Bill Would Prohibit All Fracking Operations In Arizona Despite Current Test Wells

Bill Would Prohibit All Fracking Operations In Arizona Despite Current Test Wells

A Tucson legislator wants to outlaw hydraulic fracturing in Arizona, despite long-standing efforts by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to facilitate energy projects in the state that utilize the practice.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a method of extracting oil, natural gas, CO2, and helium by injecting fluid into subterranean rock formations at high pressure. The pressure dissolve dense underground rocks, creating “fractures” from which the valuable gas can be extracted.

Arizona has about 30 active oil and natural gas wells, nearly all in Apache County in the northeastern part of the state where test-fracking operations have primarily focused on extracting CO2 and helium. Fracking is already governed by a number of federal laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, while state regulations are supervised by ADEQ.

And according to the Arizona Geological Survey, part of the 90-million-year-old Mancos Shale lies under northeastern Arizona, making its 60-billion-barrel formation a valuable future domestic energy source which may be best accessed by fracking methods. But HB2199 as introduced by Rep. Andres Cano (D-LD3) would add a statute outright banning hydraulic fracturing anywhere in the state.

Cano is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water (NREW) to which the bill is currently assigned although it has yet to appear on a committee agenda for further discussion.

Fracking has come under fire in some states over concerns of groundwater contamination and air pollution. However, supporters of the method in Arizona point to the fact Apache County covers more than 11,000 square miles with less than 72,000 residents, making it possible to address environmental and public health concerns through ever improving technologies while creating much needed jobs.

Cano’s bill makes no provision for any test fracking operations in place or for projects in the permitting stage. It would also make it unlawful for a person to collect, store, or treat water that has been used in or is a by-product of fracking. The bill includes no exception in the legislation for storage of residual fracking water for scientific studies or even for collecting the water for transportation.

Election Bills Before House Committee Address Early Ballots, Write-In Candidates, And More

Election Bills Before House Committee Address Early Ballots, Write-In Candidates, And More

The House Committee on Government & Elections will consider a number of bills Wednesday morning aimed at improving election integrity and voter confidence.

On the agenda are several bills introduced by Rep. John Kavanagh, the committee chairman. One is HB2361 which would allow the tallying of early ballots as soon as the ballot envelope and affidavit is processed.

Currently county election officials cannot start to tally early ballots until 14 days before election day. This posed several challenges during the 2020 General Election due to the vast majority of voters who utilized early ballots in place of in-person voting.

Another bill, HB2181, increases the time period that a write-in candidate must file nomination papers from 40 days before an election to 76 days before, bringing it in line with other write-in related deadlines. And the bill would require a write-in candidate to be a qualified elector as well as a resident of the city, county, district, or town they want to represent for 120 days before the election.

The house committee will also consider HB2363, which would allow cities and towns to train employees to work on elections with the approval of the Arizona Secretary of State (SOS). Currently such training and certification of election officers must be conducted by the SOS, which must be reimbursed by the municipality for the cost of the training.

HB2307 would require an election official to provide an explanation to any in-person voter whose ballot triggers an overvote warning when inserted into an electronic ballot box. Similar to SB1025 introduced by Sen. Kelly Townsend, it would ensure voters understand that overriding the warning means none of the votes cast in an overvoted section of the ballot will be counted.

The committee is also expected to consider whether to replace Rep. Gail Griffin’s hand count bill HB2039 with the language of Sen. J.D. Mesnard’s SB1010. Mesnard’s bill would require counties to conduct hand counts based on precincts, even if a voting center system is in place.

SB1010 also increases the number of post-election hand counts a county must conduct of in-person ballots from two percent of all precincts to five percent or the number of precincts required to achieve a statistical significance consisting of a 99 percent confidence level with a margin of error of 1 percent, whichever is greater.

The bill also addresses who can request a hand recount in a contest that is not subject to an automatic recount.

Dem Bill Would Require All Guns In Home To Be Locked Unless Carried Or Within Reach

Dem Bill Would Require All Guns In Home To Be Locked Unless Carried Or Within Reach

Six Arizona Democrats have introduced a bill that would amend the state’s criminal statutes by imposing a minimum $1,000 civil penalty on lawful gunowners who do not lock up their gun, carry the firearm on their body, or have it within “such close proximity” that it can be readily retrieved as if on one’s person while inside their home.

HB2582 would create Arizona Revised Statute 13-3123, entitled Misconduct Involving Storage of Firearms or Ammunition. It calls for a civil fine of at least $1,000 for each violation by a person in a residence they control for not having a firearm “in a securely locked box” or equipped with “a device that renders the firearm inoperable without a key or combination.”

The only exception would be if the person carries the firearm on his or her person inside the residence or has the gun “within such close proximity to his person that the person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if it was carried on his person.”

The same lock it up, disable it, carry it, or have it readily retrievable mandate would apply to all sizes of firearms, including hunting rifles. It also applies to all ammunition, according to the bill sponsored by House Assistant Minority Leader Jennifer Longdon, along with Reps. Randall Friese, Daniel Hernandez Jr., Diego Rodriguez, Athena Salman, and Lorenzo Sierra.

There is no exemption in HB2582 for homes without children, for home-based businesses, or other situations where there would be no undue risk to others from placing one’s loaded but unlocked firearm in one room of a residence while the person is in another room.

The sponsors apparently do not consider it misconduct under their bill to have one’s gun unlocked in a garage or on a deck. The bill also does not address guests who bring an unlocked firearm or ammunition into someone else’s residence.

In 2016, it was estimated that Arizonans own nearly 6.9 million guns. That estimate is believed to have hit 7 million in 2020 based on gun industry sale reports.

Hearing Of Bill To Prevent Arizona Corporation Commission Energy Policy Power Grab Set For Tuesday

Hearing Of Bill To Prevent Arizona Corporation Commission Energy Policy Power Grab Set For Tuesday

On Tuesday, the Arizona House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee is scheduled to consider HB2248, which seeks to ensure that policy decisions are made by officials the people of Arizona elected to make them.

“The Arizona Corporation Commission is established in the Constitution of Arizona to regulate public service corporations, which includes non-municipal corporations that furnish gas, oil or electricity for light, fuel or power,” as per the legislative record. “Specifically, the Commission has the full power to prescribe rules, regulations and orders that govern a public service corporation’s rates, charges and classifications, which is collectively referred to as its “ratemaking authority.”

The Commission is not authorized to set energy policy.

As previously reported by AZFN, HB2248 sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD14) is in response to various Green New Deal mandates implemented by the ACC in recent years for how public service corporations can do business. It makes clear that legislators -not the ACC’s five members- have authority for establishing policies related to critical electric generation resources, whether biomass, coal, fuel-cell technology, geothermal, hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, or petroleum fuel products.

HB2248 would prohibit the ACC from adopting or enforcing any “policy, decision or rule” which directly or indirectly regulates what types of critical electric generation resources to be used or acquired by a public service corporation within Arizona’s energy grid “without express legislative authorization.”

Sen. Sine Kerr (R-LD13) has introduced SB1175, a companion bill to HB2248. The bills would amend Title 40 of the Arizona Revised Statute by adding a new section designated as ARS §40-213. The amendment would not apply to any ACC policy, decision, or rule adopted before June 30, 2020 but would be retroactive to that date if passed.

The Free Enterprise Club, a pro-business group, reports that “several interest groups and Green New Deal activists have signed in against the bill, and they have coalesced around one argument: legislators aren’t smart enough to handle energy policy. This is a topic that should be left up to the “experts” over at the ACC.”

“As HB 2248 and SB 1175 move forward, it will be interesting to see how lawmakers respond to being told that they are stupid and should stand in the corner while the Corp Comm attempts to set energy policy for the state,” the Free Enterprise Club asserts in a blog post. “Hopefully, it will stiffen their resolve to do the right thing: stopping the Green New Deal in Arizona.”

In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 127, a ballot measure that would have forced electric companies to get half of their energy from renewable sources by 2030.

Prop 127 was pushed by California billionaire activist Tom Steyer’s political group NextGen America.

Despite the massive spending by the group, Arizonans rejected what was described as the “costly, politically driven mandates,” outlined in Prop 127.

In fact, Arizona voters’ rejection of the mandates in Prop 127 caused Democrats in close races like Mark Kelly to denounce both the Green New Deal and a ban against fracking.

House Commerce Committee To Consider Stronger Penalties For Tobacco And Vapor Product Sales To Minors

House Commerce Committee To Consider Stronger Penalties For Tobacco And Vapor Product Sales To Minors

Proposed state legislation which would set the penalties that must be imposed against businesses which sell tobacco or vapor products to someone below the minimum age will be considered Tuesday by the House Committee on Commerce.

Rep. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD20) has introduced HB2118 which amends ARS 13-3622 which currently makes it unlawful to sell tobacco and vapor products to minors. The bill would change that language to read “a person who is under the minimum age of sale” to reflect a federal rule which raised the minimum age to 21.

Bolick’s bill would also establish penalties to be imposed by a court when an enterprise violates the minimum age requirement. For instance, a first offense would involve mandatory attendance at a court-approved “tobacco retailer educational course” either in lieu of or in addition to a fine of $500 to $750.

Any additional violation committed by an enterprise within 36 months of the first violation would require a court to send at least one owner or manager of the business and one person in a nonmanagerial position to a court-approved tobacco retailer course.

Also under HB2118, a second violation within 36 months would require a court to prohibit the business from “selling, giving or furnishing” tobacco or vapor products for 30 days and impose a $1,000 to $1,500 fine. And a third violation within a 36-month period would require a $2,000 to $2,500 fine and prohibition on selling tobacco or vapor products for 90 days.

Four or more violations of the minimum age for sale law would require a court to impose a one-year ban on selling such products along with a fine of $3,500 to $5,000. result in a one year.

Bolick also includes a separate mandatory fine of $3,500 to $5,000 if a business sells, gives, or furnishes tobacco or vapor products while prohibited to do so under an earlier violation. In that situation a court would be required to extend the prohibition on future sales “for an amount of time that is two times the length of the prohibition that was initially imposed.”

The House Committee on Commerce is chaired by Rep. Jeff Weiniger (R-LD17). The committee meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. on Jan. 26.