Voters will decide state renewable-energy rules

Voters will decide in November whether Arizona’s Constitution should require electric companies to get half their electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind.

Proposition 127, as the ballot measure is known, survived a challenge at the Arizona Supreme Court on Wednesday, likely its final legal challenge.

The court denied an appeal to a Maricopa County Superior Court decision from Monday that challenged the signatures collected to put the measure on the ballot and description of the measure.

The proposal continues to face stiff opposition from the state’s biggest utility, Arizona Public Service Co., and a host of chambers of commerce and other institutions that have aligned with the company.

It is backed by the advocacy network funded by Tom Steyer, a wealthy California activist who has pushed similar renewable-energy measures in other states. He also is funding voter registration events in multiple states, including Arizona.

Prop. 127 would require electric companies to rely on solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other renew-

able power sources for half their supply by 2030, and would not count nuclear towards that goal.

“This decision is great news for all Arizonans who want a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations,” said DJ Quinlan, spokesman for the campaign. “This ruling is the final nail in the coffin of APS’ failed strategy to deny Arizonans a choice on clean renewable energy.”

The Arizona Corporation Commission now requires electric companies to get 8 percent of their power from renewables, increasing to 15 percent by 2025.

The requirement is not enshrined in the Constitution, allowing regulators discretion in how they enforce the rules. Commissioners are considering an increase to 80 percent by 2050 and counting the output of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 50 miles west of Phoenix toward that goal.

Arizona Public Service’s parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., which has shareholders across the country who invest in the company’s stock, spent about $11 million fighting the measure.

It encouraged voters not to sign the petition that put the measure on the ballot fought the proposition in court.

“We disagree strongly with (Wednesday’s) decision and that of the trial court, but knew from the start that the process of challenging signature petitions would be an uphill fight,” said Matthew Benson, spokesman for the Arizonans for Affordable Electricity opposition effort.

“Our focus now shifts to ensuring every Arizona family, senior, small-business owner and ratepayer knows Prop 127 will increase their electricity bills.”

The two sides of the ballot measure disagree vehemently over whether the measure will raise costs for electric customers.

Arizona Public Service officials said that pushing so much new solar and other renewable energy on the power grid will result in a glut of power in mild seasons when the renewable energy plants make a lot of power while consumer demand is lower.

That situation would mean curtailing power output from Palo Verde and coal plants, eventually making them uneconomical and forcing their closure, Arizona Public Service officials said. Those closures and the costs of new renewable-energy plants would be passed on to utility customers, opponents say.

“This campaign isn’t about clean energy — everyone supports clean energy,” Benson said. “The question is whether Arizona voters are willing to double their electricity bills in order to approve Prop 127.”

The measure’s proponents have no problem with the early retirement of coal plants, which utilities nationwide are phasing out because they are less competitive costwise given cheap natural gas and renewables.

Coal plants also are reviled by environmentalists for their carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

Nuclear plants don’t have direct carbon emissions, so they face less opposition from environmentalists concerned primarily with climate change. Steyer said Arizona Public Service is overstating the threat to the nuclear plant to rile opposition to the measure.

“APS does not own that nuclear plant. They are an investor along with six other groups so they can’t close it,” Steyer said recently. “All of the studies show, that are not done by APS, that in fact, that plant would stay open.”

Arizona Public Service is one of multiple owners of the nuclear plant. But the company also is the majority owner and the operator, giving it a larger say in how the plant runs.

California utilities already are facing the problem Arizona Public Service officials hope to avoid with surplus energy in mild seasons. California utilities often pay Arizona companies to take that surplus power on those mild days, a phenomenon called “negative pricing.”

If Arizona faced a similar glut, it would no longer be able to take advantage of negative-priced power coming from California and would instead be in search of a way to manage its own surplus.

The Arizona measure’s supporters have been heartened by recent news in Colorado, where that state’s big electric company, Xcel Energy, has a regulatorapproved plan to close coal plants and increase renewable use to 55 percent.

That plan is estimated to save customers $213 million in the long term.

The Colorado measure passed Monday on a 2-1 vote by the state’s Public Utilities Commission. The dissenting vote came from Commissioner Wendy Moser, who was concerned that the early retirement of coal plant and new construction costs of renewables would increase customer bills.

Also this week, the California lawmakers approved a bill that if signed by the governor would require the state get 100 percent of their power from “clean” sources by 2045. That plan would include nuclear power.

Because Southern California Edison, the Southern California Public Power Authority and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power co-own Palo Verde, the measure could shore up support for keeping the Arizona nuclear plant operating.