AG wrong to tinker with Prop. 127

Supporters of a ballot measure that would require utilities to increase reliance on renewable energy accuse state Attorney General Mark Brnovich of trying to sabotage their efforts.

They have a fair case.

In the explanatory portion of Proposition 127 on the Nov. 6 ballot, the Attorney General’s Office added language that said utilities would need to meet the clean-energy requirements “irrespective of cost to consumers.”

The proposition mandates that renewables account for 50 percent of utilities’ energy sales by 2030.

The wording represents a doublewhammy to the potential success of the measure: It not only declares that if Prop. 127 passed, utilities have to meet new renewables standards regardless of the costs consumers must bear — but it implies that those costs are a given.

In taking upon itself to add such questionable language, the AG’s Office ignored several cautionary signs.

First is the very decision to intercede on the partisan issue of clean energy.

The measure pits California billionaire Tom Steyer — he’s the primary donor in support of Prop. 127 — and the progressives who back his solar-energy mantra against utilities, namely Arizona Public Service and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. The latter is linked to hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which poured tons of money into Brnovich’s campaign against his Democratic opponent in 2014.

The optics aren’t favorable. Regardless, the onus is on the AG’s office to justify adding language that plays to APS’ very argument and tips the scale on public perception.

Brnovich’s acting civil division chief contends that the “irrespective of costs” description helps “ensure that voters of all persuasions on this are able to understand what a ‘yes’ vote accomplishes.”

It doesn’t quite do that. Because while APS and Pinnacle West are spending millions to fight Prop. 127 on the premise that clean-energy mandates would mean that Arizona consumers pay higher utility bills, that premise does not go unchallenged. Republic reporter Ryan Randazzo notes that Colorado regulators recently approved a plan for Xcel Energy to close coal plants and increase renewable use to 55 percent — a plan that is estimated to save customers $213 million in the long term.

Then there was the red flag raised by State Elections Director Eric Spencer, who fashioned the original description language of Prop. 127 before it was tweaked by Brnovich’s aide. Spencer cautioned in an Aug. 29 email to the AG’s office that the revised language is “certainly eyebrow-raising because it cites information exogenous to the ballot measure itself.”

That is, cost is not mentioned in the proposition itself, which means any extrapolation or conclusion about such expenses would be best left to the pro and con arguments that vested interests make to voters.

Which brings up the third sign the AG’s office ignored.

Each voter-initiated proposition that qualifies for the ballot is by law evaluated by the nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee for its fiscal impact.

On Prop. 127, the JLBC notes that the impact is “difficult to quantify in advance, especially since it (the measure) would not be fully implemented until 2030.”

The group carefully avoids drawing a conclusion on costs associated with mandating more use of renewable energy, and alludes to the lack of consensus in assessment studies.

“In the intervening years, technology changes may significantly affect the cost of producing both renewable and non-renewable energy,” the group says in its summary. “In addition, current studies have produced varying estimates of the economic impact of higher renewable energy requirements.”

It’s plausible that both sides of Prop. 127 are right — that short-term, ramping up renewables could produce greater expenses that are passed onto consumers, and long-term, those costs produce savings (and a cleaner environment). And that by 2030, or before that or after that, the costs and savings are a wash.

The “irrespective of cost” language grafted onto Prop. 127 certainly doesn’t support that.