Proposition 127: A Look Behind The Propaganda

Opinion and Facts by Albert Vetere Lannon

I don’t watch much television, but joined my mate one recent afternoon and was immediately hit with slick commercials attacking Arizona’s Proposition 127, the initiative that would require power companies to derive 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030, 12 years from now.  The ads shrieked that consumer costs would hit the ceiling, with a thousand dollar-a-year-increase, a powerful inducement to vote no for those middle- and working-class voters whose wages have been stagnant for years.  Here in the Southern Arizona summer my A/C use drove my Trico bill up to a record $359 last month, and that’s a lot for a fixed-income senior. But that thousand-dollar pitch didn’t ring true to me, so I did some research.

Current law sets a goal of 15 percent renewable energy by 2025.  That answers one friend’s concern about Arizonans not liking being told what we “have to do.”  The law already says what we “have to do” and Prop. 127 simply amends that to have the power companies make a bigger effort, with annual oversight by the elected Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC).  Twenty other states already have higher renewable energy standards than Arizona, including neighboring Nevada and New Mexico, so it’s not like we are looking at an impossible burden.  Those stats come from a National Electric Rate Study done by the Lincoln, Nebraska, Electric System.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) tells us that residential rates nationally went from an average of $12.55 per kilowatt hour in 2016 to $12.97 in 2018, an increase of 37 cents.  EnergySage.com says that rates increased about 24 percent over the past ten years, about $75 since 2008.  The current national average monthly cost of electricity is $139.98.

According to the EIA and ClimateCentral.org’s review of electricity rates in the “Mountain States” Arizonans pay an average of $124 monthly for our electricity.  Nevadans pay $120, and New Mexicans pay $128, even with higher renewable energy standards already in place.  Montanans, also with energy standard goals already met, pay $117/month.

I calculated my own average from October 2017 to September 2018’s big bill, one year’s worth of electricity, and came up with $141, just $1 off the national average.  Trico, by the way, is a co-op with an elected Board of Directors who have chosen not to oppose Prop. 127.  The evidence for the hysterical political ads simply does not exist in the real world.

What does exist in the real world is the misuse of customer dollars by big private power companies for this political campaign, and for bringing in “dark money” to elect pliable regulators.  The Arizona Public Service Electric Company, APS, was widely reported to have pumped over $3 million in anonymous money to defeat two pro-solar Republicans running for the Arizona Corporation Commission two years ago.  There’s something wrong with regulated companies buying votes for their regulators.  APS’s holding company, Pinnacle West, is putting $11 million into the No on 127 campaign.

But here’s the rub:  Pinnacle West distributed $78 million to its shareholders on one day and petitioned the ACC for a consumer rate increase the next.  That is despite declaring profits of $488 million!  Now Tucson Electric Power has joined the No campaign, announcing just days later that they are reducing the credits given for new customers with solar who use less than they generate.

So why are the big power companies so opposed to renewable?  Former ACC member Kris Mayes, quoted by Tim Stellar in the Arizona Daily Star, said that that the utilities are betting heavily on natural gas, whose production is more expensive than solar or wind power.  The cost of utility-scale solar has fallen 77 percent since 2009, wind, 38 percent, and the cost of battery storage fell 79 percent between 2010 and 2017.

A stronger renewable standard in Arizona lowers costs because it shifts investment from costly new natural gas power plants, to low-cost solar and solar-plus storage.  The Yes on 127 campaign cites a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council showing that Arizonans can save a total of over $4 billion if Prop. 127 is implemented.  And not only is natural gas investment more costly than wind and solar, it has its own problems.  Fracking creates earthquake activity and contaminates drinking water aquifers.

In Georgia and in Florida Green Tea Coalitions have formed to take on their own big power companies.  The Tea Party, Christian Coalition, Libertarians, NAACP, Occupy Atlanta and Sierra Club found common ground.  The Green Tea Coalition is led by Debbie Dooley, founder of the Atlanta Tea Party.  Dooley told Fox News in 2015, “Being good stewards of our environment, craving energy freedom and choice is not a leftist issue. It’s not a radical right issue. It’s an American issue.”

Dooley, who heads Conservatives for Energy Freedom and also sits on the Tea Party Patriots Board of Directors, explained in another interview that she supports solar energy in part because of her opposition to government subsidies for big energy and nuclear and coal power. Instead, Dooley insists, the government should end all subsidies to energy corporations and let the market choose. As solar prices continue to decrease year after year, she believes that solar is on track to become the most affordable option for consumers. According to Conservapedia.com an initial battle with Koch Brothers-owned Georgia Power resulted in a Green Tea Coalition victory allowing 10 kilowatts of power to be installed by third parties on homes and businesses.

Green Tea Coalitions are a model that Arizonans of all political persuasions might want to look at to face off against the big-money power of Pinnacle West and APS.  While the No campaign tells us how bad California is, the fact is that Arizona, along with the other Inter-Mountain West states, have little in common with the West Coast.  Sure, electricity is more expensive in California, but so is gasoline and rent, and buying a house – and wages are also higher.  It’s a different world.

Our state has more sunlight than most of us can bear.  Let’s put it to good use and cut way back on fossil fuels which are A) going to run out some day, and B) messing with air quality, and C) contributing to climate change – which is giving us record heat resulting in ever-higher use of electricity to stay cool.

I live in Picture Rocks, which is in the Avra Valley west of Tucson.  Tucson Water has settling ponds for CAP water to recharge the aquifer in our valley.  Imagine if those ponds were covered with solar panels.  That would not impact the already-unnatural view, but would generate a lot of power, and would reduce evaporation from the Colorado River water being stored there.  That could even lead to reduced costs to consumers for both water and electricity.  But I’m just speculating, not making any promises.

Vote as you please, but please vote – and vote on the basis of facts, not expensive scare propaganda or false promises.  Vote your own conscience.  You and I are intelligent enough to sort things out and make up our own minds without being told how to vote by me, APS, ADI, or anyone else.  I did the research, and I’m voting Yes on 127.

55 Comments on "Proposition 127: A Look Behind The Propaganda"

  1. Government mandates always end up costing the consumers MORE.

    Climate change data was falsified.

    Let solar energy emerge based on demand & choice, not by a dictatorial government. Regulate the big utilities on what they have to pay to consumers who install solar and create more energy than they sue. These power companies should be made to use the power and compensate the consumer for generating power.

    I’m voting NO on 127.

    • If Prop. 127 is approved by the voters, isn’t that a people’s choice rather than a government mandate? Just saying….

      • Yeah, it would be a people’s choice to use government force on other people who didn’t vote for it. Solar and wind is not a reliable energy source because we don’t have any control of when the sun shines or when the wind blows. So the same energy infrastructure still has to be maintained in place to back up the solar on a cloudy day. So whatever the exact numbers eventually turn out to be, it will cost more to maintain and operate the existing systems plus the additional solar and wind systems. I’m voting NO.

        • Albert Lannon | September 14, 2018 at 9:55 am |

          So, is that like the majority of American voters — who did not vote for Trump and his policies — getting stuck with the results anyway? Democracy, as my union mentors used to say, is gruesome when the vote doesn’t go your way. But it’s a heck of a lot better than the alternatives!

        • The Oracle of Tucson | September 14, 2018 at 11:35 pm |

          Not again.
          Seriously still forever stuck on stupid over the princess failing to secure the electoral collage vote?
          It’s the only path to the white house, your popular vote BS isn’t worth discussion and yet you always default to it.
          She lost get over it!

      • Peoples choice? The people don’t ever understand what they are voting for. Albert Lannon, do you even know what a duct curve is? It’s an energy curve based on supply and demand. Google the Arizona duct curve. You will see that we produce too much solar during the day when people DON’T NEED IT. If they don’t need or don’t use it during the day and we can’t store it with batteries because the technology isn’t there yet then why would we need more solar??????????? and why make the rate payers pay more for what they already aren’t using????? Solar doesn’t work because it only produces during the day. People are gone at work during the day, they don’t consume electricity until they get home at night. Oh and the average citizen is going to understand this. Or understand that if we get rid of nuclear then we will be burning natural gas at night polluting the air. You have zero facts and zero logic in your comments buddy.

    • Say NO to reading through a mile of blogging. Read the facts in article below. Let the data drive YES to 127,

      https://www.nrdc.org/experts/dylan-sullivan/new-modeling-palo-verde-stays-open-arizonas-prop-127

  2. This guy is going to be pissed when this passes and he pays $400 for that same energy.

  3. Solar energy has a way to go before it is cost efficient, until solar energy is efficient, I will vote NO on Prop 127

  4. Bureaucrats may regulate prices, but should not mandate how electric companies produce the electricity. Let the market decide which method of generation is least expensive and reliable. World-wide experience with solar and wind power shows that prices rise as the percentage of renewables rises. Also, the electric grid (supply) becomes less stable. For instance, the state of South Australian generates about 50 percent of its electricity from wind and solar power. South Australia’s consumer electricity prices are the highest in the world and electric reliability is one of the worst in the developed world.

    • Old news, fake news, Jonathan From UtilityDive, May 14, 2018: A report by McKinsey and Co presented at the recent Australian Energy Week conference claims that Tesla’s 100 MW / 129 MWh battery has now reduced grid service costs by 90%, taking over a 55% share of state’s Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS).
      Owned and operated by the French renewable energy company Neoen, Tesla’s HPR is having a huge impact on South Australia’s FCAS market, greatly reducing the price of grid service and increasing the electric grid’s reliability. The system proved its rapid response capabilities in December, following reports that it stepped in to provide power when units from a coal-burning plant tripped offline twice.
      HPR represents only 2% of the power capacity in the state of South Australia and it has already cornered the FCAS market’s revenues, according to Van Gendt. Through his assessment, he aimed to illustrate the great impact that new dispatchable technologies can have on the energy market, as South Australia was the only state to see FCAS pricing fall over the past few months.
      Other estimates credit HPR for saving consumers around $35 million in costs of ancillary services, to stabilize the grid, according to RenewEconomy.
      Tesla is working to create other opportunities to earn grid service revenues in South Australia, by developing a virtual power plant by fitting 50,000 houses with rooftop solar systems and Tesla’s Powerwall 2 batteries.

      And this from News.com.au, yesterday:
      Australia has the lowest cost for solar panels in the world, a new study on growing demand for renewable energy has found. Deloitte’s Global Renewable Energy Trends report released on Thursday says declining costs and advances in technology are driving demand for renewables, with solar and wind reaching price and performance parity on and off the grid.
      The report says wind and solar are now viewed as solutions to strengthening grid resilience and reliability, rather than being seen as an obstacle. Smart inverters and advanced controls mean wind and solar can provide reliability linked to frequency, voltage, and ramping “as well or better” than other generation sources.
      A report into South Australia’s 2016 statewide blackout found there were issues with some of the states wind farms, which switched off when major transmission lines were brought down by severe weather. Deloitte’s Michael Rath says the statewide blackout was a combination of an interconnector failure and a freak weather event.
      “The subsequent deployment of a large scale solar farm and the installation of the 100MW battery storage facility has enabled South Australia to achieve greater network resilience and grid stabilisation,” he told AAP in a statement. “The introduction of renewables and energy storage has added greater flexibility to the network to mitigate the magnitude of these events occurring.”
      Deloitte says the future is an increasing mix of renewables into the grid and a transition away from traditional forms of energy, despite the federal government’s retreat from its National Energy Guarantee.
      The study found that Africa has the highest cost for solar panels due to investment costs.
      “South Australia, along with China, has the lowest unsubsidised, levelised cost of energy for concentrating solar power,” Mr Rath said.
      China, the United States and Germany have reached price parity for certain renewable sources, Deloitte says.

      • Dwayne Wolfswinkle | September 14, 2018 at 6:02 pm | Reply

        Albert this looks to me like propaganda

      • Opinion and Facts by Albert Vetere Lannon. The vote no people aren’t saying they don’t want solar. Please stop distorting the facts.
        1)this mandate will cost consumers a lot of money. It’s not cheap to build all this new infrastructure and solar farms. Somebody’s got to pay for it. That is a fact and it’s the consumers.
        2) another FACT, read the actual ballot wording, “irrespective of cost to consumers.” That is saying it doesn’t matter what it costs. If you don’t believe me , google prop 127 ballot language and you will see with your own eyes.
        3) Prop 127 excludes nuclear, why? Nuclear doesn’t create CO2 emissions. Solar can’t just all of a sudden supply the world with all the power it needs. Don’t we need a diversity of fuel sources or at least non carbon emitting fuel sources? of course we do. That’s why California finally passed SB100 100% carbon free by 2045. Guess what that bill includes nuclear.
        Prop 127 excludes nuclear. If we don’t have nuclear then where will the power come from at Night when the sun is not shining? Natural gas which pollutes. Battery storage technology to store a large amount of power is currently not practical. In 10-15 years battery storage will be cheaper and more efficient but that’s a ways off.
        I’m an engineer and I’m telling you the facts. The general public absolutely would not know any of the facts I’m saying if it wasn’t for someone like me that works in the power industry. The general public is 100% not capable of making a decision as complicated as this one.
        If prop 127 included nuclear the utilities wouldn’t fight as much because it just makes sense to include nuclear.
        Vote NO on 127.

      • The ACC and Andy Tobin already have a plan that gives Arizona 80% clean energy by 2050 and this plan includes nuclear and 3Gwatts of battery storage. It gives more time for technology to come around so we don’t waste money on technology that isn’t ready yet.

  5. Sunlight may be free, but harnessing solar energy to work for us is VERY expensive. We the consumers will have to pay that cost if prop 127 passes. Vote NO!

  6. The Oracle of Tucson | September 14, 2018 at 8:03 am | Reply

    I’m undeterred and still voting NO on 127.
    While in theory I support the idea, I’m simply not willing to alter the state’s constitution by public ballot initiative to mandate how power companies do business. That’s the job of the ACC and the legislature.
    As for the political activism of APS and it’s parent company, I’d vote to break them up in a heartbeat and I don’t even use APS. I’d rather like to see the state’s Attorney Generals office pretend to be remotely effective against the graft and corruption that seems to plague our system of government at every level. I’d rather see the state legislature outlaw dark money, but that would require a conflict of interest as that’s the hand that feeds them.
    Somewhere in Prop 127 “the want” has been transposed with “the need”.
    I want endless green energy, I want birds to sing all day and the leaves to russel in the cool breeze as I gaze at my Norman Rockwell collection sitting on a park bench in the shade sipping ice cold lemonade, but I need to be able to flip the switch and light my hallway at 2am so I can use the toilet without falling and breaking my neck when my rooftop solar array is napping.
    Unlike the author who has dedicated his entire life to attacking capitalism, having never cared over everyone else shouldering the burdens of the real world cost of his utopian delusions, I simply don’t live in his world, nor does he live in my mine, I live in reality.
    I’ll wait for advances in solar technology to drive cost down and productivity up. I’ll wait for improvements in energy storage to meet nighttime demand when solar is offline. I’m unwilling to get a bigger hammer to force the square peg through the round hole just so I can pat myself on the back and boast that I’ve done something.
    It’s undeniable that something needs to be done, but I don’t personally believe Prop 127 is the fix all cure, I believe prop 127’s unintended side effects are far worse then the ills it’s promised to cure. Its backers aren’t lily white in their financials either, so that’s little more then a ruse.
    We need to tread lightly when we alter the state’s constitution, and if your unsure on any ballot proposition a “NO” vote is always far safer then a knee jerk “YES” vote on something we don’t fully understand.

    The Oracle

  7. TEP and all the other utilities still have to have “spinning turbines” and all the rest of the infrastructure ready and waiting to carry the load when Albert wants to turn on his TV and watch Rachel Maddow. When the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow what happens? Giant car batteries?

  8. The Oracle of Tucson | September 14, 2018 at 8:10 am | Reply

    Somehow “Opinion and Facts by Albert Vetere Lannon” is grossly misleading. The word “and” is beyond misused here, the time tested and proven tactics of the author make the Opinions and the Facts one in the same in anything published by Albert Vetere Lannon.
    It’s laughable that someone so far left thinks he’s always right.

    The Oracle

    • Once again instead of dealing with facts we have name-calling and labeling. That is what is really “grossly misleading.” And you, “Oracle,” whoever you are, would rather have the ACC and legislature — whom you and other commenters rightly blast as corrupt cronies — you would rather have those recipients of Dark Money make decisions for us rather than we make the decisions ourselves?

      And, for the record, as a union member, representative and educator for most of my life, I always had to operate in the real world with real people. But having my own mind and doing my own research, I can relate to the old Leon Russell song: “The Right says I’m Left and the Left says I’m wrong.”

      • The Oracle of Tucson | September 14, 2018 at 5:24 pm | Reply

        Sorry bud, if I verbally attacked you and called names you’d be in the ER looking for an ass donor.
        Calling you names and pointing out observations are vastly differant.
        But I get it that anytime you fail in your argument, you have to play the victim card.
        Need a tissue?

        The Oracle

  9. Archie Dicksion | September 14, 2018 at 9:38 am | Reply

    This is an amendment to the Arizona Constitution not just the enactment of a law. An amendment to the constitution should be undertaken only with the greatest of thought and consideration. It should not be done to put more money in the pockets of a California millionaire. I need no other reason to vote no on 127

  10. Jack H Markwardt, BSME, MSAE, MSEE, | September 14, 2018 at 10:49 am | Reply

    This article would have us believe that increasing the production of electricity from renewable sources from the 12 percent that we have today to the currently required 15 percent in 2025, and then to a new requirement of 50 percent of our electrical power from renewable sources in 2030 is doable. This article tells us nothing about the renewable sources that supposed would give us that huge increase in five years, from 2025 to 2030. In five years? What are the Renewable Electric power sources? Wind; solar, some hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas sources. I highly doubt the total power from all these sources can produce anywhere near that much power – in 50 years. I have a B.S in Mechanical Engineering, a M.S in Aeronautical Engineering, and M.S in Electrical Engineering, and I have completed all the required courses for a Master’s degree in Business Administration (with 4.0 GPA). I am not sold on Proposition 127.

  11. Big bad power producers! Objecting to such a happy new law. So economical! So environmentally beneficial! So PROFITABLE!! The big bad power producers are SO bad, why they object to *renewable* energy just because they’re bad. And big. They also make money, which is bad. Darkly bad.

    We are good. Green and good. Sunshiny good. They are bad. How can we NOT force them to deliver electricity to us in the manner that we demand? No, I don’t want to produce my OWN sunshiny electrons, I want THEM to do it for me. If they don’t, we the good ones will put them in jail.

    See how easy it is to get happy electrons! All WE have to do is draw a happy black line to connect the happy arrow. Leave the problem solving up to them. They are bad anyway, and deserve to be punished. They made money for their bad, bad stockholders. Which PROVES that they are bad. Very, very bad.

    Next we will vote to force them to give us the happy electrons for free. They have electrons, we need electrons. Renewable ones. Happy green ones that make us feel bubbly and happy happy happy.

  12. If your average monthly use is $141, and you had a one month bill for $359 because of A/C use, you need TRICO to do an energy audit! Maybe have a professional check out your A/C, that sounds way out of line!

  13. You also mentioned TRICO’s position not to oppose. They also don’t support it. They have on their web site (for anyone that wants to read them) the facts as they see them. One thing stood out for me, was they estimate the average monthly bill will rise $40. That is above other increases that may occur. Four hundred and eighty dollars a year. If it passes get ready for a 400 dollar bill!

  14. Ooooo…”Oracle” has me trembling now, a new butt, ouch! But if “far left,” “never cared over anyone else,” “utopian delusions,” “laughable,” and “victim card” are not name-calling and labeling, then we have obviously different understandings of the English language.

    Why can’t we respectfully disagree on the things we must and look for the things we can work together on, like the Green Tea Coalitions are doing? But I guess some people, like “Oracle” and “What Again,” prefer to hide behind anonymity to attack and divide people. One could argue that the anonymity covers up where the comments come from — and it could be anyplace: who knows where?

    But I would be happy to meet with the pair of them in some public place, unarmed and peaceful, where we might get to actually see each other as people with differing views, all of which are protected by the First Amendment.

    A lot of people, left and right and wrong, have tried to carve me a new butt over the years, but I’ve still got the one I was born with. Does have hemorrhoids and a few scars, but, hey, I’m 80 years old!

    • Albert Lannon , the battery that tesla built for Australia cost millions and is the size of a football field. It can only store enough energy to supply 30,000 homes for 1hr. That doesn’t sound very practical to me. Battery technology is not there yet and neither is solar. We need another 20 years before it ready

    • Albert Lannon, you have no facts and you claims are without substance. All you can say is solar, and Arizona should use all the sunlight it has. Read your comments. Zero facts dude!!!! Everybody on here please read my comments. I’m putting substance into my statements and sentences. I’m telling you to go look for yourself the verbiage of prop 127 how it will raise consumer electric costs that is written into the ballot language. I believe I’m giving concrete facts.

  15. Mr. Lannon,

    A simple fact: Germany has gone “all in” on green energy and there electricity now costs 35 cents per kilowatt-hour there – nearly triple TEP’s rates!

    Another simple fact: Arizona’s photovoltaic solar capacity factor, i.e. the percentage of the time they actually generate power, is only about 22% per the data tabulated by the US Dept. of Energy.

    A third simple fact: Due to shorter days, solar production in Dec. and Jan. is just 50-60% of the level it is in May and June.

    A fourth simple fact: Solar energy can’t be produced at night and it can’t be stored at present with current technology.

    A fifth simple fact: Arizona is not a good wind power state. Just 0.54% of Arizona’s electricity comes from wind.

    If Prop 127 were to pass, Arizonans’ electric bills would undoubtedly rise, perhaps as high as Germany’s has, as you would have to constantly build inefficient solar utility plants instead of more efficient natural gas plants.

    Finally, the Palo Verde nuclear plant alone supplies 30% of the state’s electricity production with zero carbon emissions and a capacity factor of 90-odd percent – it is almost always “on.” New and improved nuclear power plant designs have been created and Arizona should encourage the construction of a new nuclear power plant in the state.

  16. Remember who this bill is sponsored by: A BILLIONAIRE from Californication trying to hijack our system for their own benefit. What else is new? VOTE NONONONONO ON 127!!! If you want to have sky-high energy bills regardless of your having to move into a cave, then approve of this one. It’s gonna be a DOOZY! It won’t do anything for you except empty your bank account. Ka-ching!

  17. Opinion and Facts by Albert Vetere Lannon. The vote no people aren’t saying they don’t want solar. Please stop distorting the facts.
    1)this mandate will cost consumers a lot of money. It’s not cheap to build all this new infrastructure and solar farms. Somebody’s got to pay for it. That is a fact and it’s the consumers.
    2) another FACT, read the actual ballot wording, “irrespective of cost to consumers.” That is saying it doesn’t matter what it costs. If you don’t believe me , google prop 127 ballot language and you will see with your own eyes.
    3) Prop 127 excludes nuclear, why? Nuclear doesn’t create CO2 emissions. Solar can’t just all of a sudden supply the world with all the power it needs. Don’t we need a diversity of fuel sources or at least non carbon emitting fuel sources? of course we do. That’s why California finally passed SB100 100% carbon free by 2045. Guess what that bill includes nuclear.
    Prop 127 excludes nuclear. If we don’t have nuclear then where will the power come from at Night when the sun is not shining? Natural gas which pollutes. Battery storage technology to store a large amount of power is currently not practical. In 10-15 years battery storage will be cheaper and more efficient but that’s a ways off.
    I’m an engineer and I’m telling you the facts. The general public absolutely would not know any of the facts I’m saying if it wasn’t for someone like me that works in the power industry. The general public is 100% not capable of making a decision as complicated as this one.
    If prop 127 included nuclear the utilities wouldn’t fight as much because it just makes sense to include nuclear.
    Vote NO on 127.

  18. Albert Lannon , the battery that tesla built for Australia cost millions and is the size of a football field. It can only store enough energy to supply 30,000 homes for 1hr. That doesn’t sound very practical to me. Battery technology is not there yet and neither is solar. We need another 20 years before it ready

  19. Albert Lannon, you have no facts and you claims are without substance. All you can say is solar, and Arizona should use all the sunlight it has. Read your comments. Zero facts dude!!!! Everybody on here please read my comments. I’m putting substance into my statements and sentences. I’m telling you to go look for yourself the verbiage of prop 127 how it will raise consumer electric costs that is written into the ballot language. I believe I’m giving concrete facts.

  20. vote no

  21. Carolyn knowlton | September 15, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Reply

    Very interesting read(s). Altho when it’s stated the average energy cost for APS is 127. Or so is a joke. Whatever our ACTUAL ENERGY USEAGE is….all the costs taxes and surcharges double it. I have solar yet when APS now won’t let us roll over our surplus energy I get hit with my solar payment and anywhere from 160-350. EXTRA DOLLARS in the summer months. Someone needs to reign in APS. I personally loathe that company….

  22. Albert Lannon, the ACC and Andy Tobin has an 80% clean energy by 2050 plan that includes nuclear and 3gwatts of battery storage. That gives time for battery technology to become more practical and keeps nuclear in the mix to lower air pollution. This plan also increase solar production every year. Everybody, google Andy Tobins Arizona energy modernization plan. You can find the PDF of the plan online.

  23. Paragraph 3 cost per kWh is way off. Move your decimal point two to the left. It is 12 cents, not 12 dollars.

    • Thank you David — you are so right. The way it is written on the EIA site, 12.55, kept me from seeing the small print, cents per KWH. Or maybe its my chemo brain or just old age befuddlement that diverted me. So it’s $.1255, not $12.55.

  24. Actually the “irrespective of cost to consumers” language is in the obviously opposed Sect’y of State’s summary, and appears nowhere in the proposition. Read for yourself:
    https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2018/general/ballotmeasuretext/C-04-2018.pdf

    And here’s what’s going on around the nation – but don’t let the facts confuse you:

    Renewable energy standards
    As of 2018, 29 states had renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS is a mandate to electric utilities to generate a minimum amount of electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. California and Hawaii had the highest future requirement, as of 2018, at 100 percent by 2045. The following list provides details on the different state RPS laws:[22]
    State Amount Year
    Arizona 15% 2025
    California 100% 2045
    Colorado 30% (IOUs) or 10%-20% (municipalities and co-ops) 2020
    Connecticut 27% 2020
    Delaware 25% 2025-2026
    Hawaii 100% 2045
    Illinois 25% 2025-2026
    Iowa 105 MW (IOUs) N/A
    Maine 40% 2017
    Maryland 20% 2022
    Massachusetts 15%+1% each year thereafter (Class I) and 5.5% (Class II) 2020
    Michigan 15% 2021
    Minnesota 26.5% (IOUs) and 25% (other utilitites) 2025
    Missouri 15% (IOUs) 2021
    Montana 15% 2015
    Nevada 25% 2025
    New Hampshire 24.8% 2025
    New Jersey 24.5% 2020
    New Mexico 20% (IOUs) and 10% (co-ops) 2020
    New York 50% 2030
    North Carolina 12.5% (IOUs) and 10% (municipalities and co-ops) 2021 (IOUs) and 2018 (municipalities and co-ops)
    Ohio 25% 2026
    Oregon 50% (utilities with 3 percent or more of the state’s load) and 10% (utilities with 1.5–3 percent of the state’s load) and 5% (utilities with less than 1.5% of the state’s load) 2040 (utilities with 3% or more of the state’s load) and 2025 (utilities with 3% or less of the state’s load)
    Texas 10,000 MW 2025
    Pennsylvania 18% 2020-2021
    Vermont 75% 2032
    Washington 15% 2020
    Wisconsin 10% 2015

  25. Albert Lannon, I’m blasting all of your false facts and lies all over facebook so everyone knows you are trying to mislead. You will have zero credibility when I’m through. If this ever goes to court, I’m saving all these lies so a judge can see that you tom steyer pro 127 people are flat out lying to the public.

  26. By the way Alberto Lannon, California has a 100% clean energy mandate by 2045 which clean energy means zero carbon emitting and includes nuclear. SB100 is the bill name. Everyone look it up. That’s another reason prop 127 is wrong, it doesn’t include nuclear but California can pass a law that includes nuclear?????? It doesn’t make sense.

    • Sorry if this is a duplicate post — not sure my earlier response went through. Sorry, Robert — I don’t do facebook or other unsocial media, so all your hard work is lost on me. As for nuclear, thee are three problems: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

  27. There are some signs in my neighborhood that say ” protect our schools. Vote no on 127″. Complete b.s. for an energy bill. APS is misleading voters. This should tell you something about their motives.

    • Brian Whipple, you are another idiot. Complete b.s. brian whipple? Tell me why? Give some facts? don’t just say APS is misleading voters, tell us how exactly????? If APS has to spend 10 billion dollars to comply with this mandate then they will pass that bill onto the rate payers. Did you think it would be free you moron? I believe a school is considered a rate payer. Electric bills will double and triple for everyone in Arizona. go to the secretary of states website where it the actual ballot wording is. it says “irrespective of cost to consumers” . Unless you are an idiot you understand that to mean it doesn’t matter what the damn mandate will cost. You people have zero facts or substance to anything you say. You people are stupid. Arizona is a republican state and we don’t want you damn demorcats in our state because of how stupid you are.

  28. You DO realize that Prop 127 is a Constitutional Amendment and not just another regulation (and, if passed, would require another constitutional amendment to change it).
    It’s being backed by Pinnacle West (the parent company of APS — whose dark money bought positions on the ACC) and California billionaire political activist Tom Steyers (founder of NextGen Climate Action).
    VOTE NO ON 127.

    • Actually, Pinnacle West/APS have put up $11 million of their customer’s dollars to DEFEAT Prop, 127. You do realize that puts you and the corporation you rightly criticize for buying ACC positions on the same side….

    • No. APS employees are hanging “no” signs all over Arizona, so no APS is not “behind” 127. What are you smoking and did you bring enough for everyone?

  29. The government facility where I work was mandated to use solar. So, we installed solar. It saves us about $80k a year. The contract for maintenance on the system is $100k per year. Net loss of $20k. Now parts of the system are failing, but we have other priorities (a/c, toilets, etc.) That must be addressed. A mandate takes away flexibility when it just doesn’t make sense. If it were better and more cost effective, the power companies would do it on their own. Increasing margin is better than raising prices! I vote no.

  30. Voting Yes on prop 127. All the BS political crap i read here is just that. Time to get off the petrol wagon folks. solar is the future.

    • Brew the stew… Another idiot I have to call out. Get out of our state or we will throw you in jail. Your vote won’t even count because you have an ugly name like Brew and brew doesn’t provide facts. Brew, I would love to find you if 127 passes and laugh in your face when your electric bill is double you moron.

      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  31. Socialists/Communists like the starved for attention Lannon and his fellow leftists never learn. This is EXACTLY what they want for America.

    Nearly 40 percent of all Venezuelan stores have closed —some of them perhaps permanently —after the government of President Nicolas Maduro increased the minimum salary by nearly 3,500 percent in one fell swoop, according the National Council of Commerce and Services of Venezuela.

    http://www.fltimes.com/tns/international/maduro-s-huge-salary-increases-force-percent-of-venezuelan-stores/article_c1492765-34d4-55dc-87bb-ec97b8abe142.html

  32. So nice to be back in Arizona where coward conservatives bow to the simple-minded fear tactics of their power provider. Fear and not facts drive the “no” campaign and the cowards who need only a simple dog whistle to get them salivating will tell you how stupid you are for not sharing their baseless fears. They won’t give you facts to burgeon their argument, just fear and baseless conclusions and comical tidbits about car batteries (which are apparently useless, or so the argument would have to go — all batteries are useless to cowardly conservatives). Vote YES on 127 and get in while the pric s are falling and you HELP them fall by our demand. It’s simple economics if you aren’t already simple-minded.

  33. Bill, what facts did you provide you f****ing idiot moron. Read up on the comments. I believe I gave facts. What the f**** did give??? You liar. All you can say is we don’t have facts. Where are your facts buddy. I believe with a nuclear plant shut down that equals more natural gas usage at night. which equals more CO2 emissions which equals dirtier air. I’m an engineer and it’s a simple math equation. YOu are probably some poor fat guy sitting on his couch getting food stamps. You loser.

    Vote NO on 127 and lets kick these bottom feeder idiots out of Arizona.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*