By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

No one knows exactly what progressive billionaire Tom Steyer hoped to accomplish with his pro-solar ballot initiatives. Taken on their face, his amendments in Nevada and Michigan are designed to accelerate clean energy development in those states.

In the aforementioned states, the question is a little more clear: Steyer is not about putting ballot issues before voters simply for the sake of getting the vote. While the issue will go before Nevada voters, Steyer’s group in Michigan used the ballot initiative as a bargaining chip to extract clean energy promises from the state’s two largest utilities.

Arizona may be the next case where the overall strategy will become clearer.

Tuscon.com is reporting that Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Commissioner Andy Tobin will file a plan with the commission to set an aggressive 80% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) by 2050 on Thursday – the same day Steyer’s group Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona is expected to file his petitions with the board of elections to have an equally aggressive 50% by 2030 plan on the ballot.

According to the report, Arizona Public Service (APS), the state’s largest utility, is trying to kill Steyer’s initiative because of one major difference between Tobin’s and plans: Tobin defines nuclear energy as “renewable;” Steyer’s plan does not.

Unlike other utilities in the state, APS actually owns two nuclear plants.

According to Tucscon.com,

Tobin, while not taking sides on the initiative, said he understands the concerns being cited by APS.

But he said his proposal is not based on any question of being supportive or opposed to nuclear power.

“I concentrated on what’s harming the quality of our air,” he said, specifically meaning things like coal-fired power plants.

Tobin is also pushing the biomass aspect of “clean energy.” Again, we turn to Tucson.com:

“I’m sick of these forest fires,” Tobin said, referring to blazes that get out of control because of overgrowth. He contends that promoting biomass means cleaner forests — and fewer, or at least smaller, blazes.

He said that’s part of the reason for a big push now. “If I miss this opportunity, I miss another fire season,” he said. “I can’t wait to 2019.”

Initiative supporters say nuclear plants are not clean energy, citing the effects of uranium mining on the surrounding communities. And there’s that whole “what to do with the nuclear waste once the fuel rods are spent” question no one seems ready to answer.

But…no matter what the outcome, Tobin’s filing on July 5 means he is concerned Steyer’s ballot initiative has the backing of the majority of Arizonans, and he wants to head it off at the pass. It will be interesting to see whether Steyer takes the Nevada approach of putting the issue before the voters or whether he’s willing to negotiate with the ACC over the nuclear issue. Stay tuned – this one could get really interesting really quickly.

More:

Arizona regulator’s proposal: Require 80 percent renewable energy by 2050

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Opposition to President Donald J. Trump’s policies seem to be falling away at an increasingly rapid pace – one more obstacle to his nuclear and coal bailout has gone by the wayside.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Robert Powelson, who had steadfastly opposed the plans to prop up failing nuclear and coal plants unexpectedly announced that he will retire from FERC effective in mid-August. Powelson will be leaving to take over as the president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies.

Losing a staunch ally in the fight over the bailout at this stage does not bode well for the future of the opposition and makes it ever more likely that that plan, currently being hatched in secret at the Department of Energy under Secretary Rick Perry, will come to fruition – and that means a significant obstacle for solar’s continued growth.

As we’ve discussed here before, the idea of bailing out failing coal and nuclear plants when viable renewable replacements exist is the height of folly. Studies have shown that instead of lowering electricity costs for average Americans, the bailout plan will in fact raise prices. And in the light of such dire news for their constituents? Crickets from the alleged defenders of the common people.

In fact, Perry recently said that he was willing to put his mythical “energy security” concerns – his argument about the need for “baseload power” is so full of holes it might as well be Swiss cheese – above the financial stability of most Americans. It’s mind-boggling that people who spent a decade decrying bank and automobile bailouts as “picking winners and losers” (something they suggest should be decided instead by a 300-year old invisible hand) are now about to spend billions in taxpayer money to rescue energy sources whose time has long passed – and to whom viable alternatives already exist.

Losing Powelson to the water companies deals an enormous blow to the side of reason in the coal and nuclear bailout debate. Here’s hoping the other opponents remain steadfast in opposing this enormous waste of taxpayer money.