State lawmakers this week are set to debate two measures dealing with public utilities. Those are among the proposals on agendas during another busy week at the state Capitol.
Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services joined The Show to discuss what to expect this week.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Good morning, Howie.
HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning, but you're interrupting me coming up with five things I did last week to keep Elon Musk happy.
BRODIE: We've got plenty of things you did last week. So let's, let's talk about a bill that is coming up for a debate in the House [Monday], which would allow customers of electric utilities to opt out of service from their providers under certain circumstances. What circumstances might those be?
FISCHER: Well, this is really interesting because over the last couple of decades there have been questions about, should retail customers, you and I, be able to choose our electric providers? Now, there's all sorts of logistical reasons for that. If I live in SRP territory, I'm not sure that APS wants to come and pay SRP to deliver its electrons. And it kind of failed.
So what they've done now is suggested or actually would tell the Corporation Commission: If your utility says we are going for net zero, in other words, we want totally carbon-free emissions, or if you have certain DEI policies, the customers get to opt out and choose another provider.
Nobody has really suggested how that would work. Justin Nelson, who was a former commissioner, said, “oh, the commission will work it out.” And yet, the, the policy seems to be this, to get a backdoor way for open competition and looking for some excuse.
Now, is there an argument to be made that you should have your choice of utilities? Sure. Now, how do you make that happen given that the lines in front of your house are owned by APS or SRP or Tucson Electric? That's a whole other question. So it seems to be a, a philosophical argument versus an economic one.
BRODIE: Howie, does it seem as though this has been, as you referenced, changed a little bit as the process has moved along. Does it seem as though there might be more changes coming to this to make it maybe a little more logistically feasible?
FISCHER: Well, many of the changes have been what triggers the ability of someone to get out as originally crafted, it would be if your or your utility was going to try to reduce carbon emissions. Now, all utilities are probably trying to reduce carbon emissions to the extent that we go more nuclear, you know, we keep talking about these small nuclear power plants, that utility would be reducing carbon emissions. They said, well, that's not a good trigger, so we're using the net zero. But again, there is nothing in the bill that says to the commission how you would accomplish this, and it could end up from all the experience we went through decades ago, being more expensive.
Again, if I'm in SRP territory and I want to buy electrons from Tucson Electric. Tucson Electric has to get me those electrons, run them through high tension wires owned by someone else, run them through SRP wires owned by them, and deliver them and then have somebody figure out who's doing the billing. As I say, I think this is one of those ideological things versus anything that makes economic sense, but again, this is the Arizona Legislature.
BRODIE: All right. So how we, another utility-related bill deals with wind farms and how close or far they have to be from, from people's homes or other property.
FISCHER: Exactly, wind farms have become somewhat controversial on the idea of, are they killing birds? Do they cause noise? Do they cause, you know, people to suffer effects from the sounds and everything else? And then there's the question of visual pollution.
So what this legislation would do is say if you want to erect a wind farm, you have to be at least 6 miles from anyone else's property. So we're not talking about you or me putting one up in our backyard because the fact there's no way that you were 6 miles from anywhere else. And then if you want to build it to an area that's zoned for residential, it has to be at least 12 miles from that.
The argument from the folks who came down, usually from northeast Arizona, was that these things are a visual blight, that they cause noise, that they cause birds to die, and, you know, there are also a lot of folks saying, why are we investing in wind because wind is not necessarily a 24/7 operation like coal or like nuclear. Again, we've got a philosophical discussion going on here, and we're trying to go ahead and put into place with legislative solutions, which is never, never a good idea.
BRODIE: Interesting. Howie, there's another bill that's been moving through the process. A Senate committee will be debating it later this week, basically, making sure that life in the fast lane stays for people who want to drive a little bit faster on the left, left side of the freeway.
FISCHER: Well, exactly. We've probably all been in a position where we're going up, let's say there's some stretches of Interstate 10, for example, north of Casa Grande, south of Chandler that are just two lanes in each direction. And if you want to get somewhere and you find some, I'll, I'll paint with a broad brush, some tourists saying, “oh look, Martha, there's a cactus here.” And, and traveling along at 45 miles an hour, it is, it is very frustrating.
So this would say there's already is law, you're supposed to move over and travel in a slow lane. This would add some huge signs, you know, like 8 by 16 feet along the side of the road, and remind people that there's a $250 fine for traveling in the fast lane when you shouldn't be.
Now they had to amend the bill to say, well, what if it's three lanes in each direction? Well, then you don't necessarily have to move over the right lane. You get the question of, well, which highways does this make sense on? Does this make sense, for example, on Interstate 10 going up the Rum to get to, to Flagstaff, when in fact there are going to be people who are traveling below the speed limit in the left lane simply because that's as fast as, as your, your, your little Honda Civic might go.
But you know, this is an idea that a lot of folks is, is popular, but again, it's already law. This is more of a reminder to say, you know, move the hell over.
