by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 17, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has ordered a telecommunications company to detail its response to a 48-hour service outage last month by making an hour by hour report. At the same time, commissioners are considering a plan that could lead to the appointment of an interim manager of the troubled company.
The directive to Frontier Communications of the White Mountains stems from yet another outage which left thousands of rural cellphone and landline phone users without service from 3 p.m. June 11 through the afternoon of June 13.
It comes on the heels of an ACC-approved plan in March which laid out the company’s strategy for responding to such outages after a study found 911 service was inaccessible by Frontier’s customers for 66 hours from April 2020 to April 2021.
Among the most vocal critics of how Connecticut-based Frontier Communications has responded to the outage issues is St. Johns Police Chief Lance Spivey. During the June outage, a 74-year-old resident died while 911 service was unavailable, Spivey said.
“We have one service provider that provides telephone and internet, and that’s Frontier,” Spivey said during testimony at a recent ACC hearing. “So if Frontier goes down, everything else goes down.”
It is unclear whether the medical issue the resident suffered would have been fatal had prompt medical attention been available, but the police chief noted the incident was very upsetting to the two bystanders who came upon the resident as well as the emergency responders who finally responded after being flagged down to the scene.
In addition, a five-year-old girl who suffered a gruesome playground injury was forced to wait several hours for treatment while staff at her local hospital worked to establish communications with Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
The June outage also led to a lack of communication options which impacted how officials at the Salt River Project’s Coronado Generating Station near St. Johns responded to an equipment failure.
According to SRP spokesperson Erica Roelfs, employees at the coal-fired plant experienced a delay in reaching experts who needed to be conferred with. This time, Roelfs noted, the delay did not present a safety threat.
A criminal investigation is underway after Frontier reported various equipment and fiber optics lines were vandalized by two shotgun blasts at two locations across a three-mile area in Navajo County. The damage caused an outage area which covered all of Apache County as well as the majority of Navajo County.
Any decision on whether to prosecute the vandal or vandals in connection with the St. Johns resident’s death will be made once the investigation and an autopsy is complete, Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting has said. Another facet of the investigation will be Frontier’s response time to the outage, Whiting said.
A $10,000 reward has been offered and anyone with information about the vandalism should contact the Navajo County Sheriff’s Office at 928-524-4050.
The ACC’s actions earlier this year about outages in 2020 and 2021 included concerns with Frontier’s lack of progress in doing more to prevent service outages. But after the recent deadly outage in June, the St. Johns police chief wrote to the ACC, calling the company’s efforts “insufficient and inadequate.”
The chief also contended Frontier’s response to the problem is “blatantly jeopardizing” public safety.
Part of the problem appears to be a lack of a reliable outage redundancy plan to help restore service for the more than 330,000 customers whose service relies on Frontier’s lines. Another issue is that repair crews often have to drive several hours to locate the cause of an outage.
The company issued a statement after the June outage stating that company officials were willing to discuss its network redundancy with regulators in the future. Members of the ACC did not wait.
At a June 28 hearing, several people impacted by the outage were able to testify at an ACC meeting. Kevin Saville, general legal counsel for Frontier, assured commissioners the June outage was not due to a network failure.
“This was at a minimum vandalism and even potentially sabotage,” Saville said.
However, some of the company’s previous comments about the June outage came under attack, including a claim that Frontier’s customers lost 911 access for only one hour and three minutes while crews repaired the line.
Frontier’s statement about the short outage was misleading, according to St. Johns Assistant Fire Chief Jason Kirk, because most of the area receives its telecommunications service from other providers such as AT&T and Verizon who rely on Frontier’s equipment.
Kirk testified to the ACC that tens of thousands of citizens “were separated from communications and data for almost two days” and that everything from gas pumps, grocery stores and other facilities were “rendered useless because of the unavailability of the fiber connection.”
During the June 28 hearing, a Frontier manager gave commissioners an overview of how the company responded to the outage. However, that was not good enough for the ACC.
Commissioner Sandra Kennedy noted local officials were upset by Frontier’s attitude in responding to the June outage. She called for a more detailed report of the company’s response.
“That is my concern, for an hour-by-hour recap on what the company did. We may not regulate internet, but by gosh, we’re going to try to help the folks out who need our help who are complaining about your company,” Kennedy told Frontier officials.
That June hearing led to the July 8 town hall at which community members were allowed to share their experiences about Frontier. Among those who addressed the three ACC members in attendance was Navajo County Sheriff David Clouse.
As a result of the community input, Frontier Communications was formally directed to respond to the ACC about each of the comments made. The company expects to comply this week.
In the meantime, the ACC revisited its earlier outage investigation into the four Frontier companies which operate in Arizona. During discussions on July 12 and 13, the commissioners drafted and edited a Remedy Plan to address eight issues.
One of the drafts includes a clause allowing the ACC to appoint an interim manager of the local Frontier “for the convenience, comfort, and safety, and the preservation of the health, of the customers and member of the public in Apache and Navajo Counties.” The ACC website does not yet list the next meeting date at which a Frontier Remedy Plan will be discussed. In a related matter, the ACC is considering an October 2021 application by the four Frontier companies operating in Arizona to classify and regulate retail local exchange telecommunications services as competitive, and to classify and deregulate certain services as non-essential. The ACC will continue to accept public comments on the application through the end of the year.
by Corinne Murdock | Jan 26, 2022 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) struck down rule changes advancing renewable energy usage that would’ve increased the cost to taxpayers. The energy mandates would have required energy utilities to rely more on renewable energies following a certain timeline, which would have increased the revenue requirements of Arizona Public Service Company (APS) by nearly $4 billion and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) by nearly $1.13 billion — costs which taxpayers would’ve borne, as high as 43 to 58 percent more monthly.
These were energy mandates similar to those rejected by voters in the failed Proposition 127 of 2018, which would have required electric utility companies to acquire a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources each year, from 12 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030. About 68 percent of voters rejected Proposition 127.
Chairwoman Lea Márquez Peterson joined commissioners Jim O’Connor and Justin Olson in their “no” votes against the rule changes. Commissioners Anna Tovar and Sandra Kennedy voted for the rules.
https://www.facebook.com/CorpCommAZ/videos/461238372124019/
APS, TEP, and the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association (GCSECA) all expressed support for the rule changes.
O’Connor said that the utilities are “serious and sincere” with their clean energy efforts. He said that the utilities don’t need rules from the state, especially since they will pose risks to ratepayers.
“The proposed energy rules represent a multi-year, good-faith effort by a great many. During this long process and after years of opposition, our state’s major electric utilities have embraced clean energy and our proposed rules. I was surprised and I made it the focus of my efforts to understand that turnaround,” said O’Connor. “I have concluded its best for the utilities to remain in charge of their resource plans just as they have in the past and it is better for the commission to continue to rely on its prudent standard for holding utilities accountable for the resource decisions and their costs.”
Tovar said the commissioners should be ashamed that they wasted years of staff and commission work from “getting in the way of what is right.” Tovar called out two of the commissioners, O’Connor and Peterson, for “flip-flopping” on their stance concerning the rules. She lamented that commissioners weren’t willing to compromise, like she claimed she had, for the greater good: economic growth, health, and environmentalism through these rule changes. Tovar added that the rule changes had diverse, bipartisan support statewide.
“What this tells me is that these rules are failing because of politics. And basing our votes on politics is a dangerous game, and it is a dangerous game to play with something so important to Airzona’s future. Ensuring clean energy in Arizona is our future, and it’s one of the top priorities I had even before running for this commission. When I took office, I wanted to change the rules. Make them more aggressive. Get us to a clean future, sooner. But I looked at the fads and I knew there was much work to be done on them,” said Tovar. “Let me be clear: this isn’t the Green New Deal. This is Arizona’s clean energy package and [I am] very proud of the work that has been accomplished thus far.”
Olson expressed confidence that renewable energy was still attainable without costing customers more. He also mentioned how he attempted to compromise by introducing amendments that would help reduce the cost to taxpayers with passage of the energy rules. Olson indicated that Tovar’s characterization of commissioners switching votes was unfair because their change reflected new information that came to light.
“We as a commission should have a very clear policy that tells our utilities that they should invest in the technologies that are the most cost-effective method of meeting the energy demands of our customers. And what we have before us in these energy rules is not that,” said Olson. “That is the appropriate demand. That is what the constitution requires of us to expect of our utilities, and that is what we should continue to pursue. That does not prohibit us and our utilities from increasing the amount of renewable energy resources that our utilities use to provide the energy for their customers. In fact, it creates a win-win scenario where our utilities will be investing in the renewable energy projects that are the most cost-effective. We can benefit rate bearers and adopt these technologies at the same time. That’s the approach we should take.”
Kennedy said that clean energy was cost-effective with modern technology. She asserted that it wasn’t possible to determine future outcomes based on present actions.
Márquez Peterson said she supported clean energy by 2050, but an equal priority for her was affordability for consumers. Márquez Peterson expressed confidence that utilities had turned a corner and were willing to adopt clean energy of their own volition.
“It took years to get actual cost data that consumers have been asking for,” said Márquez Peterson. “I believe utilities should be justly and reasonably rewarded when they make prudent and proactive investments in the next generation of clean and renewable energy resources, so long as they don’t jeopardize the safety and reliability of the grid or the affordability of rates.”
In a statement to AZ Free News, Justin Olson asserted that the commission’s vote respected the will of voters.
“First of all this is a tremendous victory for ratepayers. I fought to enact policies to make rates as affordable as possible. Many times I was a lone voice crying at the wilderness — I was the only vote against these mandates,” said Olson. “This was the commission telling the utilities that they must invest in technologies that are the most cost-effective method of generating energy.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 16, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) passed a motion to prohibit utility companies from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for their employees, 3-2. Commissioners Lea Márquez Peterson, Justin Olson, and Jim O’Connor voted for a policy prohibiting COVID-19 vaccine mandates; Commissioners Sandra Kennedy and Anna Tovar voted against it. If utility companies do impose a mandate down the road, they will be subject to fines.
O’Connor insisted that it wasn’t good for employment or individual choice to allow utilities to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. He reminded the commissioners that all of President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates have been halted by federal courts.
“I think this is our good way of taking care of Arizona’s citizens, workers, and voters,” said O’Connor. “If you force-vaccinate everybody and either having a lot of people leave or fire a lot of people — how do you keep the lights on? How do you keep the water flowing? How do you keep running the business? […] And then, how are you going to treat these employees on their way out the door, after their ten, twenty, thirty years of insurance?”
Olson added to O’Connor’s remarks with a more pointed criticism of Biden’s mandate.
“The unconstitutional overreach of the Biden Administration needs to be challenged,” said Olson. “It is absolutely inappropriate for the government to require anyone to be vaccinated against their will. Anybody has the right to receive the vaccination, but we as the government do not have the right to be requiring folks to make a choice between receiving a vaccine against their will or losing their employment.”
None of the utility companies present at the meeting reported having a vaccine mandate. The companies all noted that they would comply with federal law and regulations.
Kennedy criticized the commission, saying that mandatory vaccinations aren’t new concepts and that those opposed to vaccine mandates are making the pandemic a partisan issue. She added that the vaccine didn’t fall under the question of freedoms.
“It is not responsible for a commission without a single expert in health care or medicine to weigh in on this issue,” said Kennedy. “It is also not responsible for commissioners to make statements spreading unfounded rumors which confuse and endanger the public. I would ask commissioners, before you take a stance possibly geared towards political ambition, to consider the Arizonans filling our hospitals and in ICU beds right now. Many hooked onto ventilators, dying alone.”
Olson responded by reiterating the ACC’s constitutional responsibility to protect employees’ freedom to choose.
Tovar said she felt it was premature to vote on something barring vaccine mandates when there aren’t any in place currently.
The policy to bar vaccine mandates was introduced by Olson and O’Connor last month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Dec 11, 2021 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
If you don’t typically pay attention to the Arizona Corporation Commission, now is a good time to start.
The role of this government agency is to set rates and policies for utilities. That sounds simple enough, right? But for over a year now, the commission has been in the process of developing a “clean energy” plan that looks to ban all fossil fuels in our state. Next week, this renewable energy mandate will be brought up for a vote again. And the consequences could be a disaster.
Green New Deal mandates would cost ratepayers over $6 billion
In July 2020, the commission quietly released its plan to impose California-style energy mandates in our state. But it wasn’t until August of this year that an independent cost analysis had been completed. And the results were eye-opening.
In order to achieve the 100% clean energy mandate by 2050, utilities would need to phase out all fossil fuels, purchase more solar and wind generation, expand lithium-ion battery storage, and convert natural gas generation to green hydrogen. The cost for all this would be over $6 billion, which comes out to an estimated $60 per month or $720 per year for the average ratepayer.
Remember when the green energy lobby said that these mandates would actually save you money? It turns out that was just another lie. But the cost isn’t the only issue.
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 23, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) could vote as early as next month on a proposal that would ensure the reliability of electric, gas, and water service across the state by protecting thousands of utility employees from termination for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination.
Commissioner Justin Olson and Commissioner Jim O’Connor are advocating for the ACC to adopt a policy and associated rules to prohibit the agency’s regulated utilities -also known as public service corporations (PSCs)- from compelling employees to be vaccinated to keep their jobs. Each violation of the policy could come with a hefty fine under the proposal.
“The Biden administration has unconstitutionally sought forced vaccinations and has intimidated companies into complying with this inappropriate policy,” Olson said of the proposal presented to the other three commissioners last week. “Workers should not have to choose between losing their jobs or being forced to receive a vaccine against their will.”
But Olson told AZ Free News on Tuesday he has another concern with the mandates, one that involves potential negative impacts to Arizona’s regulated utilities due to losing valuable employees through COVID-19 related resignations or terminations.
“Our utilities rely on a highly experienced and trained workforce.” Olson said. “We cannot allow Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate to drive away critical employees whose skills are necessary to maintain safe and reliable power and water.”
The letter Olson and O’Connor sent to their fellow commissioners points out that the agency has the authority in the Arizona Constitution to “make and enforce rules, regulations, and orders” related to the safety and health of employees of PSCs.
“This is especially true when the federal government is intimidating companies to develop, implement and enforce such mandatory vaccine policies,” the letter states.
There are currently two federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates which could impact Arizona’s utilities. One is an executive order issued by President Joe Biden requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to impose mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.
According to Olson and O’Connor, the broad language of the executive order implicates the very PSCs which the ACC regulates “that have legally enforceable agreements with the federal government, including military bases in Arizona.”
The other mandate was issued by OSHA. It requires all private employers with 100 or more employees to implement a vaccination policy that can require stringent, invasive testing. The OSHA mandate is currently on hold while under review by federal courts across the country.
One of those courts, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said OSHA’s mandate “raises serious constitutional concerns” and grossly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.
Olson and O’Connor have asked that their concerns be placed on the agenda for discussion and possible vote at the ACC’s Dec. 15 and 16 open meetings.
