by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 31, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
The Green New Scam got its start in Arizona two decades ago when a 5-0 Republican Commission (including then Republican Kris Mayes) adopted the Renewable Energy Standard and Tarriff Rules, or the REST Rules. Among other things, most significantly it ushered in the first “renewable” mandates in our state, forcing utilities to obtain at least 15% of their power from “renewables.” Ratepayers have been paying the costs (over $2 billion) ever since.
The REST Rules had a target date: 2025. Well, it’s now 2025, and the utilities have not only met that mandate, but they have also voluntarily exceeded it. Now our current 5-0 Republican Commission has started the process of repealing them.
Repealing the REST Rules is important, but the targets have already been met, and the price has already been paid. Substantively, the repeal won’t really affect ratepayers all that much. Why? Because mandate or no mandate, our utilities are completely committed to going “Net Zero” by 2050, and so far, they’ve been allowed to do it…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Feb 7, 2024 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A coalition of grassroots advocacy groups is asking the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to reject Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts by energy companies, citing the impact to consumer well-being.
In a letter sent last week, representatives of Heritage Action for America, EZAZ, and Heartland Impact, led by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), expressed concern for the impact on utility rates and energy reliability that ESG implementation poses under plans submitted by APS, TEP, and UNS. The grassroots claimed that the three companies have deprioritized cost and efficiency in pursuit of voluntary climate goals.
“The Commission has a constitutional obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates and a statutory duty to ensure adequate provision of service,” stated the organizations. “That means ensuring reliable, affordable, and plentiful energy in the state, which should be the mission of this Commission. But these ideological environmental commitments do the opposite, and for that reason, they should be rejected.”
The grassroots leaders also expressed concern with the relationship between ESG and a greater political agenda to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. In order to achieve net zero, companies would have to drastically reduce, if not eliminate totally, usage of coal, gas, and oil in exchange for renewable energies such as solar and wind.
In their letter, the organizations pointed out the intermittency — and therefore unreliability — of renewable energies. They referenced the power failures and high rates experienced by states and countries further along in their net zero journey, citing specifically California, Texas, and Germany.
The grassroots leaders maintained that ACC has the authority to prevent energy companies from quitting traditional energies and using ratepayer funds to subsidize renewables.
Utility companies previously rejected an increased reliance on renewable energies as recently as 2018, the letter noted, over concerns that such a move would greatly increase costs for ratepayers. They also cited 2021 ACC cost analysis, which found in part that a total transition to renewables could incur a $6 billion cost to ratepayers, averaging hundreds of dollars more a month, by 2050.
Last year, AFEC issued an analysis comparing the energy mandates of the 10 states with the highest electricity rates and 10 states with the lowest electricity rates. Per that report, nine of the 10 states with the highest rates had some form of mandates requiring renewable energy usage, while seven of the 10 states with the lowest rates had no mandates at all.
The report estimated that states with renewable energy mandates paid, on average, close to double what their peers in mandate-free states paid.
In a press release, AFEC President Scot Mussi blamed leftist politicians for the ESG push.
“Liberal activists and politicians in Arizona are seeking to harm our energy future, freedoms, and choices by forcing their radical and failed ESG policies on consumers,” said Mussi.
As AZ Free News reported last November, the executives overseeing those three companies have financial incentives to meet ESG criteria.
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 9, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
A History of Harmful Mandates
Arizonans have faced repeated attempts over the last six years by various interest groups to impose costly Green New Deal energy mandates on utility ratepayers. In 2018, liberal billionaire Tom Steyer bankrolled a statewide ballot measure to require utilities to obtain 50% of their energy from renewable sources by 2030. Voters realized the danger of this California-style energy plan and rejected it by a 2 to 1 margin.
Immediately after the Steyer initiative failed at the ballot, the Arizona Corporation Commission began considering their own green energy mandate to completely ban fossil fuel generation in Arizona by 2050. The Commission’s plan was even more radical than the energy initiative, and this time the mandate was being pushed by our regulated utilities, not far left radicals. This caught most observers by surprise—the utilities were among the opponents of the Steyer initiative, and now they were cheerleading energy mandates.
Why the change of heart by our monopoly utility providers? The reason is simple—they knew that if the Commission adopted official policy requiring Green New Deal mandates, they would be guaranteed full cost recovery from their captive ratepayers. After fierce opposition from ratepayers and organizations like the Free Enterprise Club, this proposed mandate was rejected by the Commission in early 2022.
Unfortunately, this victory for ratepayers was short lived. Almost immediately after the Commission voted to reject costly energy mandates, the utilities announced that they would be implementing their clean energy agenda anyway, irrespective of what their captive ratepayers thought about it. This didn’t come as a total surprise, considering these utilities have gone all-in on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and the accompanying “Net Zero” commitments to ban fossil fuels in their SEC filings to shareholders, which our organization began advocating against at the Commission earlier this year.
We told the Commission that if the utilities are allowed to operate under ESG, every downstream policy decision would be shaped by it—ultimately resulting in massive ESG rate hikes for Arizona ratepayers. Based on the energy resource plans submitted by the utilities last month, it appears our predictions have been proven correct…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 4, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A first-year Corporation Commissioner continues to fight for Arizona ratepayers.
Late last month, Republican Corporation Commissioner Kevin Thompson issued a press release to announce that he had “amended several provisions in a recent proposal for UniSource Energy’s (“UNS”) Demand Side Management (“DSM”) Energy Efficiency (“EE”) program.” The release explained that these amendments “eliminated or revised several proposals” and “reigned in ratepayer-funded incentives to contractors and sales consultants and focused on prioritizing programs that provided greater value to residential customers and target low-income customers.”
Thompson educated readers on what DSM entailed, writing that “DSM is a ratepayer-funded surcharge that finances Commission-approved EE programs, which are implemented by UNS and other utilities, with the goal of reducing energy load and promoting energy efficiency.” According to Thompson’s information, “the utility spent just over $2.7 million in ratepayer funds on DSM EE programs during 2022.”
The release revealed that the “proposal (in front of the Commission) called to vastly expand the existing UNS EE budget, with nearly $5.8 million in ratepayer-funded programs up for consideration.”
In a statement, Thompson said, “Before increasing ratepayer surcharges to blindly expand energy efficiency programs, it’s important to address inefficiencies in existing programs, eliminate financial rewards for private entities, and ensure residential and low-income customers receive adequate representation in approved programs.”
The Republican commissioner specifically looked for “ratepayer funded incentives weaved throughout the DSM EE programs.” Thompson’s announcement noted that “many of the proposed programs provided incentives and rebates to third parties with financial stakes in the adoption of certain measures or the installation of certain products.” The proposal was devoid of “several incentives and payment reward programs” after Thompson’s due diligence, including:
- Incentives to homebuilders to install energy efficient devices in certain new homes
- Bonus incentives to sales consultants
- Marketing stipends for third parties to promote certain programs
- Project incentives to contractors
The proposal had another layer to it, per Thompson, with “the majority of proposed new programs targeting commercial and industrial users.” Thompson was concerned about these programs because “the majority of UNS’s customers are residential and the proposals were of limited value to the public.”
Commissioner Thompson added, “Commissioners must look out for the ratepayer, and we can’t haphazardly spend millions of dollars in ratepayer funds when there are concerns with the way current programs are being deployed. Residential customers shouldn’t be subsidizing purchases for hotel room HVAC units, electric forklifts, appliances for new homes, and truck refrigeration units.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
