Roberts: APS regulator nixes discussion of dark-money disclosure

Finally, today was the day that it appeared the Arizona Corporation Commission was at long last to consider confronting dark money campaigns that are allowing Arizona Public Service and/or other utilities to essentially select who will regulate them.

But this morning, one of commission's wholly-owned APS regulators nixed that discussion.

Shocking, I know.

Earlier this week, an item popped up on the agenda for today’s commission meeting, to discuss and possibly vote on whether regulated utilities ought to have to publicly disclose their dark-money maneuvering.

It was placed on the agenda by Commission Chairwoman Susan Bitter Smith and Commissioner Bob Burns. Both are up for re-election next year. Both have asked APS to stay out of next year’s elections.

Both have voted against APS in the solar wars.

Neither, however, has been willing to order APS to open its books so we can see whether the utility was behind last year's multi-million dark-money campaigns that landed APS-friendly Tom Forese and Doug Little on the commission.

Still, it appears that neither Bitter Smith nor Burns is interested either in being targeted by an APS dark-money campaign next year.

Thus came today’s agenda item: “Commission discussion, consideration, and possible vote regarding developing correspondence and/or other communications relating to the campaign contribution practices of public service corporations and other entities that appear before the Commission and opening a docket therefor - Commissioner Burns and Chairman Bitter Smith.”

In English, that means they are interested in forcing any regulated utility to publicly disclose whether they are engaged in dark-money campaigns to get their favored candidates onto the commission that regulates them.

This morning, Little pulled the item removed from today’s agenda – something a commissioner can do once on any item, in order to delay consideration of an issue.

Jodi Jerich, the commission’s executive director, said the item was a last-minute addition to today’s commission staff meeting agenda.

“Some commissioner wanted more time to develop their thoughts,” she told me.

Or possibly, time for APS to send over marching orders.

The big question, earlier today, was which of APS' favored regulators nixed today's discussion.

Little and Forese each enjoyed multi-million-dollar support from dark-money campaigns that are widely believed to have been funded by APS last year.. Meanwhile, Commissioner Bob Stump spent a fair amount of last year’s campaign season busily texting an APS executive, a dark money group that supported Forese and Little during the campaign and Forese, Little and their campaign chairman.

Last week, the trio voted to disregard the ruling of an administrative law judge, who advised that the commission dismiss APS's request to impose higher fees on its rooftop solar customers.

Instead, that request – to boost fees to an average of $21 a month, more than four times the $5 it now is allowed to charge solar customers to maintain the grid.-- will be considered.

Never mind that Administrative Law Judge Teena Jibilian said that any such request should "more reasonably and appropriately dealt with in the context of a full rate case proceeding."

"It is not in the public interest to make a determination on the reset application outside a full rate case proceeding," she wrote.

It is, however, in the interest of APS, which has been pushing to boost its fees for solar customers for several years now – perhaps hoping to run rooftop solar competition out of town, as Salt River Project has essentially done by raising its fee to $50 a month. (SRP is regulated by its own board rather than the Corporation Commission.)

The vote to ignore the judge's ruling and do as APS has asked was 3-2..

“Delaying the conversation another year basically is a disservice and not in the public interest,” Little said, during last week’s vote.

Certainly, it's not in his interest.