be somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000.

Hell, those are fines that, in a pinch, I could pay (not that I’m offering). The idea that they would be an incentive for APS to increase its renewable energy production to meet the RPS requirements is laugh-out-loud ridiculous.

This is another attempt by APS to destroy the solar industry in Arizona before it can even get started. It cannot stand.

More:

Why APS Is Squashing The Clean Energy Vote (NBC 12 News)*

*Hearing Ryan Randazzo of The Arizona Republic compare APS to a lazy teenager is worth clicking on the link alone.