Prop 127 inspires much debate
Local lawmakers weigh in on issue
Should Arizona’s constitution require electricity providers to get at least half of their power from renewable energy resources, less than 12 years from now?
It’s the question posed by Proposition 127, a November ballot initiative with a relatively simple goal, but which inspires endless debate about the effects of trying to get there.
Proponents say requiring utilities to shift to solar, wind and other renewable energy sources would improve air quality and reduce electrical bills at the same time, as the cost of producing renewable energy is going down.
D.J. Quinlan, spokesman for Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, said the group collected 480,000 signatures statewide to put the renewable energy measure on the ballot, and if passed it will take Arizona’s development into a new direction.
“Arizona’s not a state that’s stalled out in growth. It’s growing very rapidly, and regardless of what happens with 127, we’re going to have to produce 50 percent more electricity, during this time period than we do now.
“So regardless of what happens, we’re building a ton of new infrastructure. The big question is, are we going to build a ton of new
natural gas plants, or are we going to build solar and wind infrastructure?”
Opponents contend the switch to renewables will send power bills soaring and force the closure of the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generation Station, which now provides about 30 percent of the state’s power and employs about 2,000.
Arizonans for Affordable Electricity spokesman Matthew Benson said electricity costs are projected to double for customers of APS, the utility which powers much of Arizona including Yuma County, if the ballot initiative passes.
This is according to a study done by Arizona State University’s Seldman Research Institute, which also found that electricity costs would go up nearly $2,000 a year per household by 2030 if Proposition 127 is approved.
“This is a pocketbook issue. It’s going to hurt seniors, it’s going to hurt young families, and it’s going to hurt small business,” he said.
Quinlan said a recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that Palo Verde can stay open in a post-Proposition 127 world, even though nuclear energy does not meet its definition of renewable.
“Should this initiative pass, our modeling suggests that Palo Verde will continue to be unaffected and will continue to operate,” Quinlan said. So in other words we’re going to go to 50 percent renewable energy, which is largely wind and solar, mostly solar, and another 30 percent that’s nuclear, that’s also clean, which is overall a good scenario for us.”
Still, the measure’s opponents have lined up public officials from Yuma County and all four of its municipalities on its side. State Rep. Tim Dunn, R-Yuma, has also come out against it, in no small part because his district runs north into Maricopa County and includes the nuclear plant.
Going forward and hoping Palo Verde is able to stay open “is not a risk I’m willing to take,” he said.
He added. “I don’t have anything against solar, but when the government subsidizes the industry to get it kickstarted, they’re trying to subsidize an industry to make it mainstream, and stop what I view as clean power, as opposed to coal, though there’s a debate about clean coal.”
Another state representative from Yuma, Democrat Charlene Fernandez, said she has supported Proposition 127 from the beginning, circulating petitions in the area to get it on the ballot.
Referring to the opposition campaign, she said, “that’s a good way to stir people, they say we’re going to lose jobs and our rates are going to go up. But here in Yuma County, we know how high our rates are already, and we need to do something. We need to do something different.
“I am thinking that if, for whatever reason, when it passes there are some problems with it, that’s what the Legislature is there for. With a two-thirds vote we can fix it and make it better.”
She said with the amount of sunshine Yuma gets, it could be a model for the rest of the country for the use of solar energy. “But we’re not going to be if we continue to say, ‘we can’t, we can’t, we can’t’.”