Roberts: Kermit, Cookie Monster and the Corporation Commission
A pair of corporation commissioners are asking Arizona Public Service and other utilities to “voluntarily refrain” from funding campaigns to get their candidates onto the commission next year.
It seems the widely held belief that APS secretly spent millions last year to install its favored candidates on the board that regulates utilities has “damaged the public perception of the commission.”
These, according to Commission Chairwoman Susan Bitter Smith and Commissioner Bob Burns, are “unfortunate perceptions”.
Unfortunate perceptions?
Might I point out that these unfortunate perceptions have been bolstered by the recent moves of APS’s puppets on the five-member commission?
Consider the recent vote on whether to consider allowing APS to quadruple its monthly fee, to $21, on its solar customers. APS says it needs rooftop solar customers to pay more for their fair share of the grid. Solar advocates suspect it’s a move to dry up the competition.
An administrative law judge in August recommended dismissing APS’s request, saying it would “more reasonably and appropriately” be dealt with in a full-blown rate case, when everything’s on the table and all factors can be considered.
"It is not in the public interest to make a determination on the reset application outside a full rate case proceeding," Administrative Law Judge Teena Jibilian wrote.
It is, however, in the interest of APS. So naturally, the vote was 3-2, in favor of considering APS’s request this year.
Voting with APS:
Commissioners Tom Forese and Doug Little, who last year enjoyed $3.2 million in dark-money support widely believed to have been funded by APS.
And Commissioner Bob Stump, who spent a fair amount of last year’s campaign season texting an APS executive, the head of a dark-money campaign that supported Forese and Little and the candidates and their campaign chairman.
Consider the recent move to nix any talk of compelling regulated utilities to publicly disclose their dark-money maneuvering in next year’s commission races.
An item to consider what to do about dark money in commission races was put on the agenda last week by Bitter Smith and Burns. Both are up for re-election next year and no doubt would like to avoid looking like APS puppets – or perhaps worse, facing opponents who are secretly funded by copious amounts of APS cash.
Alas, talk of forcing APS et al into the sunshine never happened. Little pulled the item from the agenda, as commissions are allowed to do one time.
Little told me the item was a late addition to last week's agenda and he didn't have time to properly consider it, given another complex rate case the commission was handling. He says he's in the process of developing a position statement.
"I frankly just wasn’t prepared to have a conversation about some of the things that Bob and Susan had put into that letter," he said. "I think you can appreciate the ramifications of a policy decision like that by the commission are pretty far reaching."
Certainly far reaching for any utilities that might wish to choose their own regulators.
After last week’s discussion was blocked, Bitter Smith and Burns wrote their draft letter, proposing that the commission ask that both regulated and unregulated entities voluntarily stay out of next year’s commission races.
I’m a little unclear on why they think that would happen.
It’s entirely legal for APS or any other utility to secretly funnel money into a campaign in order to choose their own regulators. The Arizona Legislature has no interest in allowing voters to see who is trying to influence their vote.
It’s entirely logical that they would want to spend a few million dollars to choose the pupp...er, I mean regulators who will decide the size of their profits.
Or put another way, to decide the size of your electricity bill, and mine.
If Bitter Smith and Burns really are concerned about “unfortunate perceptions” that that the Corporation Commission has become nothing more than a sock puppet of APS, there is a way to remedy that.
Order APS to open its books.
Not in 2016, but now.
Let us see whether APS secretly spent millions last year to select its own regulators.
“This behavior,” Bitter Smith and Burns say in their draft letter, “has the strong potential to diminish the integrity of the commission and to engender public doubt as to the commission’s ability to discharge its regulatory responsibilities in a fair and unbiased way.”
The strong potential to diminish its integrity?