The California Invasion – No On Prop 127

By Randy Fleenor, State Senate candidate (LD-9)

A given state or country typically exports their best products. The Swiss have their watches, the Germans have their cars and Texas has oil. California is bucking the trend and is now experimenting with exporting bad ideas to other states. Perhaps misery loves company.

Proposition 127 is a recycled version of California’s failed energy initiatives being exported to Arizona courtesy of Tom Steyer, California energy hedge fund billionaire. The proposition would require electric companies like TEP and APS to get half of their power from renewable sources by 2030. It is a lofty goal which comes with lofty pricing for Arizona energy consumers.

We all want clean water and clean air. We also want Arizona in control of our own energy future. The California clean energy experiment has done nothing but produce the highest electricity rates in the country. Southern Arizona has yet to shake off the great recession. Raising energy prices only results in more companies and jobs fleeing to other states. Now is the time to capitalize on the masses fleeing the high California cost of living. It is not the time to turn AZ into CA!

Prop. 127 if passed, is estimated to cost the average family in Arizona more than $1,000 in increased energy costs annually. Small business which represents the economic engine of our economy will have to pass those costs on to consumers or perhaps consider relocation. The impact will be especially difficult for struggling low-income families, the very people we want to protect.

This will further impact Arizona voters’ ability to voice their opinions on our economic future by restricting the Arizona Corporation Commission’s authority. Moreover, it forces the Palo Verde nuclear facility to close by 2025. These jobs and $55 million in tax revenues that now go to education, roads and other state funding would be lost.

We don’t need the export of failed California ideas here in Arizona. Prop. 127 states clearly that arbitrary “clean energy” thresholds must be met, “irrespective of costs to consumers.” Say ‘no’ to higher energy costs and out-of-state control of our energy future.

Randy Fleenor is a candidate for State Senate in Legislative District 9. To learn more, visit email or call (520) 471.007.


  1. A little simple research finds that Californians pay less monthly than Arizonans for electricity — at odds with the multi-million dollar No campaign funded by the power companies. According to the US Energy Information Agency California rates went up 2.6% in the past year, while Arizona’s went up 4%. Now, California’s rate per kilowatt hour is higher, $.1990, compared to Arizona’s $.1316, but Arizona’s average consumption is almost double that of California, 1030 kwh versus 547 kwh. That’s what our air conditioned summer does for us. So an Arizonan’s monthly residential bill in 2016, according to the EIA, was $125.19, while Californians paid $95.20. I note that both are below the national average.

    Current Arizona law sets a goal of 15 percent renewable energy by 2025. 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.

    And why repeat the power companies’ lies about the language of the proposition saying “irrespective of costs to consumers?” That language is from the state bureaucrats who write the summary and appears nowhere in the actual proposition people will vote on. Power companies like APS/Pinnacle West have wide influence in Phoenix, and access to plenty of dark money along with the $11 million of their customer’s dollars we already know they are spending to oppose this initiative.

    Sorry to confuse you with the facts, Mr. Fleenor and Mr. Duhamel, but there they are and I’m voting Yes on 127.

    • Such breathtaking apples and oranges arguments are not unusual for Al, but it is still worthy of note in the present circumstances. First, the rates of increase in electricity in AZ and CA LAST YEAR have nothing to do with the cost effect on electricity of passing a proposition that would take effect IN THE FUTURE. The fact that AZ consumers use more electricity than CA users is not in dispute and is also immaterial to the future cost to AZ consumers of electricity if prop 127 is passed. The comparison of the current costs of a kilowatt hour of electricity in AZ and CA are also irrelevant to the effect on the cost of electricity if Prop 127 is passed. The only relevant comparison of electricity costs for Arizonans regarding this Prop is what the increase in cost to AZ electricity consumers will be if Prop 127 is passed compared to current cost trends and Al ignores this. Clearly it is Mr. Lannon, not Fleenor and Duhamel, who is attempting to confuse the voter with irrelevant facts and faulty arguments

      • If I am using apples and oranges, it’s because I am responding to what came out of Mr. Fleenor’s fruit basket. I agree that Arizona is not California, and Prop. 127 won’t change that. We have plenty of sunlight and plenty of empty desert space, so solar seems right for us. The power companies prefer to invest in natural gas, perhaps because they can’t put a meter on the sun. Natural gas prices are currently low, but as with oil, we know how fast that can change. And like oil and coal, gas will run out eventually. And the method of obtaining it, fracking, contaminates water supplies and causes earthquakes.

        I am less concerned about a rich Californian openly putting money into the Prop. 127 campaign than I am about APS bringing in millions in out-of-state dark money to defeat two solar-friendly Republicans for the Corporation Commission.

        With one major water source, the Colorado River, in decline, I’m not sure where hydroelectric could come from. And as for nuclear, I see three problems: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

        So I’m sticking with Prop. 127, no matter how many wannabe legislators parrot the power company propaganda. Please, folks, read the text of the proposition itself and not some state ballot bureaucrat’s attempt to influence your vote.

        • By all means, read the text, then your daily dose of Karl Marx and you will see they are perfectly in line.

          Socialism/Communism – the ever present and persistent spread of misery and poverty to all to make the non-achievers feel good with other people’s money.

    • In response to Mr Lannon, I’d suggest you need to review your math and read the proposition. First the math, using your numbers, the California average residential rate is over 50% higher than Arizona’s. Therefore, we could expect the average Arizona utility bill to climb approximately 50%. So, not only would Arizona’s use more power due to higher energy usage driven by air conditioning, we would be paying far more per KWH in the future if this measure passes.
      Regarding the language of the proposition; there is NO review by the Arizona Corporation Commission of these mandates. They are baked into the Arizona Constitution, including an elaborate description of what is, and is not, a renewable energy resource. Finally, the “irrespective of costs to the consumer” is entirely correct. There is not a single mention in the text of the proposition regarding either the price of power to the consumer or its reliability.
      Arizona is completely capable of moving to clean, affordable, reliable energy through our existing processes as renewable energy technology matures. We don’t need an out-of-state special interest driving a constitutional mandate to do so.

    • @Albert, seriously have you tried getting the fertilizer industry unionized?
      Your hard selling a bunch of shit to people who aren’t buying.
      You vote yes, I’ll vote no and we’re all even, it’ll be democracy at its finest.
      I hope you handle rejection well, it’s a tough sell to a hostile room.
      I’ve run out of space to put up more solar panels, I’ve voluntarily done my part, actually I wanted the shade. Outside of hot air which isn’t in short supply, how much green energy are you already producing?
      While some unnamed people wish to live out life in a delusional fantasy world, the rest of us sadly are stuck in reality and have to act in what we feel is in our best interest without buying into the failures of utopian Kalifornia…

      The Oracle

  2. Albert you want kalif ideas I guess ya need to move there. The people here DO NOT WANT anything like kalif nor do many other states. They have screwed their state up so badly that we dont need their help here. Our crooked politicians are doing a fine job of screwing the state up on their own particularly the democraps.

    • He came from there, a long time communist activist/union steward from San Francisco literally lining his pockets off the backs of workers.

  3. Why isn’t the power generated by hydroelectric counted? Windmills and solar panels are NOT green! Windmills kill millions of birds and bats every year. Solar panels use lots of “ingredients” which poison our planet upon being sent to landfills when done. Hydroelectric is the only clean power!

    • Hydropower is renewable but kills salmon. Wind is renewable but explodes bats and chops eagles. Solar is renewable but uses dozens of mined materials as does wind energy that will increase mining. Solar can cook thousands of birds..especially no. 1 bird-killer Ivanapah. Nuclear is carbon footprint clean but has waste disposal problems. There is no free lunch

    • Well stated AZsheeplady!

      Not counting actual green power generation
      from hydroelectric, and forcing the closure of
      Palo Verde Nuclear plant will ensure that AZ
      utilities will have to purchase “clean energy
      tax credits” from elsewhere.

      Bingo! Tom Steyer makes additional billions
      trading these credits.

      Meanwhile, a considerable number of AZ lower
      income people will have to choose between
      luxuries like eating, housing, and medical care
      to cope with the significantly higher energy

  4. They say”we have so much sun that is free”! They say power companies don’t like it cause they “can’t put a meter on it”. So if solar is so cheap, why wouldn’t the power companies jump on it? I mean it’s “cheap” and they do put a meter on what they sell! If it was so economical, they would use it and make a killing off us! Maybe it’s so a rich solar manufacturer in CA can get richer, maybe that’s why he’s putting so much money in the pro 127 ads!

  5. Why can’t this be settled by ACC regulation instead of an AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION? You can’t replace, repeal, or revoke once that’s in place.

  6. “Current Arizona law sets a goal of 15 percent renewable energy by 2025. Prop. 127 simply amends that to have the power companies make a bigger effort, with annual oversight by the elected Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)”
    The biggest problem with the “YES” side is that they lie constantly. Prop 127 does not simply amend the current ACC ruling, and it does not simply require power companies to make a bigger effort. It is a constitutional amendment that requires action and that can never be changed regardless of how poor the outcome may be. Even if the underlying purpose behind Prop 127 were good, which it isn’t, it would still be a terrible idea to so it as a constitutional amendment. Do not Californicate AZ. Vote NO on Prop 127

Comments are closed.