A watchdog group is accusing a state consumer advocate of conspiring with a utility lobbyist to influence solar policy in Arizona.
On Thursday, D.C.-based Checks and Balances released text messages obtained through public records request showing the exchanges between Arizona Public Service’s Greg Bernosky and Lon Huber, a consultant hired by the state’s Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO).
The messages focus on the value of solar study at the Arizona Corporation Commission — a proceeding that is expected to be a template for key policy decisions like net-metering, a billing mechanism for reimbursing customers with rooftop solar panels for excess power.
In one exchange, Huber tells Bernosky they need to “shape” a study on the value of rooftop solar “before it starts.” Another indicates the two were sharing edits and other policy language.
Scott Peterson with Checks and Balances says Huber’s job at RUCO is to represent the interests of ratepayers.
"But instead what you see is the consumer advocate agency working with Arizona’s largest utility to predetermine how this study is going to go forward,” Peterson said.
Checks and Balances receives funding from the solar industry and was at the center of a long running legal fight to obtain the text messages of Arizona Corporation Commissioner Bob Stump.
Peterson points to another message from September 2015 in which Bernosky told Huber to "keep thinking on next steps regarding how we can steer the VOS [value of solar] discussion."
Peterson said RUCO is paying Huber $8,000 a month for a consultant "who is betraying" taxpayers and that he should be immediately fired and the money returned.
But Huber said those messages were sent in the middle of the meeting and echoed what he said publicly.
“It was very much on the fly in the sausage making of the regulatory process, so a few texts with no context are being misinterpreted," Huber said.
Huber said RUCO collaborates with all parties involved, including the solar industry. It just happened that his office and APS had the same concerns at the time that the solar study might be too broad.
Bernosky of APS said this kind of collaboration is entirely normal.
“Just to help set up and shape a path, not an outcome, but a path forward to getting a productive and transparent conversation," Bernosky said. "That’s our goal whenever we work with folks to try to have that type of dialogue."
Bernosky adds that the solar study is a formal evidentiary hearing where all the facts are public.
He said utilities, RUCO, and other parties that are part of commission proceedings "often exchange information and suggested edits to amendment language."
"It is not at all uncommon and is intended to be done in a way that achieves shared objectives to benefit the customers," Bernosky said.
Bernosky said Peterson's accusations are just one more attempt to distract and derail any progress on changes to rooftop solar policy, including the "cost shift" that APS contends is one of the problems with net-metering.
