Energy Bill Leads State the Wrong Way

I ran for the Arizona Corporation Commission in 2008 to promote open and accountable government and move Arizona into the new solar economy.The commission is both independent and bipartisan and was created by Arizona's founders as a fourth branch of government. The commission's role as watchdog over utilities, railroads and securities dealers is quite appropriately separate from the legislative and executive branches of state government. This independence ideally positions the commission as a catalyst to move Arizona into a national leadership role in developing renewable energy, especially solar energy.
The previous commission ‹ under the leadership of Republican Kris Mayes, who is serving ably as chairwoman ‹ made Arizona one of 26 states to enact a "renewable energy standard." While Arizona's standard to obtain 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy by 2025 is less than the goals of surrounding states, it has jump-started Arizona's fledgling renewable industry. A renewable energy standard is clearly an idea whose time has come, as evidenced by the actions of the U.S. Congress, which is considering a national renewable energy standard of 20 percent by 2020.
However, a bill in the Arizona Legislature would head in the opposite direction.
Recently introduced, House Bill 2623 would make significant changes to Arizona's renewable energy standard and compromise the independence of the Corporation Commission. The bill's two major flaws are that:
€ It changes the definition of "renewable energy" to include nuclear and existing hydropower;
€ It compromises the commission's independence by taking away the authority of the commission over renewable energy and transferring it to the Legislature.
HB 2623 defines nuclear power as a "renewable resource", defying common sense and hurting our real fledgling renewable industries. If this bill is passed, it will kill existing incentives to continue to develop renewable energy, especially solar energy, and lead Arizona down the wrong road.
The United States defines "renewable energy" as biomass, hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action and tidal action. Not a single state defines nuclear power as "renewable" energy. Last year, an attempt in South Carolina to call nuclear "renewable" was defeated.
The other problem with HB 2623's definition is that utilities will not need to develop new renewable resources. HB 2623's definition of hydropower and nuclear power as "renewable energy sources" means that existing hydropower and nuclear power sources would count as "new" renewable energy, so utilities would be off the hook in developing renewables such as utility-scale solar or wind.
This is crazy. Why would we want to hurt our brand-new renewable industry?
HB 2623 would also undo nearly 100 years of commission independence. In an economy wracked by a deregulated financial system, the last thing we need is a Corporation Commission with reduced oversight. The Legislature has enough to do without regulating utilities.
We need to encourage, not discourage, our fledgling renewable industry. Across the country, state and local governments are coming up with innovative financing mechanisms to increase renewable power.
Let's not put Arizona on the map as the first state to declare that nuclear is "renewable" and roll back the independence of the Corporation Commission. Let's work instead to nurture a real solar industry and increase transparency and accountability.
Write to Paul Newman at [email protected]