by admin | Jul 31, 2020 | News and Updates, Regulatory
While
so many Arizonans are preoccupied with COVID-19 numbers, Presidential bids, a
destabilized economy and an uncertain school
year, the already obscure Arizona Corporation Commission
has quietly released their plan to impose California-style energy mandates in Arizona.
As drafted, the proposed energy mandate will lead to skyrocketing utility bills, ban future natural gas development and generation in Arizona, provide billions in subsidies and
corporate welfare for inefficient and costly
energy sources and ignores the will
of the voters that have
already spoken and oppose a statewide
energy
mandate.
The
Commission is intentionally pushing controversial policies during a crisis
Aside from the multiple policy concerns the Club has with this proposal, it is extremely
disconcerting and unfair to the ratepayers of Arizona that the commission is even considering
moving forward with such a sweeping proposal during the current pandemic.
It is hard enough during normal times for citizens to engage in the byzantine format at the
corporation commission. The entire process is confusing, lacks transparency and caters to the
lawyers, lobbyists and political insiders who know how to
use the system to their benefit.
Now, in the middle of a pandemic, the commission is forging ahead with sweeping new energy mandates while the public is focused on other critical issues. Even if the public was fully aware
of what the commission is considering, due to social distancing and other Covid-19 restrictions,
it is more difficult than ever for regular people to engage in the process. On the flipside, the
insiders at the commission benefit from this arrangement because it amplifies their voice and influence at the commission.
Mandate will lead to higher utility bills
No matter how proponents
attempt to spin this, imposing their own version of the Green New Deal will lead to higher utility bills for customers. This is because
the proposal punishes any
source of energy that does
not meet this “clean” definition, irrespective of cost.
As has been pointed out by Commissioner Justin Olson in the past, the current 15% mandate imposed by
the Commission in 2007 led
to ratepayers overpaying for their electricity by
over $1 Billion Dollars. This was caused largely by forcing utilities to adopt renewable energy sources with
little regard to the cost of construction or generation. It is inevitable that this new proposal will
suffer the same costly
result.
This proposal does not require utility providers or the commission to prioritize affordability
regarding clean energy sources. Instead it imposes large scale mandates for clean sources and
ignores the cost implications for ratepayers.
The good news for supporters of clean energy technology is
that
ratepayer affordability
can be prioritized while
developing some types of clean
energy. For
example, industrial grade solar is now selling for as little as 3 cents/kilowatt when operating at
peak
levels, beating other fossil fuel competitors and nuclear. Industrial grade solar could easily
be paired with other base load power sources (such as natural gas) that would be a win-win for
ratepayers and supporters of clean energy.
Proposal Bans Future Natural Gas Development
It is clear from the staff proposal that the long-term goal of this clean energy mandate is to ban
future fossil fuel use in Arizona, including the development and construction of natural gas power plants. Suffice to say this would
be a huge mistake and very
costly for ratepayers.
Natural gas has become one of the cheapest, most reliable and
clean energy sources
available in the United States. This is largely due to the fracking boom, which has guaranteed our energy security
and independence for
decades
to come.
Additionally, natural
gas is by far the most affordable and
dependable fuel to
use in conjunction with
industrial grade solar. The idea
that
the
commission is going
to ban this source from future
expansion is a disastrous policy decision
that will damage both ratepayers and our economy.
Corporate Welfare for Rooftop
Solar
Included in the energy mandate proposal is a requirement for clean energy generation to come from rooftop solar. It is difficult to see how the inclusion of
this policy carve-out as a required clean energy source as anything more than a
special interest giveaway to a politically connected group at the Commission.
Lazard is a
nationally recognized firm that produces an annual report showing the true cost of energy production by different sources,
both subsidized and unsubsidized. Not surprisingly, the report shows that natural gas, industrial grade solar
and geothermal are the
most cost-effective sources of energy. The most expensive? Residential Rooftop Solar. And it’s
not even close.
Given the superior energy alternatives that exist (including various types of solar energy generation), it makes no
sense to force ratepayers to pay higher utility bills to subsidize more rooftop
solar. The only
beneficiaries from
this corporate welfare are
the rooftop solar companies
that will be
cashing in on the mandate.
Proposed Rules Ignore the
Will of the Voters
In November 2018, Arizona voters
soundly rejected the idea of increasing renewable energy
standards. Ratepayers recognized that increasing the renewable energy mandate would
result in higher utility bills and potentially destabilize the power grid. That is why 68% of Arizona voters rejected the idea.
Yet
the proposed energy rules and amendments being offered by Commissioner Burns and Kennedy are almost a carbon copy of what voters opposed. It appears they don’t care what voters
think and that they know better.
Fortunately,
we are still in the early stages of the rulemaking process at the Corporation
Commission, which means voters still have time to have their voices heard. We cannot let the commission adopt their own
version of the Green New Deal that will be disastrous for Arizona ratepayers and the economy.
by admin | Jul 29, 2020 | Misc, News and Updates
The would-be school year is fast
approaching and thousands of parents across Arizona are panicking.
How will their children learn
this year? When will they have a
physical place to go? Will parents be
able to return to work? Will they have
to pay for tutors out of pocket?
With most of the critical
reopening decisions now in the hands of Superintendent Kathy Hoffman, school
districts and ultimately the teachers’ union, it’s obvious now that crafting a
system that works for parents and kids won’t be the top priority for the
educational establishment. Every
decision from here on out will be to cater to the desires of administrators and
teachers. Period.
Come August 17th,
district school families will be forced to accept whatever dysfunctional
Covid-schooling platform that is thrusted into their laps. Parents of low-income families will be hit the
hardest, especially those who can’t work from home. Special needs children will
be hung out to dry. Kids in abusive households will continue to have no escape
from a hostile environment.
And if any parent or taxpayer
questions why their needs appear to be secondary to those of the educational
establishment, they are immediately shouted down and told that they just want
people to die. So what if your child
needs in person learning—you should just accept paying unlimited amounts in taxes
to feed a substandard educational system that only adds to the chaos in your
life.
Even more infuriating is the “solution”
now being offered to parents that require in person schooling to address their
work/life situations. Rather than open up for learning, several school
districts are now offering paid
childcare services.
That’s right – residents already
paying over half of their state taxes to education are now expected to pay
to have their kids in school to not learn. Representatives of the teachers’ union claim it
is too risky to teach kids in a classroom, but apparently it is plenty safe to not
teach them in a classroom.
Parents and kids deserve better
than this.
Families were willing to extend
grace at the end of the school year when districts scrambled to reformat the
educational experience for online and distant learning. The legislature passed emergency
measures to ensure funding would be uninterrupted. And instead of
developing a real plan that catered to families that MUST HAVE in person
learning, the school districts and education lobby instead put all their time
and energy into a public relations campaign to push back the start date of
school to October 1st.
It should be noted that there are
many schoolteachers and administrators ready and willing to resume in person
learning. Afterall, through the peaks
and valleys of the pandemic, essential workers have stepped up and done their
jobs. Truck workers continued to deliver
critical goods, grocery store workers continued to stock shelves, and doctors
and nurses continued to man hospitals and treat the unwell. Those teachers that recognize that education
is an essential service and wish to provide in person learning to our children
should not be stopped by administrators and union thug bosses.
If district schools believe that
there is no limit to the mistreatment of hardworking families, they are in for
a rude awakening. Most parents are very
supportive of their local district school, but they will have no problem
walking away from a broken K-12 system if it benefits their child.
They may not be vocal or have
active twitter accounts, but these parents are paying attention and are wide
awake to this rolling disaster. They are thinking creatively about education and
observing more closely than ever the best ways in which their children
learn. This will lead to rapid
innovation and adoption of flexible models.
Post-pandemic, there may very
well be an explosive demand for testing new educational models, from micro-schools,
“forest schools,” digital classrooms, to expanded ESAs. An educational Renaissance is a possible and
welcome outcome.
by admin | Jul 23, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
There is an obvious reason why our state
is constantly being preyed upon by out of state interests,
pushing radical ideas every cycle at the ballot box as “citizen initiatives”.
Arizona has exceptionally low standards for qualification compared to other
states.
Despite extremely high stakes,
(if an initiative passes it is basically permanent and can never be changed),
none of the best practices applied in other states have been adopted. A measure only requires a simple majority
passage. Proponents do not need buy-in
from the whole state, only the major metropolitan areas. There is no required sunset on the measure to
allow an ever-changing electorate to revisit the issue. And a measure need not be restricted to just
one subject but instead may be packed with a myriad of policies even if the
campaign only ever promotes one “winning” issue. Even up to two years ago, campaigns could
hire felons to collect signatures.
Most citizens intuitively know
there is something wrong with the initiative process. Polling done in 2019 demonstrated clearly
that voters believe these measures are intentionally misleading and confusing. Of those polled, 70 percent of individuals
were concerned with ballot language being confusing and the intent difficult to
understand. This applied across party
lines.
And groups pushing these initiatives
have fully taken advantage of the confusion and lack of guardrails.
Therefore, it was a major win in
2018 when groups challenged the InvestInEd initiative’s 100-word description
for being misleading to voters and the courts
ruled in their favor. The
education union had very clearly made several serious misrepresentations in
their description to voters, by both omitting the fact that all taxpayers were
going to see a tax increase as well as wrongly confusing their tax on the rich
as percent increases not percentage-point increases.
This set a new and needed
precedent. Initiative proponents cannot
lie to voters to make their initiative seem more palatable. In other circumstances, lying for material
benefit is called fraud.
These radical measures are back
this year and luckily so are the legal challenges. Although the education union
has done much to rewrite the 2018 version of InvestInEd in their effort to make
the public more accepting of a massive new tax increase, they have still failed
to be completely transparent about what the measure purports to do. Challengers are again making the argument
that the 100-word summary of the petition which is usually what singers read
(not the entire initiative language) omits critical information about the
measure including that many businesses and higher income persons would see an
almost 80 percent increase in their taxes.
The description also fails to mention that new funds generated do not
only go to teachers but to any non-administrative employee.
Hopefully, the courts make the
right decision again and do not erode the previous legal determinations. Afterall, given the few safeguards in place
to qualify a measure, the very least we can expect is proponents are not
allowed to obfuscate the truth to get their proposal passed.
by admin | Jul 16, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
Arizona’s primary election took a
strange twist this week when campaign finance reports revealed an obscure out-of-state
group had
dumped nearly $300,000 into Republican primary races throughout the
state.
The mysterious group, Unite
America, is spending big money to elect a slate of liberal Republicans facing
tough primary opposition from conservative challengers. Their targets include
supporting Heather
Carter in LD 15, Michelle
Udall in LD 25 and Joanne
Osborne in LD 13. Most of their spending has been used to attack
their conservative opponents, attempting to paint them as either unethical or
closet liberals.
Who is Unite America? Until a
couple of years ago, they were a boutique organization based out of Denver,
Colorado that advocated for liberal niche issues such as independent
redistricting, in-home universal voting and ranked
choice voting.
That all changed
last year when New York billionaire Kathryn Murdoch, daughter-in-law to
Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch, became their co-chair and primary
funder. The liberal Murdoch has been active with both the Clinton
Foundation and Clinton Climate Initiative and donated
nearly $90,000 to the Hillary victory fund in 2016. She is an outspoken Never-Trumper who supports giveaways
to illegal immigrants, radical green new
deal policies and Mike Bloomberg’s gun control agenda.
After she started bankrolling
Unite America, Kathryn Murdoch has used the group to target conservatives in
heavily republican districts around the country in an effort to replace them
with moderate/liberal politicians who will back her agenda and vote with
Democrats. She has pledged $100 Million
to these efforts, and now Arizona is in her crosshairs.
Based on the attacks levied so
far, it is pretty obvious they will say or do anything to succeed in their
quest, even if it means exposing themselves as unprincipled. For instance, in
Legislative District 15 Unite America is distributing attack ads claiming that
conservative Nancy Barto is a Hillary
Clinton supporter that wanted her to be president. That’s
right, the same New York Billionaire that worked for the Clinton Foundation,
the Clinton Climate Initiative and supported Hillary for president is now
funding anti-Hillary hit pieces against conservatives in a Republican Primary.
It doesn’t get much swampier than that.
So, to all Arizona Primary voters
in LD 13, LD 15 and LD 25—just say no to liberal New York Billionaires looking
to buy elections in our state. These Never-Trumpers would not have parachuted
into Arizona throwing money around if they did not believe their preferred
candidates would deliver for them on open borders, gun control and the green
new deal. Make sure to back the true conservatives in these races:
- Steve
Montenegro and Tim Dunn in LD 13
- Nancy
Barto in LD 15
- Kathy
Pearce and Rusty Bowers in LD 25
Vote for these candidates and
tell these out of state liberal billionaires to take a hike.
by admin | Jul 14, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
At a time when our country is witnessing
unprecedented social upheaval and the undermining of the rule of law, the last thing Arizona
needs is a liberal group from California funded by George Soros infiltrating
our state to rewrite our criminal justice laws.
Yet that is exactly what the “Second Chances”
initiative would do if passed in November. Unlike other sensible criminal
justice reform efforts, this jail-break initiative would gut much needed
protections to stop the release of dangerous predators into our neighborhoods
and eliminate essential reporting and transparency requirements used to track
criminal trends in the state.
Over the last several years the Free Enterprise
Club has been a strong advocate for reasonable criminal justice reform efforts,
including measured expansions of earned release credits for non-violent felons,
requiring a criminal conviction in civil asset forfeiture cases, and ensuring
individuals with a record can obtain any required licenses for employment.
Many of these common-sense reforms were opposed by the very liberal groups now pushing this initiative,
leaving one to question whether their commitment to criminal justice reform is
more about politics than good public policy.
Soros Initiative Goes Too
Far, Too Fast
When it comes to improving the criminal justice
pool, one toe at a time makes the most sense.
Every tweak has consequences intended and unintended. Unlike many other areas of policy, those
consequences can leave literal carnage in their wake. “Second Chances” dives head-first.
For example, the initiative significantly
expands the state’s Earned Release Credits (ERC) program by allowing for as
much as a 50% reduction in an inmate’s sentence as well as making more felons
eligible for the program.
Which criminals would benefit from the new ERC
program? Felons that defrauded an
elderly couple out of their life savings, con artists engaging in extorsion and
anyone convicted of selling fentanyl-laced drugs to minors. Also, violent offenses that are pled down to
non-violent offenses would be eligible as well. There is no exception or
consideration for persons serving for non-violent offenses who are a part of a
“security threat group” i.e. a gang member from being released early.
And perhaps worst of all, current law does not
allow inmates who were previously convicted of a violent or aggravated felony
to be eligible. “Second Chances”
eliminates that exception. Even if
someone is serving for a drug offense currently, if they previously served 25
years for 2nd degree murder, they should not be treated the same as
the person who does not have a violent record.
The backers of the measure are clearly worried
that their initiative will lead to more crime.
It is probably why they purposefully removed the reporting requirements by
the Department of Corrections designed to collect meaningful data on any earned
release credit program. This intentional
shift to remove transparency and accountability is a way to cover their tracks
and dodge blame for creating more victims.
Furthermore, the initiative makes sweeping changes
to the state’s mandatory sentencing system. The initiative eliminates the
ability to charge repetitive offenders (such as someone who burglarizes 10
homes) more severely than someone who committed just one offense. Giving judges
complete discretion to deviate from sentencing guidelines will lead to a wide
spectrum of arbitrary sentences for the same offenses.
Initiative is Being Pushed by
the Liberal Tides Network
So, who could possibly want to take a wrecking
ball to Arizona’s criminal justice system?
The answer is liberal Silicon Valley residents who do not have to live
in our neighborhoods once the prison doors swing wide open. Second Chances is being bankrolled by Tides Advocacy, an arm of the Tides nexus
that is funded by liberal billionaire George Soros.
It isn’t enough they’ve destroyed their own
state.
In 2014 these same groups pushed Proposition 47
in California, which significantly lowered penalties for several criminal
offenses. Since then, property crimes and drug offenses have gone
through the roof, adding to an already serious homelessness problem. Fraudsters and organized theft rings are migrating
to the state, knowing these offenses are no longer felonies and if caught,
are likely not to be charged by county attorneys.
A coordinated jail break is just the start of
the madness.
Criminal Justice Should NEVER
be Done at the Ballot Box
The area of criminal justice reform is too
complex and the effects too severe to be decided at the ballot box. This is especially prescient given our
inability to change voter approved laws due to the Voter Protection Act. The drafters of “Second Chances” included
language to make it clear that the legislature may only expand the generous
benefits provided to convicted felons, they are not allowed to roll them back.
Backers are sure to spend a lot of time talking
about the “Victim and First Responder” fund that is set up by transferring
money from revenues from medicinal marijuana under this measure. Which is
fitting because the initiative is sure to lead to a lot more victims.
Ultimately, Arizonans would be wise to not
invite more chaos into our state.
“Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety Act” is not about
justice and it is not about compassion. It
will damage public safety, harm victims and is a tool being used by the left to
further promote their agenda. Voters would be wise to vote NO come November.
by admin | Jul 2, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
When Arizona’s founding fathers sought
to include a voter initiative process in Arizona’s constitution, the intended purpose
was to provide regular citizens with a check against wealthy special interests and
political insiders that often dominate the legislative process.
Yet it appears that the very
system designed to curtail the influence of wealthy billionaires and the
political establishment has been taken over by them. Even worse, the hijacking
of the initiative process has been carried out primarily by out of state
special interests parachuting into Arizona to buy their way onto the ballot box.
In 2018, all of the high-profile
ballot measures that qualified for the ballot were primarily funded by California
billionaires and special
interest groups. This campaign cycle is no different. Four initiatives
appear to be on track to qualify for the November ballot. All four are being bankrolled
by deep pocketed unions and liberal special interest groups from outside the
state:
- Healthcare
Rising is an initiative seeking to make several radical changes to
Arizona’s hospital system, has received
99.5 percent of their funding from the California chapter of
the Services Employee International Union. Of the $3.2 million they have raised
to date, only $14,000 (in the form of an in-kind contribution) has come from
Arizona.
- Criminal
Justice Reform measure looking to overhaul Arizona’s sentencing
guidelines has been 100
percent funded by Oakland based Tides Advocacy; a well-financed
501(C)(4) organization with close ties to George Soros and other major
progressive donors.
- Invest in
Ed
is an education measure looking to double the state income tax on small
businesses and high earners in the state. Of their funding, 90
percent has come from Stand for Children, Inc., a liberal education
group located in Portland, Oregon.
- Smart and
Safe
is a proposal seeking to legalize marijuana in Arizona. Nearly
half
of their funding is from large dispensary corporations throughout the country
who stand to profit immensely from the exclusive licenses that they will be
granted if the ballot measure passes.
Arizona’s initiative process was
never intended to be a petri dish for experimental policy cooked up by wealthy
special interests from around the country. Yet that is what the process has
devolved into because of the low standards that exist to purchase your way onto
the ballot.
Based on the current signature
requirements and constitutional protections for paying circulators to collect
signatures, it is possible to gather enough signatures to qualify a measure for
the ballot for around $2 Million dollars.
Though to most Arizonans that
sounds like a lot of money, for wealthy donors and political players in
California or Washington DC looking to promote radical reforms, $2 million is a
small sum of money. Add in the fact that the initiative process is often seen
as a way to increase voter turnout and force your political opponents to spend
precious resources battling you at the ballot box, these types of financial investments
are a no-brainer.
Can Arizona’s initiative process
be fixed to protect it from outside influence? It’s possible, but it will
require reforms geared toward increasing transparency and requiring more local
support and involvement when collecting signatures for the ballot.
One reform worth considering is a
geographic distribution requirement for signature collection. Under current
Arizona law, initiative measures are not required to gather signatures from
around the state in order to qualify for the ballot. Any group can make the
ballot simply by gathering signatures from one large city or county.
Stipulating that initiatives must
gather signatures from every legislative district would make it much more
difficult for out of state special interests to parachute into Arizona and flood
the Phoenix Metro area with paid circulators. Additionally, rural communities
would gain a voice in the process since initiative groups would have to build
support for their ideas in all corners of the state. Of the 27 states with a
voter initiative or referendum process, 15 require a geographic distribution of
signatures.
Another solution would be to
limit the number of topics that may be included in an initiative. One factor
that has made Arizona’s ballot measure process so attractive to groups around
the country is the ability to include multiple issues in the same measure.
Often referred to as log rolling, campaigns will include a few unrelated
popular provisions in the initiative in order to provide political cover for
other sweeping reforms of which voters are unaware. A single subject requirement,
which already exists for all bills proposed at the legislature, would eliminate
log rolling and reduce voter confusion at the ballot.
Arizona’s initiative process
should not be for sale. It especially should not be controlled by special
interests with deep pockets and no ties to our state. Fixing this problem won’t
be easy, but should be an issue all Arizonans can rally around.
Recent Comments