Depending on who you ask, Proposition 127 will either usher in an era of clean energy and low costs — or burden Arizonans with doubled rates and overloaded power grids.
On Nov. 6, Arizona voters will decide on the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative, or Proposition 127, a constitutional mandate which would require all electrical utilities to source at least 50 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2030. This would be a sharp increase from current regulations, which aim to source 15 percent by 2025.
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona and NextGen Climate Action head the campaign in support of Prop. 127. DJ Quinlan, the spokesman for Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, said the proposition is in the best interest of the public.
“Despite how sunny we are, we only get 6 percent of our energy from solar,” he said. “Frankly, people want more solar power.”
The ballot would push for greater reliance on wind and solar power. He claims this shift would lower monthly rates, create new jobs and decrease levels of air pollution and associated health risks.
Furthermore, Quinlan said this proposition is necessary to change the agenda of Arizona Public Service Company, or APS, which he said continues to “hold us back.”
“APS would do just fine converting to renewable energy – but they have focused on gas instead,” he said. “They are hell-bent on protecting their profits… they’re doing it at the cost of our health.”
“We need to pass 127 to force them to actually do what makes the most sense which is build more solar power,” Quinlan said.
Arizonans for Affordable Electricity, the main organization opposing the proposition, claims otherwise. Matthew Benson, the group’s spokesman, said the proposition is unnecessary and prioritizes external agendas over Arizona families.
“Nobody provided input into Prop. 127,” he said. “This is a plan straight out of California, financially backed by out-of-state interests. It is the opposite of an Arizona plan.”
The committee is fearful for a number of reasons, including the proposition’s impact on utility bills and the future of the Palo Verde nuclear reactor.
“There is broad consensus that Prop. 127 will increase what you pay for the energy you need to cool your home,” Benson said. The Arizonans for Affordable Electricity website estimates that the average Arizonan would would have to pay upwards of a thousand dollars annually as a result.
Jill Hanks, a communications consultant for APS, voiced the utility company’s opposition in an email saying the proposition will be “bad for customers.”
“This initiative by California billionaire Tom Steyer will dramatically increase electricity bills, kill thousands of jobs, eliminate millions in tax revenue, potentially increase carbon emissions in Arizona and make our state a less attractive place to do business,” she wrote.
The multitude of claims, sourced studies and contradictions between the ballot committees leave a great many questions for voters. Will utility bills jump to compensate for new infrastructure? Will the proposition lead to more natural gas usage and, as a result, more air pollution? Is the goal of 50 percent feasible in less than 20 years?
The Residential Utility Consumer Office, or RUCO, the state agency tasked with representing Arizona ratepayers before the Arizona Corporation Commission, are against the proposition and believe it would raise utility rates for consumers.
David P. Tenney, the agency’s director, wrote in a RUCO press release: “As the state’s ratepayer advocate, I am in support of increasing the state’s utilization of renewable energy in ways that do not compromise the ratepayers’ access to affordable energy.”
RUCO’s independence, however, has been challenged by both Quinlan and Ryan Randazzo, a journalist for the Arizona Republic who has written about the ties between APS and RUCO.
In a short essay for the digital magazine Green Living, Paul Hirt, an Arizona State University professor of environmental policy and sustainability studies, wrote that the proposition is a reasonable and achievable initiative.
Hirt warns voters against propaganda from both supporters and detractors when it comes to potential costs and benefits, saying they are largely based on assumptions.
“It’s helpful to remember that these are predictions of what might happen as a result of the ballot initiative, not guarantees of what will happen,” he writes. “The energy sector is changing faster than anyone expected. Ideas deemed implausible just a few years ago are becoming mainstream now.”
Using a recent example, Hirt pointed out the claim that renewable sources will increase rates isn’t supported by nearby redevelopment.
“A large traditional for-profit utility in Colorado called Xcel Energy announced this summer it will close two coal-fired plants and replace them with wind, solar, and storage, which they say will get them to 55 percent renewable energy by 2026 and save customers several hundred million dollars,” he wrote.
Hirt also referenced Pacific Gas and Electric’s closure of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant which, “reduced the cost of service and save ratepayers money.”
Furthermore, in response to fears of out-of-state influence and corporate support through campaign donations, Hirt’s essay said the donations were the nature of modern day political campaigns.
According to Ballotpedia, NextGen Climate Action donated over $8 million in support of the proposition. The Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the parent company of APS, donated over $11 million to the campaign’s opposition. In Hirt’s words, “Pick your favorite mega-donor.”
Regardless of the outcome, it’s clear that renewable energy will be an ongoing discussion, one that Arizona voters and utility companies will continue to debate beyond this year’s campaigns.
“Either way, a goal of 50 percent renewable energy for Arizona is reasonable, incremental, and eminently achievable,” Hirt wrote. “Whether we get there via Prop 127 or some other means, we will get there. The question is only how and when.”
Contact the reporter at ghofer@asu.edu.
Gabe Hofer was the multimedia director at Downtown Devil.
