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.
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.
A Superior Court judge ruled this week that a mandatory curfew imposed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors “is not statutorily authorized and violates the Governor’s Executive Order.”
Approved by the Pima County Supervisors in a split 3-2 vote on December 15, 2020, the curfew essentially shut down commerce between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson issued a temporary order halting enforcement of the curfew. She wrote:
Opinions regarding mitigation measures during this pandemic are varied and widespread. So too are opinions about the curfew imposed in Resolution 2020-98. Many believe the mitigation measures in place are unreasonable and over-restrictive. Many believe the measures fall short of protecting public health and need to be more restrictive. It is undisputed Covid-19 is a serious public health concern that must be controlled. However, it is not the Court’s role to decide or opine whether it agrees or disagrees with the County’s Resolution. Rather, the Court must determine whether is a valid under the law, and whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Because the Court finds the Resolution is not statutorily authorized and violates the Governor’s Executive Order, and that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the possibility of harm, the Court finds the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.
“The Pima County curfew was an outrageous mandate that made little sense and unfairly targeted certain businesses,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Free Enterprise Club. “We are very pleased that the court recognized the illegal and arbitrary nature of the curfew and halted its enforcement.”
A few weeks ago, we filed another lawsuit on behalf of some bar owners in Tucson/Pima County who were subjected to a mandatory, countywide 10PM curfew targeting their businesses. Well, we just got an injunction! 1/3 https://t.co/B2NCPhRCGPpic.twitter.com/Rj4pvJBeJ8
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys for a group of Pima County small business owners.
“Pima County officials adopted the curfew with the best of intentions, but such restrictions are not only unlawful, they can also have dangerous unintended consequences. Mandates and compulsory curfews increase the likelihood of confrontations between law enforcement and citizens—confrontations that can turn violent, or result in people being taken to jail, where their exposure to COVID-19 is probably higher,” wrote Goldwater attorney Tim Sandefur, of the ruling. “And if recent experience in Chicago and other cities is any clue, curfews are more likely to encourage people to congregate in secret, in confined places where there is a greater risk of infection, rather than in relatively safer outdoor business places.”
The Pima County Board of Supervisors has already approved an appeal of the ruling.
A State House committee was forced to postpone Tuesday’s discussion of a bill about who has authority to set energy policy in Arizona after almost all House Democrats failed to show up for a floor session earlier in the day at which the bill was to get its First Read.
The Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water (NREW) was to meet at 2 p.m. to consider HB2248, which seeks to rein in the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) regulation of critical electric generation resources. However, the bill had to be dropped from the committee’s agenda when the required First Read was not conducted at 1:15 p.m. because only 28 of 60 House members showed up for the floor session.
House members are split 31 Republicans and 29 Democrats. Public records reveal an overwhelming majority of those not present for Tuesday’s floor session were Democrats.
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.”
The bill’s First Read was finally conducted Wednesday afternoon, according to House spokesman Andrew Wilder. It will go back to the NREW committee which Griffin chairs, but not until Jan. 26 at the earliest. The last day for the House to consider the bill is Feb. 18.
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.
Griffin and Kerr’s bills are supported by the Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy Research, the Free Enterprise Club, the Market Freedom Alliance, the Americans For Prosperity-AZ, and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.
Members for the Arizona Senate Committee on Government will take up two bills Thursday which seek to amend state election laws, including one that would force county election officials to remove some inactive voters from the Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL).
Being on the PEVL ensures an Arizona voter is automatically mailed an early ballot -also referred to as an absentee ballot- for any election in which the voter is eligible to vote. A voter can then return their completed ballot by mail or drop it in an official ballot box on or before election day.
Most Arizona counties reported 60 to 80 percent of all votes cast in the 2020 General Election were mail-in ballots.
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) is seeking to amend Arizona Revised Statute 16-544 which governs eligibility for the PEVL. Her bill, SB1069, would require counties to cull their PEVL of certain voters who do not consistently utilize early balloting unless the voter completes and returns a special form.
The senator, who chairs the Senate Committee on Government, has been outspoken in her belief that changes are needed to Arizona’s election laws in order to restore voter confidence in the process. Her bill would help identify voters who no longer live in Arizona, are perhaps incarcerated, or who may even be deceased.
ARS §16-544 currently requires a voter to be dropped from the PEVL upon the voter’s written request or if the voter is no longer registered or eligible to vote. The county recorder will also remove a voter from the list if an early ballot mailing has been returned undeliverable and election officials have been unable to contact the voter.
According to the proposed bill, the county recorder or other elections officer would also be required to notify a voter of impending removal from the PEVL if the voter “fails to vote using an early ballot in both the primary election and the general election for two consecutive primary and general elections for which there was a federal, statewide or legislative race on the ballot.”
To remain on the PEVL, the voter would have to return the county’s notice within 30 days and provide their address, date of birth, and signature. There is no provision in SB1069 for allowing a voter to submit a signed letter with the same information.
Also on Thursday’s agenda for the senate committee meeting is SB1083, which seeks to amend ARS §16-661 governing when an automatic recount is mandated during a primary or general election.
Currently there are six trigger points for an automatic recount based on the type of office and the number of votes cast in a particular race. There are also several exemptions to automatic recounts, including elections for school district governing boards, community college district governing boards, fire district boards, fire district chiefs, fire district secretary-treasurers, other special district boards, and precinct committeemen.
But SB1083, sponsored by Ugenti-Rita as well, would remove the exemptions. It would also simplify the vote margin for when an automatic recount is triggered by doing away with five of the provisions. Instead, the bill would set an across-the-board automatic recount margin of one-half of one percent of the votes cast in a race.
There has been no First Read on SB1083 as of Jan. 19.
