Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Hamburger Menu Hamburger Menu
Subscribe Now Free Newsletter

Tag: Arizona Corporation Commission

Democrats break up all-Republican majority on Corporation Commission

Key Points:
  • Democrats Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill are expected to win two seats on the Corporation Commission
  • The two Republican candidates have conceded the race in interviews
  • Democrats will bring opposition to the commission for the first time in two years

Single-party rule on the Arizona Corporation Commission is over after two Republicans conceded their seats on the utility-regulation body to Democrats.

Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill defeated incumbent Commissioner Kevin Thompson and Rep. Ralph Heap, R-Mesa, in Tuesday’s election. Results are still unofficial, with many ballots left to count, but both Republicans conceded in Wednesday interviews with the Arizona Capitol Times. 

Republicans still hold three of the commission’s five seats, but Pratte and Hill will bring a Democratic dissent that the ACC hasn’t seen in two years. Hill, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the ACC in 2024, attributed this year’s Democratic wins to issues currently pending before the commission. 

“I felt like [the momentum] built as we got closer to Election Day,” Hill said. “The [Arizona Public Service] rate case is coming up. We were just down in Yuma, and they had just received a notice that they’re looking at another [water] rate increase. Data center concerns are growing. All these issues were growing, but thankfully people were connecting it to the commission, which I think is new.”

As commissioners, Pratte and Hill vowed to question utility companies from the dais and subpoena their records in order to address ratepayers’ questions about data centers and energy affordability.

“There’s very little good information, reliable information out there about exactly how much water [data centers] are using, how much energy they actually are using,” Hill said. “I think that an easy early goal is to really collect good, reliable information on these things so that everyone at the table knows what we’re discussing.”

Pratte will also bring a new perspective to the commission as the state’s first Indigenous woman elected to statewide office. As a member of the Navajo Nation, Pratte resides in northern Arizona and campaigned on making the ACC accessible to more Arizona ratepayers.

“Our rural and tribal communities often felt neglected by the ACC,” Pratte said. “… Out of the last four years, out of 376 meetings, all of those except for four were held in Phoenix or Tucson.” 

Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson, who is term-limited in 2028, lives in Tucson and is the only current commissioner who resides outside of central Arizona. She is also expected to be a crucial swing vote on the commission in the next two years, given her opposition to the ACC’s controversial formula rate policy statement.

Pratte and Hill have already pledged to vote against any formula rate proposals, which let utility companies adjust rates annually through a condensed review process rather than undergoing a rigorous rate case examination every three to five years. Márquez Peterson voted against the policy statement enabling formula rates and against the first formula rate structure adopted by the commission. 

But the two Democrats may not get a chance to weigh in on the pending Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power rate cases, both of which feature formula-rate proposals. TEP’s rate case, with a recommended 11% rate increase, is tentatively scheduled for a Nov. 17 vote, while APS’ rate case is expected to wrap up in December. 

“After voters have already clearly shown that they’re unhappy with the current commission, they seem intent on moving forward with making decisions when they don’t have the support of the voters,” Hill said. “So I’m disappointed in that.” 

For their part, Thompson and Heap reluctantly wished Pratte and Hill luck.

“We’re turning over a well-functioning state and organization to new leadership, and we just hope that they don’t screw it up,” Thompson said. 

Heap blamed the loss on the current commission’s recent votes and deflected criticism regarding the ongoing Citizens Clean Elections Commission investigation into his campaign finances. 

“People can’t tolerate double-digit rate increases, and you’ve got double-digit rate increases, and you’ve got the utilities making massive profits,” Heap said. “So it’s pretty clear that people feel like the Corporation Commission hasn’t really been on their side, and I think that’s probably true.”

Pratte said she and Hill have already begun meeting with stakeholders and ratepayers to deliver on their campaign promises.

“We’re hitting the ground running,” Pratte said. “We know the commission is not stopping. We can’t either.”

Democrats lead in Corporation Commission race

Democrats Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill are leading their Republican counterparts in the Arizona Corporation Commission race.

After the second batch of election results dropped at 10 p.m., Pratte and Hill appeared on track to defeat incumbent Republican Commissioner Kevin Thompson and Rep. Ralph Heap, R-Mesa.

The Democrats told the Arizona Capitol Times on Tuesday night that they hope the voter enthusiasm for their race translates into ratepayer engagement at the commission. 

“We still need all those people who voted for the commission to stay involved with these cases, because that’s where the real power comes from,” Hill said. “The commissioners are voting, but we need that input from the communities.”

If their lead holds, Hill and Pratte will join Republican Commissioners Lea Márquez Peterson, Rachel Walden and Rene Lopez on the dais in January. Pratte, a member of the Navajo Nation, would also be the first Indigenous woman elected to statewide office in Arizona. 

The Commission’s five seats are currently occupied entirely by Republicans. Those commissioners are tasked with regulating and setting rates for electric, water and gas utility companies in Arizona. 

The race got off to a rocky start for the Republican hopefuls. Heap unseated Thompson’s running mate and fellow Commissioner Nick Myers in the primary, but was immediately tripped up by a campaign finance complaint alleging he improperly obtained political signs without reporting the expense. 

That complaint became a months-long investigation by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which remained unresolved as of Election Day. As the probe unfolded, Heap stopped responding to media inquiries, declined to attend candidate debates and left his Clean Elections funding untouched. 

Meanwhile, Thompson was left to spar with Hill and Pratte over increasing utility bills, data center growth and the state’s energy supply. 

Myers, who attributed his loss to Heap’s primary challenge from the far right, blamed Tuesday night’s results on Arizona’s conservative groups. 

“I know it’s pretty early in the ballot counting, but given the counts right now, including the number of ballots cast today, any future candidate that hitches their horse to @TPAction, @TPUSA or @azfec should think long and hard before committing,” Myers wrote on social media. “This is beyond embarrassing.”

Nick Myers: Outgoing Corporation Commission chair on legacy and next steps

Arizona Corporation Commission Chair Nick Myers lost his reelection bid in July. Now, he thinks he may have gotten the better end of the deal. 

Myers’ four-year term coincided with unprecedented interest in the ACC’s work, stemming from spats with the Legislature and the attorney general, concerns about rapid data center growth and energy costs, and conflicts surrounding the commission’s formula rate policy statement. 

The outgoing utility regulator sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to discuss what he’s learned from serving in a statewide elected office and how his future plans might keep him close to the commission.

The questions and answers have been edited for style and clarity.

Can you tell me about your path to the commission?

I started as a software engineer, did that for 18 years. Ultimately, I got tired of the corporate world and started doing my own entrepreneurial activities. I built fuel systems for aircraft; I did dog training; I had an IT business — just very eclectic, hodgepodge businesses. One of those was delivering water, and that’s where I met George Johnson and ended up picking a fight with him. That led to six or seven years of fighting in front of the commission and getting to know it fairly intimately. When I was done with that, somebody said, “Hey, you’ve got a lot of experience now. Why don’t you run for a seat?” My dad was [on] city council back in Kansas, so I went to him, and I said, “I’m thinking about doing this. Am I crazy?” I think his exact words were, “Yes, but do it anyway.” So I did. And, it turns out I really do love the job. 

Was there still a learning curve when you were elected to the commission?

I did have an advantage because [when] I ran the first time, COVID hit, so I couldn’t shake hands, which meant I lost. [Then] Rep. [Jacqueline] Parker got elected, so she could no longer be Commissioner [Justin] Olson’s deputy policy advisor. So when she went to the Legislature, I stepped in. That was my fire hose drinking time. So when I actually became a commissioner and took office, I was well prepared, much more than most commissioners when they come in. I’m not going to tell you that there wasn’t a lot that I had to learn. This is a huge field, and we do a lot of wonky things. Securities, corporations’ filings, telecommunications, and railroad and pipeline safety. So yes, there was a bit of a learning curve, but the fact that I had that two-year advantage really did help a lot.

What do you wish more people knew about the commission?

The reality is, we have constitutional responsibilities. We can’t just turn down a rate case. If the utility thinks that their rates need to be adjusted in order for them to continue to do business, we have to go look at all of that evidence and assign rates. It’s not a matter of, “No, you don’t get a rate increase this time.” And I really wish people understood that. That it’s not [utilities] spending money and then coming back and taking it from the pockets of the ratepayers. It’s how much money you need in order to operate effectively and with a little bit of a profit. It’s not us rubber-stamping rate cases; it’s going through an 18-month process in front of a judge with intervenors and putting everything on the table, cross-examining witnesses. It’s a personal goal [and] a constitutional responsibility to keep [rates] as low as possible, but also [to] let the utility run. 

What do you wish other elected officials knew about the commission?

The biggest thing that I can point to is they need to stop thinking that we are the Legislature. We act more like a judicial branch, not more like a legislative branch. We can’t just snap our fingers and say, “Thou shalt not put solar panels up.” No matter what your feelings are, that’s just not the way it works. We have to have evidence. We have to go through a hearing process. And sometimes it works out that those are the best technologies. Sometimes not. I wish they would realize that we aren’t the legislative branch and we have to do things in a very structured, logical, due process-type environment. It’s a very technical and very specialized field, which is why we have great employees at the commission that know how to do this stuff. They’ve done it for decades, and the commissioners are just there to kind of give direction.

What do you see as your proudest accomplishment during your time at the commission?

My very first docket that I opened hours after I was sworn in was the rate structure docket, which ended up being the formula rate [policy statement]. That will be the legacy that I leave, and I know it’s received a lot of mixed feedback. But I personally very strongly believe that this addresses a lot of concerns that a lot of people have in Arizona. Like, why do we have utilities that don’t come in for 40 years for rate cases? It’s because we can’t force them to come in. But if we have formula rates and they voluntarily take the formula rate process, part of that is you’re going to come in every year, and we’re going to keep tabs on you. It also helps keep the rates more aligned with what inflation is doing and what the economy is doing, which is something that was specifically asked for on the campaign trail four years ago. People are upset about the fact that we’re allowing rates to increase every year, potentially because inflation really doesn’t ever go down. But also there’s an opportunity [for rates] to go down because what utility is going to voluntarily come in if they want a rate decrease? It will never happen. With formula rates, they’re required to come in every year, so at least we’ve opened the door to the possibility of lowering rates. There’s a lot of big advantages both to the utility, but also to the ratepayer, and it’s a balance. So I’ll stand behind it all day. 

What do you want to see the commission pursue after you leave?

I wish I could have seen more nuclear come to fruition, because nuclear is a huge topic lately. Everybody wants it; it’s not even a partisan issue anymore. It just takes so long to get it built, and there are so many hurdles to jump through, and there are new technologies that need to be finished being developed. I really wish we could see that, and I really wish Arizona was more of an industrial complex for nuclear.

What did you learn from your loss in the primary election?

One thing I’ve learned in my short time in politics is that if you’re doing things 100% correctly and honestly, you will not make it in politics. That’s a very sad thing to say, but I don’t want to go out there and try to destroy an opponent. It’s just not in my nature. There are people who are willing to play that nasty game, and then they’re going to be the good guy when they’re in office. I had an opponent who said a lot of things that flat-out weren’t true, and he ended up winning. I am, and always have been, a firm believer that this is a public service. I did not join the military, so this is the way I’m serving my country and my state. And if the people don’t want me to serve, so be it. I’m OK with that. Now that I’m out of it, I think I’ve gotten the better end of the deal by not being reelected.

What comes next for you after you leave the commission?

I’ve interviewed with the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. I’ve given my resume to a couple of different people at the [U.S.] Department of Energy. One of the FERC commissioners asked for my resume. There is a deputy executive director position at the commission that is now unfilled. Could that be a possibility? Maybe. It’s something I would be more than qualified to fill, and I would actually bring a great skill set to it. I’m one of the guys who has a lot of the historical knowledge of the commission at this point, and I have legislative contacts; I already have those connections. So it might be a good fit if [the executive director] chooses to put me there. It’s safe to say that because I like the energy world and I like the utilities space that I’ll be around somehow, some way.

Would you ever consider running for office again?

No. Would I 100% rule it out? No. Maybe when all the kids are moved out, I’ve served my time as a government employee and got my pension, and I don’t care anymore. Maybe if Turning Point doesn’t exist, if the [Arizona] Free Enterprise Club doesn’t exist. Then maybe I would, because I don’t want to have to fight my own people to do a job. If people want me to do it, I might consider it, and there are a lot of people that think I should. Commissioner [Lea] Màrquez Peterson is termed out, so people have asked if I am going to run for her seat. The answer is not only no, but hell no. Especially since it’s a two-year process away from my family. My wife has said no. I’m not going to rule it out altogether. It just probably won’t be a statewide position unless the stars really align perfectly. It’ll be something more close to home, and it’ll be something that I really have an interest in doing.

Report on Corp Comm attorney at heart of firing dispute comes under scrutiny

Key Points
  • Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor was fired for insubordination related to a colleague’s harassment complaint
  • The ACC’s disciplinary report and State Bar records tell different stories about the complainant’s law license
  • Critics say Chair Nick Myers’ social media comments obscure the facts surrounding the employee’s Bar suspension

Critics of the Arizona Corporation Commission are questioning how the agency handled the firing of Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor, arguing that the commission’s account glosses over the reasons the State Bar suspended a colleague’s law license. 

ACC Executive Director Doug Clark terminated Laurie Woodall for insubordination in October after an unnamed employee in the commission’s legal division filed a complaint alleging a pattern of workplace harassment. A disciplinary report obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times through a public records request stated that Woodall repeatedly challenged the hiring of the employee, whose law license had been suspended in 2015. Woodall was ultimately fired after refusing to participate in an interview with the outside attorney investigating the complaint. 

The dispute has since expanded beyond Woodall’s conduct to the circumstances surrounding the attorney’s suspension — and whether ACC Chair Nick Myers accurately described them. A Capitol Times review of Woodall’s disciplinary report and the underlying State Bar records found differing accounts of the attorney’s disciplinary history, raising questions about Myers’ public defense of the commission’s handling of the matter.

“The commission appears to be focused on justifying the termination of a policy advisor in an unconventional manner versus investigating the reason a 40-plus-year professional complained in the first place,” said Diane Brown, the executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group. 

The Capitol Times is not naming the employee who filed the complaint to protect his privacy. His name is redacted in the disciplinary report on Woodall’s termination.

In a statement, the ACC’s public information officer defended the investigation into the employee’s complaint and its decision to fire Woodall.

“The independent investigation found that Ms. Woodall engaged in systemic and repeated discrimination and harassment of an employee because of a perceived disability, which is the grounds for her termination,” said Nicole Garcia. “The Commission will not tolerate discrimination or harassment in any form. It will protect its employees.”

However, the disciplinary report advised the commission that, “Any discipline, up to and including termination, is justified based on insubordination…” stemming from Woodall’s refusal to participate in the investigation. Márquez Peterson also told fellow commissioners that Clark notified her Woodall was being fired for insubordination.

State Bar records detail client harm

According to the disciplinary report, the employee was upfront about his suspension and his reinstatement to the Bar during the ACC hiring process.  At least one ACC employee reviewed the Bar report on his suspension. 

In his interview with Michael Zoldan, the employment attorney investigating the complaint against Woodall, the employee attributed his professional misconduct to a serious illness.

“[The employee] reported a serious illness that began around 2010, worsened over several years, and progressively impaired him; that as it worsened, he stopped taking new cases and refunded fees; that he did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding at the time…,” Zoldan wrote. 

The State Bar’s disciplinary findings, however, concluded that the employee had abandoned three clients between 2013 and 2014, resulting in financial harm to two of them. In one case, the attorney held money in his trust account for an elderly woman living in an assisted living facility, but failed to make timely payments for her care, according to the presiding disciplinary judge. After the payments stopped, the woman’s daughter hired another attorney to file a Bar complaint. 

The judge also found the employee’s explanation of his illness to be lacking, and noted the employee managed to participate in a trial for another client at the same time he claimed to be dealing with his illness.

“It is not clear to us what health issues [the employee] had as he made no disclosure and with the exception of [a sealed health record], we have nothing but his own self-serving statements,” the judge wrote. “His single exhibit consisted of an evaluation based on his statements to the physician.”

The employee was ordered to pay $6,277 in restitution to two separate clients and had his license suspended in 2015. His license was reinstated in 2020 with a probationary period that ended in 2022. 

ACC struggles to recruit attorneys

Commission employees interviewed by Zoldan as part of the investigation into Woodall defended hiring the employee despite the suspension. Several employees noted that the ACC has struggled to retain attorneys to staff its legal division. One observed that “the pay range matches what associates earn out of law school,” and another said, “the applicant pool was thin.”

It’s a familiar commission refrain. In 2024, the commission told the governor’s office that it sees an average of 45 employee resignations per year. In 2023, it reported 36 vacant staff positions.

But according to Zoldan’s report, Woodall told fellow ACC staff members that the employee should not have been hired regardless of the staffing struggles.  

“…[I]n the weeks after [the employee] started work, Ms. Woodall repeatedly and without invitation raised [the employee’s] suspension with the Executive Director, the General Counsel, and Legal Division staff,” Zoldan wrote. “She said he should never have been hired, that the hire was an embarrassment and a stain on the Commission and that it has to be fixed.”

The dispute over Woodall’s termination spilled over to social media after Autumn Johnson, an attorney who frequently represents solar energy clients at the Commission, questioned why the ACC hired an attorney who had previously been disciplined by the State Bar.

“… [Y]ou don’t get suspended by the State Bar for 5 years followed by a 2-year probation because you’re ill,” Johnson wrote on X.

Myers responded to Johnson, arguing she was opining without knowing the full story. 

“Please stop trying to spread misinformation and stick with what is in the report,” Myers wrote. “…We had an employee issue, and we’ve cleaned it up. This is not rocket science.”

Márquez Peterson told the Capitol Times that she will not comment on the disciplinary report or Woodall’s termination while the ACC seeks an independent counsel’s opinion on the firing. 

Brown criticized Myers’ social media comments, arguing he provided misinformation related to the employee’s Bar suspension.

“The reasons for the previous suspension of a newly hired attorney at the Commission went beyond sickness,” Brown said. “Either the chairman knew that and is obscuring the facts, or the legal division director and the executive director did not adequately brief him — I’m not sure which is worse.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated on Oct. 30 to include a statement from ACC Public Information Officer Nicole Garcia.

Corporation Commissioners clash with staff over fired policy advisor

Key Points
  • Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor was fired for insubordination following an employee complaint
  • Márquez Peterson argues Clark had no power to fire a policy advisor hired by and serving at the discretion of a commissioner
  • Márquez Peterson and Commissioner Rachel Walden criticized ACC general counsel for “mixed information”

A second public meeting to discuss the firing of a Corporation Commission policy advisor appeared to leave some commissioners with more questions than answers. 

Commissioners met Thursday to decide whether an outside attorney’s opinion would be needed to determine whether ACC Executive Director Doug Clark improperly terminated Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor in early October. According to a disciplinary report obtained through a public records request, Laurie Woodall was fired for insubordination after another ACC employee accused her of harassment. 

But Márquez Peterson argues the firing raises a larger issue about the process for terminating policy advisors, who commissioners can hire and fire at their discretion. 

“I think we need a legal opinion on this gray area related to this [statute],” Márquez Peterson told her fellow commissioners Thursday. “I myself don’t think it’s gray; I think it’s very clear [Clark] does not have the authority, but I’m not an attorney.”

Commission observers have argued that Clark’s move could set a dangerous precedent that may allow ACC executive directors to weaponize their authority over policy advisors of elected commissioners — especially commissioners in the minority party. 

The disciplinary report

The issue stems from a complaint filed by an employee in the ACC’s legal division against Woodall. 

A disciplinary report compiled by local employment attorney Michael Zoldan found that Woodall told several ACC staff members that the legal division employee should not have been hired because his law license had previously been suspended. The names of the individuals involved were redacted in the report. 

“…[I]n the weeks after [the employee] started work, Ms. Woodall repeatedly and without invitation raised [the employee’s] suspension with the Executive Director, the General Counsel, and Legal Division staff,” Zoldan wrote. “She said he should never have been hired, that the hire was an embarrassment and a stain on the Commission and that it has to be fixed.”

Legal division staff involved in the employee’s hiring process said he was upfront about the suspension, which he said resulted from a decline in work productivity due to a temporary illness. The employee’s law license was reinstated, and he reported that he had recovered from the illness. 

Zoldan concluded that Woodall’s behavior was grounds for the Commission to impose “any level of discipline up to separation,” but he also noted that the employee who filed the complaint said he did not want to see Woodall fired.

Woodall declined to participate in an interview with Zoldan regarding the complaint. 

Zoldan’s report also indicated that Márquez Peterson was notified in September of Woodall’s refusal to participate in the investigation, but it does not appear the commissioner was made aware of the specific allegations against Woodall. 

Tom Van Flein, the Commission’s general counsel, typically serves as the ethics officer who investigates complaints, but he recused himself because he also oversees the legal division.

Márquez Peterson declined to comment on the report in a statement to the Arizona Capitol Times, citing “professional protocols and processes” for the handling of personnel issues. 

The open meeting kerfuffle

Woodall’s termination became public knowledge after Márquez Peterson called an Oct. 7 public meeting to discuss whether Clark had the authority to fire a commissioner’s policy advisor. During that meeting, Márquez Peterson said she had no prior knowledge of Clark’s plans to terminate Woodall and was not consulted. 

The Oct. 7 public meeting became a controversy in and of itself after Commissioner Kevin Thompson noted that commissioners discussed the details of a personnel matter without going into executive session. At Van Flein’s recommendation, commissioners voted to redact Woodall’s name from the meeting record. 

Additionally, after commissioners voted to redact the record and allow Márquez Peterson to obtain outside counsel, Van Flein notified commissioners that neither vote was properly noticed under open meeting law. Autumn Johnson, an attorney who represents solar energy clients at the Commission, filed an open meeting complaint with the attorney general’s office over the votes. 

Commissioners reconsidered both matters at Thursday’s meeting, voting to retain outside counsel to examine Clark’s authority and voting against retroactively redacting the record of the Oct. 7 meeting. 

Transparency and authority concerns

Those votes did not assuage the concerns of Márquez Peterson and Commissioner Rachel Walden, both of whom raised questions about the lack of transparency and communication from Clark and Van Flein. 

Márquez Peterson said the situation had become “messy,” and accused Van Flein of giving commissioners “mixed information” about whether the attorney general’s office weighed in on Clark’s authority to terminate Woodall. 

At the Oct. 7 meeting, Van Flein told commissioners that Zoldan, the Arizona Department of Administration and the attorney general’s office “indicated … that not only did the executive director have the authority to take the action, but in light of the report that was issued, had an obligation to do so.”

But on Oct. 9, Commission Chair Nick Myers requested a formal opinion on the matter from Attorney General Kris Mayes. That letter wasn’t made public until Oct. 20 and appeared to catch some commissioners off guard. 

Van Flein became defensive during Thursday’s meeting and warned Márquez Peterson of the Commission’s Code of Ethics rules.

“I would remind the commissioner of her duties under Ethics Rule 3.2, to take a look at that, before misrepresenting a chain of events,” Van Flein said. “It was not messy; it was a clean investigation by the independent counsel, and it’s appropriately done.” 

But Walden also appeared frustrated with Van Flein’s handling of the issue, noting that he appeared to have given Myers more information about both the Oct. 7 meeting and Thursday’s meeting than the other commissioners.

“Once again [we are] being asked to attend a meeting [and] voting on matters without having information from legal,” Walden said. “We are all equally your client, Mr. Van Flein. You don’t report to the chair.”

Walden noted that she still has not seen the attorney general’s office’s opinion on the termination and only learned of the open meeting complaint after reading news reports. Commissioner René Lopez also appeared confused about the chain of events and whether the attorney general’s office was consulted about the termination itself or Clark’s authority to carry out the termination.

Commissioner Kevin Thompson agreed that the entire situation could have been handled better, but said he did not intend that to be viewed as a criticism of Clark.

“I know that personally, as a commissioner, if my staff was accused of something that would be considered potentially termination-worthy, I hope I would be able to incur some of that responsibility myself and address the merits of those accusations and do my best as my staff’s direct supervisor to remedy or mediate that situation,” Thompson said. 

Mayes’ office told the Commission it hopes to weigh in on Clark’s authority within 90 days, but Márquez Peterson told the Arizona Capitol Times she will continue pursuing a separate legal opinion on the matter.

Arizona Corporation Commissioner questions firing of aide

Key Points
  • Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson says her longtime policy advisor was fired without her knowledge or consent
  • Commissioners voted to hire independent counsel to investigate Executive Director Doug Clark’s employment authority
  • Critics, including a former commissioner, say the firing sets a risky precedent

An Arizona Corporation Commissioner is questioning the authority of the body’s executive director after he terminated one of her staffers without her consent last week. 

During an Oct. 7 open meeting, Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson accused ACC Executive Director Doug Clark of firing her policy advisor without consulting her. She asked her fellow commissioners to adopt a policy statement clarifying Clark’s authority over employees the commissioners themselves hire and oversee. 

It was not immediately clear what specifically prompted the firing. The Arizona Capitol Times has filed a request for public records related to the decision. 

State law allows the Commission to delegate its authority to oversee commission divisions and employees, but Márquez Peterson argued that commissioners never delegated authority over their personally hired employees to the executive director.

“… [T]here’s no language in the statute that gives the executive director the power to terminate or remove employees who work for the elected commissioners, which does not constitute a commission division,” Márquez Peterson said during the meeting. 

Each commissioner typically employs a policy advisor and an assistant who are separate from the Commission’s staff. Márquez Peterson, who has served on the commission since 2019, said commissioners have always had the ultimate authority to hire and fire those staff members.

The Commission voted to allow Márquez Peterson to hire independent counsel from the law firm Snell and Wilmer to investigate whether Clark exceeded his authority. Commissioner Rachel Walden said she would have supported Márquez Peterson’s proposed policy statement, but Commission Chair Nick Myers and Commissioners Kevin Thompson and Rene Lopez said they wanted more information first.

“I don’t have a problem looking into that, but I don’t necessarily want to throw anybody under the bus until we have heard the whole story,” Myers told his fellow commissioners. 

The issue appeared to stem from an employee complaint filed against Laurie Woodall, Márquez Peterson’s longtime policy advisor. 

Tom Van Flein, the ACC’s general counsel, serves as the ethics officer charged with investigating those complaints. But the undisclosed issue involved a member of the Commission’s legal division, which Van Flein oversees. To avoid conflict of interest, Van Flein hired local employment attorney Michael Zoldan to investigate the complaint. 

Zoldan recommended firing Woodall in a report circulated to commissioners before the Oct. 7 meeting. Van Flein said Zoldan advised that Clark had the authority to terminate Woodall.

Van Flein also said the Commission then sought confirmation of that determination from the attorney general’s office and the Arizona Department of Administration, which houses the human resources division responsible for state employees. But an attorney general’s office spokesman said it advised ADOA, not the ACC directly. 

“The Human Resources Division of the Arizona Department of Administration has statewide responsibilities for reviewing State Personnel System agency dismissal packages,” said Tim Tait, an ADOA spokesman. “The Arizona Corporation Commission asked for review of this dismissal package, as required by the relevant rules. Following ADOA’s standard procedure, this dismissal package was reviewed by ADOA.”

Woodall declined an interview request through a representative.

Márquez Peterson said Clark left her a voicemail at 8:39 a.m. on Oct. 1 notifying her that Woodall would be fired at 9 a.m. for insubordination. She also received a follow-up email from Clark at 9:28 a.m. regarding the termination. 

Márquez Peterson told her fellow commissioners that the news “shocked” her and that it was “unilaterally done without any conversation with me.” 

“The advisor who was terminated, who worked for me, was a highly respected 40-plus-year attorney, [who] had been with the commission for decades,” Márquez Peterson said.

Bob Burns, a Republican who served on the Commission from 2013 to 2021, said ACC staff instructed him that he had the discretion to hire and fire his two direct reports. He described Clark’s move to fire Woodall as “definitely not kosher.”

Burns noted that policy advisors play a crucial role for elected commissioners who may not always have the legal or economic background to parse the complex regulatory decisions they must make. 

Diane Brown, the executive director for the Arizona Public Interest Research Group and a longtime Commission observer, agreed with Márquez Peterson and Burns.

“While specifics aren’t public, nor should they be, it is clear the executive director and the legal division director agreed to circumvent Commission norms and directly fire a policy advisor — viewed by most Commission regulars as a consummate professional with decades of utility and energy experience and expertise — without providing due process for the policy advisor or even a proper heads-up to the impacted commissioner,” Brown said in a statement.

Even more concerning, Brown said, was the Commission’s vote to redact the meeting’s transcript and video recording to remove specific references to Woodall.

“The fact that the Commission discussed the firing of a policy advisor in the open and in the context of a new policy statement and then considered retracting statements and video footage is deeply disturbing,” Brown said. 

As of publication, the Commission had not uploaded any recordings or meeting transcripts from the Oct. 7 discussion to its website. The Arizona Capitol Times gathered all quotes from the meeting referenced in this story from an audio recording of the conversation.

Other Commission stakeholders noted that Woodall’s termination could set a dangerous precedent, allowing a future executive director to weaponize their authority against hired staff and commissioners from the minority party. The ACC is currently all-Republican, and a Republican-majority commission approved Clark’s appointment. But two Democrats hope to shift that power balance in November. 

Woodall’s firing is also one in a series of employment snafus involving the Commission in recent years. Van Flein’s predecessor filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Commission in 2024, and the ACC censured former Commissioner Anna Tovar that year after she suggested staff turnover increased under Clark’s tenure. 

However, Myers, Thompson and Lopez all expressed concerns at the idea of the executive director having no authority to remove a commissioner-hired employee.

“I think there are still circumstances in which the executive director has the right, or should have the right to … fire, terminate a state employee, regardless of whether they report to us or not,” Thompson said. “As long as there is just cause and it’s not on a whim.”

But he conceded that Woodall’s situation could have been handled differently. At the Oct. 7 meeting, Márquez Peterson told Clark she felt it was “unprofessional.”

In a statement sent to the Arizona Capitol Times Thursday, Márquez Peterson maintained that Clark “acted without authority” and said the matter will be discussed at a future staff meeting.

Heap skips back-to-back Corporation Commission debates

Key Points Rep. Ralph Heap did not participate in two debates for Corporation Commission hopefuls Heap’s campaign finances are still under investigation after a June complaint His absence left Commissioner...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Corp Comm candidates debate incentives for renewable energy

PHOENIX — The lone incumbent seeking reelection to the state’s utility regulatory agency is defending the panel’s decisions to cut programs that encourage use of renewable energy and eliminate most rebates for energy efficiency purchases.

And Republican Kevin Thompson said while he has nothing against solar, the technology has not yet come far enough to make it reliable — even in a state with so much sunshine.

“Battery technology is not where it needs to be to cover nighttime,” he said during a televised debate Tuesday at KAET-TV, the Phoenix PBS affiliate, among candidates who are running for the two open seats on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission.

Consider, he said, a dust storm that hit the Phoenix area last year about 3 p.m., the beginning of peak electricity demand. He said Arizona Public Services and Salt River Project, the two utilities that serve the area, lost more than 2,000 megawatts of solar power. Thompson said that is the equivalent of one of the three units at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station going offline.

“And they had to go to the natural gas ‘peakers’ to keep the grid up and running,” he said, referring to power plants that can be easily turned on to meet peak needs, albeit with natural gas which is a fossil fuel.

What Thompson did not say, though, is that if Arizona did not have solar energy, utilities would have had to run their regular power plants to replace that electricity.

Democrat Clara Pratte said the commission should actually push utilities to pursue more electricity from solar. The key, she said, is affordability.

“Right now, solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the market,” said Pratte. She is the co-founder of Navajo Power, which works with tribes to develop renewable energy.

Pratte said she is not opposed to an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy sources. But she said the emphasis should be on renewables “versus being dependent on imports that are coming into our market.”

“With solar, we can be generating our own energy and become energy independent at a time when we need extra energy,” Pratte said.

Fellow Democrat Jonathon Hill said he, too, believes the commission should be pursuing “balance.”

“But they also shouldn’t be putting their thumb on the scale,” he said. And that, Hill said, means not just promoting one source over another but also not creating disincentives for people to pursue renewable energy.

He pointed out that the commission just last month allowed two utilities to reduce what they pay customers who have rooftop solar for the amount of excess electricity they generate into the grid.

Thompson defended that decision.

“Ratepayers were subsidizing other ratepayers to have solar on their house,” he said. More to the point, Thompson argued that was not fair because it wasn’t helping lower-income people who need the most financial relief.

“Right now the only people purchasing rooftop solar are the middle and upper-middle class individuals that can afford it. And it’s the low-income and fixed-income folks that are subsidizing that,” Thompson said.

Hill responded that if Thompson and his fellow Republican commissioners are so interested in helping those on limited income, the panel would not have voted in July to repeal separate energy efficiency rules that provided breaks to customers who purchased things designed to save energy, “to do the things that will ultimately drive utility costs down.”

Thompson said the decision was the result of the commission reviewing energy efficiency programs that had been in place for decades, all without being evaluated for how effective or useful they were at achieving their goals.

Some, he said, made no sense.

“We were subsidizing homebuilders to install energy-efficient appliances,” Thompson said, to the tune of $250 million a year, all paid for from surcharges on rates paid by utility customers. “Can we even find a non-energy-efficient appliance nowadays? No.”

Ditto, he said, for paying customers to install shade trees.

Anyway, Thompson said, the commission did not eliminate everything, keeping programs that paid customers to install things like weatherstripping, insulation and even high-efficiency air conditioning units, “the things that actually make an impact on people’s bills.”

Pratte did not dispute that the costs of utility programs designed to improve electric efficiency have been passed on to all customers. But she called it minimal.

For example, Tucson Electric Power in 2024 estimated the average customer’s monthly bill went up about $2.31 a month. But the company said that the reduction in power usage benefited customers by postponing or avoiding the need to build new power plants.

Pratte said that price tag is worth paying.

“The long-term impact of those energy efficiency standards were really impactful in saving money in the long term,” she said. “That’s where we have a difference of opinion on what is effective and what is not.”

Moderator Ted Simons asked Thompson about claims by those who were behind the energy efficiency standards that they helped stabilize utility bills, stabilize grid reliability, and reduce pollution.

Among those making those claims is current Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes — then a Republican on the commission in 2010 — who helped create the standards in the first place. But Thompson sniffed at the assertion.

“I think if you look at it, the people who were behind that were the people who were making money off of those programs,” he said. “Again, it wasn’t helping the people that it was intended to help.”

Those decisions to scrap the programs were shared by Nick Myers who, like Thompson, ran for reelection.

Myers, however, was not at the Tuesday event to defend his votes. That’s because in the Republican primary, while Thompson placed first among the three contenders for two slots on the ballot, Myers ran third behind state Rep. Ralph Heap.

Heap also was not at the Tuesday event and has declined to participate in debates. He also is in trouble with the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which is investigating whether he failed to disclose money spent buying campaign signs before he got certified for public funds for his campaign.

To build or not to build? Data center debate hits the campaign trail

Key Points:
  • The political divide over data centers is intensifying ahead of Arizona’s midterm elections
  • Arizonans are largely skeptical of the developments, regardless of party affiliation
  • Candidates up and down the ballot are split between embracing and limiting growth

The debate over skyrocketing data center growth is intensifying as Arizona’s political hopefuls hit the campaign trail and attempt to stake out their positions on one of the hottest issues in the midterm elections. 

On Aug. 31, Attorney General Kris Mayes became the first statewide elected official to call for a moratorium on data centers in Arizona, citing public concerns surrounding water usage and electricity demand. 

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry followed up with a facetious challenge, urging data center opponents to stop using all cloud-based technology, from social media and teleconferencing to artificial intelligence platforms and online banking. 

The spat exemplifies a growing chasm in how Arizona’s leaders are communicating with voters who are becoming increasingly skeptical of AI infrastructure, from hyperscale data center projects to automatic license plate readers. 

While some candidates hope to ride the groundswell of data center backlash to victory in November, others are trying — not so gently — to temper what they see as blind hatred for the technology of the future. 

“It’s no secret that across the nation, data centers are not polling well,” said Courtney Coolidge, the executive vice president of the Arizona Chamber. “It’s also political season, and so it’s politically expedient to say these things when you know there’s legitimate concerns around them.”

A poll from Noble Predictive Insights found that 57% of registered Arizona voters surveyed oppose new, large-scale data center projects. The poll also found that a majority of those voters, regardless of party, support limiting data center development, citing “concerns about water use, electricity demand, and infrastructure costs.”

Additionally, a report from the Governor’s Office of Resiliency found that communities are “overwhelmed” by the volume and scale of proposed data center projects. The report also highlighted “a disconnect between state-level energy policymaking and the nuanced realities facing local communities.”

Cynthia Zwick is the director of the Residential Utility Consumer Office, a small state agency dedicated to representing the interests of residential utility customers. She attributes the backlash to a lack of community engagement from data center developers, utility companies and elected officials.

“I think people are very aware of the benefit that they receive through the technology that’s coming forward, but what I interpret this to be more about is just a simple lack of communication and transparent sharing of factual information about what’s happening,” Zwick said.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump weighed in on the nationwide backlash on Aug. 31 in a social media post, taking a much more aggressive stance on the issue.

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.” 

Some candidates are leaning into that sentiment, including the Republican hopefuls for the Arizona Corporation Commission. The Commission regulates investor-owned and private electric companies in the state and reviews the electric service agreements data center operators enter into with those companies. 

Commissioner Kevin Thompson is an outspoken supporter of data center growth, and even received criticism for representing a data center client as part of his government relations firm, Broadmore Consulting. 

“I don’t think it’s realistic to bury our heads in the sand and simply say no to new data centers,” Thompson said during an April commission workshop.

Rep. Ralph Heap, who is running for the second Commission seat up for grabs this year, told the Arizona Capitol Times in May that he would support data center growth in Arizona to contribute to the nation’s AI dominance.

Coolidge said that sort of messaging, including the Chamber’s “Arizona Offline Pledge,” is not meant to diminish concerns, but to start a productive dialogue.

“We wanted to make the point that everyone wants the benefits of the digital economy, but those benefits require infrastructure, and so that infrastructure needs real policy conversations.”

Democrats Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill, who are hoping to upset the all-Republican majority on the Commission, have yet to join Mayes’ calls for a moratorium. But they have pledged to “demand strict rules to stop reckless, AI-driven development of data centers from draining Arizona’s water resources and forcing everyday Arizonans to pay for big corporations’ energy needs.” 

Gov. Katie Hobbs has committed to end tax incentives for data centers if she is reelected, but stopped short of endorsing a pause on development. Those tax incentives are currently on pause until 2029, a provision of the state budget that Hobbs pushed for during the legislative session.

“The governor wants to permanently end the data center tax credit, make data centers pay their fair share for the water they use, and to stop increases in utility bills due to their energy use,” said Christian Slater, Hobbs’ spokesman. 

Congressman Andy Biggs, Hobbs’ Republican opponent, has also committed to repealing the tax incentives, though polling from Noble Predictive Insights shows voters trust the governor more on the data center issue. Thirty-nine percent of voters surveyed said they viewed Hobbs as best equipped to manage data center growth, while 30% said they trusted Biggs more.

Biggs’ running mate, former Sen. Sine Kerr, told KTAR on Tuesday that the ticket would not support an outright moratorium on data centers and would instead prefer to keep that decision-making authority with local communities.

“I think with responsible guidelines and guardrails, there is a place for data centers,” Kerr said.

Coolidge said she doesn’t see Mayes’ proposed moratorium coming to fruition, but hopes cooler heads will prevail after the election, when newly elected leaders descend on the Capitol to consider new data center policies.

“I think during election season we see extremes on both sides,” Coolidge said. “You see the ‘build everything’ hysteria, or you see the ‘build nothing’ hysteria. I think the reality is, if we end up in the middle, that’s where serious policy will be developed, and that’ll probably happen after an election cycle.”

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.