Arizona Corporation Commission | Arizona Capitol Times

Wildfire regulation bill to be stripped of most contentious elements in Senate

A sweeping measure passed by the Arizona House giving utilities like Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power major protections from lawsuits for wildfires sparked by their equipment will be stripped of the most contentious provisions in a state Senate committee hearing on Monday, the panel’s chairman said.

Finance Committee chairman Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, told Capitol Media Services on Friday that the amendment he crafted will remove provisions sought by the utilities requiring people or companies who sue over wildfire damages to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the utilities were at fault. That’s a much higher level of proof than what is normally required in lawsuits.

Also gone is a prohibition on recovering “consequential damages,” said Mesnard. Those include things like lost business income or compensation for renting a car if a person’s vehicle is destroyed by a fire and the owner awaits a replacement from the utility at fault.

Mesnard said that’s only fair.

Multiple drafts of the amendment, posted late Friday and still subject to change, also restore the ability to win punitive damages from a company whose negligence sparks a wildfire.

What utilities will still get in the legislation are hefty new protections from lawsuits if they follow new “wildfire mitigation plans” they will be required to create if HB2201 is enacted.

But Mesnard plans some changes there as well, one of which being the removal of a provision giving utilities a lawsuit shield if they only “substantially comply” with those plans. Also gone will be sections allowing the boards of public utilities like the Salt River Project to approve their own plans.

Mesnard said that having a public utility approve its own plan that grants it lawsuit protections was problematic. Those company’s plans will instead have to be reviewed by the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

“That resonated with me, the idea of having your own board approve your plan, and that allowing for you to then have immunity or some degree of protection,” Mesnard said. “That did not make sense to me. I needed there to be some other authority.”

That “substantial compliance” provision that Mesnard found troubling could have awarded liability protections for utilities even if they didn’t follow parts of their plans, like failing to trim back vegetation along parts of their power lines’ route. Under the House-passed measure, someone who lost a home still had to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence the utility was at fault even if they didn’t follow their plans to the letter.

“So it’s sort of like if we reach a lower bar it protects us to a higher bar, and I had a hard time going along with that,” he said.

The version that reached the Senate had legal issues as well, according to House lawyers who reviewed the proposal.

Most notably, they said it likely ran afoul of a provision in the state constitution that bars laws that limit the right of people to sue for compensation. The changes Mesnard is pushing should address those concerns.

Mesnard said he met with APS lobbyists and with opponents of the bill, most prominently lobbyists for the insurance industry and trial lawyers, to hammer out changes he would need before agreeing to put the measure on his committee’s agenda. Committee chairs can kill legislation by refusing to hear a bill, and Mesnard said he was prepared to do that if his concerns weren’t addressed.

An APS spokesman said the company, the largest power provider in the state, supports the measure and Mesnard’s proposed amendment. An SRP spokeswoman said her company still needs to review the final proposed changes but appreciated Mesnard’s attention and expects to be able to support the bill.

TEP spokesman Joe Barrios said his company welcomes the clear guidance it will give utilities for submitting wildfire mitigation plans that include procedures for things like cutting off power during high wind events to avoid triggering a fire and for cutting back trees and brush near power lines.

“It will also provide protection for customers because wildfire liability costs and higher insurance costs are passed (on) through higher rates,” Barrios said in a written statement.

“We have an obligation to continue serving customers, even in areas that may be risk-prone for wildfires,” he wrote. “The bill would reduce exposure to unfair financial risks only if we satisfy standards in our wildfire mitigation plans, thereby reducing real and potential costs for our customers.”

Opponents of the Arizona liability protection measure said Mesnard’s proposed changes will make the bill more palatable. Insurance companies and trial lawyers have strongly opposed the original measure because it stripped homeowners and insurers of much of their ability to recover damages from utilities responsible for starting a blaze.

“It is a lot, a lot better,” said Marc Osborn, a lobbyist who represents Farmers, Geico, Nationwide and Allstate at the Capitol.

Having the ability to hold a utility responsible is important, he said. PG&E, for example, is now burying its power lines to avoid sparking a wildfire – something that only happened after the company faced two multibillion dollar lawsuits. He called the bill much more reasonable with Mesnard’s changes.

“Would we prefer no bill? Yes,” Osborn said. “But I think Mr. Mesnard did a pretty good job of grinding off the rough edges on it.”

If the changes are adopted in Mesnard’s committee, the measure will go to the full Senate for approval and then back to the House for them to sign off on the changes.

Gov. Katie Hobbs will then have the final say.

Tensions rise between Arizona Corporation Commission and Legislature

Key Points

The ACC oversees regulation of state utility companies.
There has been unusual friction this session between commissioners and lawmakers.
Legislation imposed on ACC causing tensions.

Tensions are high between the Legislature and the Arizona Corporation Commission this session as lawmakers attempt to address issues like residential utility costs, energy reliability and wildfire mitigation through legislation.

The ACC, which oversees the regulation of the state’s public utility companies, has been the subject of many bills aimed at providing solutions or guardrails to ensure utility ratepayers are protected from extreme weather events, rising utility costs and power outages. However, commissioners say they haven’t been included in the drafting of some bills, many of which place additional burdens on them and their staff.

Those familiar with the ACC say the back-and-forth between the two entities is unusual — especially given that both are currently controlled by Republicans — but not unheard of.

The friction between the two was on display during an open staff meeting of the ACC on March 12. Commissioners expressed frustration with several Republican lawmakers and Arizona Public Service for attempting to push through legislation without giving the ACC enough time to provide feedback.

“I can’t stress how frustrating it has been to have such an incredible, complex piece of legislation like this that got introduced to the Legislature and APS never even shared a copy of that bill or the language with the commission in advance,” ACC Chairman Kevin Thompson said of one bill at the March 12 meeting. “Especially when we’re being asked to carry such a heavy load and responsibility.”

Thompson was referring to legislation introduced by Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, that would require utility companies to develop wildfire mitigation plans and submit them to the ACC for approval. That bill, and another introduced by Griffin, were written by APS without commissioners participating in the drafting process — or even being shown the bills — until they were filed.

The ACC sent letters to lawmakers regarding the wildfire mitigation bill and another bill related to securitization of utility assets detailing their concerns and lack of involvement. Commissioners also voted to formally oppose several bills during their March 12 meeting.

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, received the harshest criticism from members of the ACC for bills he is running this session. Olson served on the ACC before being elected to the House in 2024 and has brought his experience with the ACC to his legislation.

Olson introduced a bill to close the “revolving door” between utility companies and the commission. In its original form, the bill would have required commissioners or employees of the ACC to wait four years before working for a utility company and employees of a utility company to wait two years before working for the ACC.

During the ACC meeting on March 12, Thompson said the bill “was so poorly written and so ill-conceived that I thought surely (it) would never even make it to a hearing.”

“A high schooler could have probably done a better job in actually writing this if they would have just used A.I. and a little bit of Googling,” Thompson continued.

He also personally attacked Olson, saying the lawmaker had done nothing to improve working conditions at the ACC and had learned nothing during his four-year tenure as a commissioner.

Thompson told the Arizona Capitol Times that he has a lot of respect for Olson, but he “expected more from him” as a former commissioner. He said he is particularly frustrated with Olson’s bill because it targets ACC staff.

“I spoke with Representative Olson, and talked to him about … the impact that (the bill) would have on the commission, and the impact that it would have on the employees,” Thompson said. “And his response was, ‘Well, that wasn’t my intent,’ but yet he didn’t do anything to amend his bill. And that was, for me, the frustrating part, because we offered to provide amendments to make his legislation better, but it fell on deaf ears.”

Olson’s bill ultimately failed in the House on March 13. After the vote, Olson said he did not agree with commissioners’ characterization of the bill as poorly written.

“The bill accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, and that is to prevent regulatory capture,” Olson said. “Now I can appreciate that the commission may be opposed to having these additional guardrails placed upon them. That doesn’t mean that it’s not the right policy.”

On a motion for reconsideration on March 19, Olson proposed an amendment to the bill on the House floor that significantly scaled back the policy. Now the bill only requires commissioners to wait two years before being hired at a utility company and any mention of staff has been removed.

Andy Kvesic served as the ACC’s chief counsel and legal division director from 2017 to 2019 and said commissioners and lawmakers had a “good working relationship” during his time at the commission.

“There’s a natural tendency of the Legislature to want to get involved and want to influence certain policy decisions,” Kvesic said. “But it never crossed the line in my time where we were locking horns with the Legislature.”

Kvesic attributed the working relationship between the two bodies to members of the commission having experience in the Legislature as former lawmakers, where they developed good relationships with members of leadership and the Governor’s Office.

Sandy Bahr, a longtime lobbyist with the Sierra Club, said the ACC has not been pushing back on the Legislature in recent years and she was surprised to see it happening during this session, given that both entities are controlled by Republicans.

“I am a little bit surprised by that, because it seemed like they should be pretty close to being on the same page,” Bahr said.

She said she was also surprised that the ACC waited so long to take a stance on bills moving through the Legislature. By the time commissioners voted on their position, many bills had already moved out of their chamber of origin.

“These bills have been around for a while, starting in January and they’re just getting around to opposing some of Olson’s bills,” Bahr said. “Why didn’t they speak up sooner?”

Thompson said the ACC has been largely uninvolved in legislation during the two years he has been at the commission. He attributed this year’s involvement to the number of bills introduced this session related to the commission and the sectors it regulates. Thompson said commissioners have been made aware of at least 25 bills that deal with public utility companies, securities, business registration or the ACC itself.

“I think because (of) the number of bills that were written that were impactful, not only to the organization, but to the ratepayers as well, I think there was a feeling from all of the commissioners that we needed to do a better job of communicating our concerns, our issues with some of this legislation,” Thompson said.

He noted that not all interactions with lawmakers have been bad. Thompson said Griffin has been very open to meeting with the ACC and said Rep. Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler, collaborated with commissioners and staff on a bill extending funding for the ACC’s online filing system for businesses.

“What I would love to see is better coordination and communication with our counterparts at the Legislature,” Thompson said. “Consider us your experts on securities and your experts on energy-related matters. Our doors are always open.”

Lawmaker proposes renaming Corporation Commission for better awareness

Lawmakers, activists and members of the Arizona Corporation Commission have lamented that voters do not understand the significance of the utility regulation body, but one senator is hoping to correct that by changing the agency’s name.

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, who ran for the Corporation Commission in 2022, said she often had to explain to voters what the commission was and what it does. Those conversations inspired her to introduce a concurrent resolution that would allow voters to change the body’s name to “Public Utility and Corporation Commission.”

“I ran for Corporation Commission in 2022 and when I would talk about my race, I would say, ‘This is the most important office that no one has ever heard of,’” Kuby said. “It really is the fourth branch of government, and the title of it does not really describe what it does.”

The Corporation Commission oversees public utility companies in the state, including electric, water and gas. The commission also registers businesses and regulates securities, railroads and pipelines. It consists of five members who are elected statewide to four-year terms.

The commission is probably best known for its role in determining what Arizonans will pay in utility rates and is charged with holding companies like Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power and Southwest Gas accountable. Kuby says adding the phrase “public utility” to the name of the commission will better reflect the work done by commissioners.

“I think perhaps if there was a more accurate title that voters would be more aware of its significance to their daily lives,” Kuby said.

She said the proposed name was inspired by utility regulation bodies in other states that include the phrase “public utility” in their titles. According to a list compiled by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, nearly every state’s utility regulation commission uses “public utility” or “public service” in their titles. Only three other states — Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma — also use the title Corporation Commission.

Arizona’s Corporation Commission got its name when it was created by the state’s Constitution in 1912. In order to change the name, voters would have to amend the Constitution, which is why Kuby introduced the name change as a legislative referral to the ballot.

Kuby’s referral will likely face an uphill battle in the Legislature, if it moves at all, since it was introduced by a Democrat. If it makes it out of the House and Senate, the referral would be sent to voters in 2026 for the final say.

Sandy Bahr, executive director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter, said she thinks the name of the commission matters and has an impact on whether Arizonans pay attention to it.

“I think adding public utility to the name would benefit the public, because it would be more transparent,” Bahr said. “The name of the Corporation Commission goes way back and we’re in a different era now. A lot of what they do is regulate utilities, and that’s how most people are affected [by it].”

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, served on the Corporation Commission from 2017 to 2023 and said he doesn’t think Kuby’s idea is a bad one, but he isn’t sure it is necessary.

“I think that it sounds like a very long name,” Olson said. “… I think the current name of the Corporation Commission is fine, but I don’t see any harm in any education efforts to help voters understand what the Corporation Commission does.”

He agreed with Kuby on the lack of awareness of the commission, saying it is a “very powerful branch of government that folks don’t know very much about.”

Olson said he also thinks candidates for the commission and those who have served on the commission make voter education a priority and should continue to do so to help constituents understand its purpose.

“I think it’s critical that anybody in any public office is actively getting out and talking to the voters, and that’s something that I focused on as a corporation commissioner, as did my colleagues and I presume those that are there now are doing as well,” Olson said.

Bahr said she thinks there are other ways the commission could be more accessible and transparent for the public. The body functions like a court and uses a lot of jargon when discussing energy policy, so Bahr said she thinks the commission could release agendas in plain language and provide explanations of agenda items during hearings.

“I remember the first time I went to a Corporation Commission meeting, and I seriously thought they were speaking in some kind of code,” Bahr said.

She also said the commission could do more to increase public participation in its hearings, like allowing people to sign up to speak the day of a hearing or by holding public comment periods with commissioners in the evenings when most people are not at work.

As far as the name change goes, it’s unclear whether current members of the Corporation Commission will be supportive. Republican Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson has made transparency and awareness a priority during her tenure, but declined to comment and deferred to a statement from the commission’s spokesperson.

In the statement, commission spokesperson Nicole Garcia said the commission is neutral on Kuby’s proposal.

“Changing the name of the Arizona Corporation Commission would not change the agency’s mission or purpose,” Garcia said. “If approved by the Legislature and Signed into Law by the Governor, we will process accordingly.”

Corp Comm elects Kevin Thompson as chair, votes to add vice chair position

The members of the new, all-Republican Corporation Commission unanimously elected Commissioner Kevin Thompson chair of the body at its swearing-in ceremony on Monday.

Returning Commissioner Nick Myers nominated Thompson for the chair position of the utility regulation body, saying it was something commissioners discussed prior to Monday’s ceremony.

“We’ve had lots of conversations, long-term planning discussions, I’ve given it a lot of prayer, and I believe that the correct course of action at this point of time is to move to nominate Commissioner Thompson to be the chair,” Myers said during the meeting.

For the first time since 2018, the ACC has an entirely Republican majority, which commissioners highlighted in their remarks on Monday. The commission oversees the state’s utility companies, business incorporations, securities regulations, railroads and pipelines. Ithas not seen a Democratic majority since 2010.

“When I look at my fellow Commissioners, I am optimistic that this group collectively shares the same goals,” newly-elected Chair Thompson said. “We all have different strengths, but I believe we have the same commitment.”

After two new commissioners, Rachel Walden and Rene Lopez, were sworn in and returning Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson was sworn in for her second term, the five Republicans added a vice chair position to the body. Thompson introduced the idea, which passed unanimously.

The commission has not previously had a vice chair position, but the commissioners acknowledged that other bodies in the state like legislative committees and school boards utilize the position. Thompson nominated Myers for vice chair, which was also agreed to unanimously.

Outgoing Chairman Jim O’Connor gave remarks at the beginning of the ceremony, but outgoing Democratic Commissioner Anna Tovar was not present. O’Connor, Myers and Thompson voted to censure Tovar at the commission’s final meeting in 2024 for alleged violations of executive session confidentiality and the commission’s code of ethics.

In his closing remarks, Thompson said he would refrain from outlining “a long list of priorities” or “dramatically upending the way we function as an agency.” He said he wants to build on the success of the previous commission, which was focused on reducing regulatory lag for utilities and making it easier for businesses to operate in the state.

Thompson did take an opportunity to jab at stakeholder groups who opposed many of the Commission’s decisions over the last year.

“There are a handful of groups and individuals who don’t want this commission to succeed unless it benefits their own pursuits or advances their belief systems,” Thompson said. “The endless politics and theater from certain outside groups and individuals can be tiresome, but you have to recognize it for what it is, and it’s an unfortunate side effect of our modern political system. But we press on.”

Marquez Peterson said she wants to focus on “keeping energy reliable at the most affordable rates.” Newcomers Walden and Lopez both spoke about small government and allowing business to thrive without elected officials getting in the way.

“We’re both very energized to come here and make a difference to make sure that this commission is as effective, efficient, and run as well as possible,” Lopez said of himself and Walden.

Lopez is a former Chandler City Council member and U.S. Navy veteran, while Walden is a current member of the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board and previously worked for an investment management firm. Marquez Peterson, Walden and Lopez will all serve four-year terms, while Myers and Thompson will be up for reelection in 2026.

The new commission will hold its first open meeting on Jan. 15, during which commissioners are expected to hear several issues related to water utilities, railroads and securities.

Formula Rate Plan means transparency, affordability, predictability

Earlier in December, the Arizona Corporation Commission took action to modernize how utility rates are set by adopting Formula Rate Plans (FRPs). This marks a significant step forward in tackling regulatory lag, a long-standing challenge that delays critical investments in Arizona’s energy infrastructure.

As one of the nation’s fastest-growing states, Arizona’s economy depends on energy reliability. With industries like advanced manufacturing, aerospace, and semiconductor production growing at a rapid clip, Arizona’s energy demands are soaring. To keep pace and stay competitive, we need a regulatory framework that supports investment, accountability, and efficiency. FRPs deliver on all three fronts.

Danny Seiden (Photo by Jennifer Stewart)

For too long, the traditional utility rate process has been time-consuming and costly, often taking years to resolve. This delay, known as regulatory lag, makes it harder for utilities to recover the costs of vital infrastructure improvements in real time. The result? Arizona’s energy infrastructure risks falling behind, leaving consumers vulnerable to reliability issues and rate shocks when those deferred costs eventually catch up.

FRPs tackle this issue head-on by allowing utilities to make annual rate adjustments based on real, up-to-date cost data. This ensures that rates reflect current economic conditions and infrastructure investments, without forcing utilities or consumers to endure drawn-out and expensive hearings. At the same time, full rate cases will still be required every five years, providing critical oversight to protect consumers and guarantee accountability.

This model isn’t new — 54 utilities in 12 other states, including major economic competitors like Texas, already use FRPs successfully. They’ve been proven to strike the right balance: creating certainty for utilities to invest in infrastructure while maintaining fairness and transparency for ratepayers. Adopting this model positions Arizona to meet today’s energy challenges while staying competitive on a national and global scale.

For businesses, this change couldn’t come at a better time. Companies investing in Arizona, from semiconductor giants to data centers, depend on a robust and reliable energy infrastructure to power their operations. By reducing regulatory lag, FRPs create the certainty businesses need to plan, grow, and invest with confidence.

Consumers also benefit from this framework. Instead of steep, unpredictable rate increases that come after years of accumulated costs, FRPs enable smaller, gradual adjustments tied to real-time investments. This means greater transparency, affordability, and predictability for families and businesses alike.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry was proud to support this policy because we understand what’s at stake. A reliable, modern energy grid isn’t just a convenience — it’s a fundamental requirement for economic growth, job creation, and quality of life. The ACC’s decision to implement FRPs reflects a commitment to smart, innovative solutions that will help Arizona meet the needs of a growing population and expanding industries.

This isn’t just about “keeping the lights on.” It’s about building a resilient, reliable grid that supports long-term success for Arizona’s businesses, families, and economy. At a time when infrastructure, energy reliability, and competitiveness are more critical than ever, FRPs represent a big win — for consumers, for businesses, and for Arizona’s future.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Corp Comm Republicans censure outgoing Democrat for alleged statutory, ethics violations

Republicans on the Arizona Corporation Commission voted Tuesday to censure outgoing Democratic Commissioner Anna Tovar and refer a complaint to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, saying she violated open meeting laws and the commission’s code of ethics.

At an open staff meeting, three Republicans on the commission said an investigation into Tovar’s office found a letter sent by Tovar on Nov. 6 disclosed information discussed in executive session and constituted harassment of a commission staff member. The commissioners also voted to refer violations of Arizona open meeting law to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office.

The Commission discussed the issue during an executive session that lasted over two hours. Republican Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson was absent due to a family emergency and did not vote on the resolution.

Tovar was not present at the meeting, and Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson remained mostly quiet during the vote and were not available for comment after the meeting. Chairman Jim O’Connor was the only commissioner to offer any sort of comment during the vote.

“It’s with a, personally, a very heavy heart, that I make this motion,” O’Connor said.

The issue began on Nov. 15 when Tovar wrote a letter to her fellow commissioners explaining why she voted against a pay bonus for commission Executive Director Doug Clark.

The commission went into executive session on Nov. 6 to discuss Clark’s performance and compensation before ending the session to vote publicly on the pay bonus.

Republican commissioners said Tovar’s letter violated executive session confidentiality and several points of the commission’s code of ethics by discussing Clark’s pay. Tovar denied the allegations and told The Arizona Capitol Times that her letter only reflected the comments she made during the public portion of the Nov. 6 meeting.

The four Republican commissioners voted to instruct the commission’s general counsel and ethics officer, Tom Van Flein, to investigate Tovar during a Nov. 22 meeting. During Tuesday’s meeting, the commissioners present did not discuss any specifics of the investigation.

The resolution passed by the commission said allegations of “unethical misconduct and harassment” of Clark were substantiated. In addition to the censure, commissioners voted to strike Tovar’s letters on the issue from the public record and “reserve its right” to modify the censure if warranted.

Her attorney, Jim Barton, called the hearing “an absolutely disgusting display of partisanship” and maintained that Tovar did not discuss any information that was not already publicly available.

“Their censure is so trivial and so toothless that I’m not sure if it’s worth a lawsuit, but what they did is wrong and it’s disgusting … and I would hope that the Arizona voters would remember this kind of garbage,” Barton said.

He said the move to refer the alleged violations of Arizona statutes to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, rather than the Attorney General’s office, was partisan given that the current Maricopa County Attorney is a Republican. According to the commission’s code of ethics, commissioners can refer violations of Arizona law to either the Attorney General’s office or the county attorney’s office in the county where the violations occurred.

“What is most profoundly transparent about their partisanship is that they actually referred this to the Republican county attorney instead of the Attorney General’s Office, where the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team is,” Barton said. “This is kangaroo court at its top.”

Tovar did not run for reelection to her seat and will leave the commission when her term is up in January. Barton said he is not sure if she will file a lawsuit or take another avenue to fight the censure.

“She has to weigh risk versus gain,” Barton said. “Sometimes when you get down in the mud with a pig, everybody ends up dirty.”

Jim O’Connor: Man of prayer, not politics

Jim O’Connor says he is not a politician. Even though he holds elected office as chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission, O’Connor views his job as more akin to a judge in a courtroom. As he prepares to leave the commission after just one term, O’Connor spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times about what he has learned and what legacy he hopes to leave.

What originally drew you to this position?

I moved to Arizona in the year 2000 after 30 years in L.A. and I had an investment advisory practice that I sold and moved over here with my wife and my very young son … and I became engaged for the first time in my life in the Republican Party, in political activities. I had always voted Republican, but I was never involved in the party. A number of people, throughout Maricopa County particularly, were impressed that I was different than political people. I was always trying to recruit younger men and women, because I thought at 60, I was too old, and that was a long time ago. There was this one fellow who was active in the political legislative districts out [in Sun City West] at the time, and this was like 2015ish, he said, “Jim, we need somebody with integrity to run for the Corporation Commission.” Now, I never thought about running for anything. I viewed myself as far too old. It’s really a young man, a young woman’s game. But we couldn’t find anybody that was truly trustworthy. So in 2017 … I put my hat in the ring and I ran. In that race, there were five men in the Republican primary with only two open seats, and the two that won it in the Republican side were Justin Olson … and Rodney Glassman. So Justin came in first, Glassman came in second, I came in third, with about 207,000 votes, which was pretty respectable for a guy who came out of nowhere. Fast forward, I’m in my fiance’s living room in the summer of 2020, and I get a call from Justin Olson asking me if I would consider running as a write-in candidate for the Corporation Commission. I’m standing in my fiance’s [living room], and we’re scheduled to be married in July, and this is Memorial Day weekend. My wife is a very spirit-filled woman. She said, “Tell Justin you’ll call him back. Give me your hand. We’ll take it to the Lord in prayer.” Three minutes later, she says to me, “God told me to tell you to run and watch him open the doors,” and that is the best story in my lifetime, because that’s exactly what happened. Nick Myers, who’s now serving with us on the commission, when I was off on my three-week honeymoon out of state, Nick took all my appearances and speeches, and he did a masterful job at that. So people may have thought that was me, young, exuberant, feisty, “Let’s get that guy in.” Then we went on the campaign trail … and [my wife] looked at me one exhausted evening in September [2020] and said, “Jim O’Connor, if I had any idea you were a politician, we wouldn’t have had a second date.” I wasn’t a politician then, I’m not one now. I have to do political things, but I think I’m very much the typical citizen that had an opportunity to serve in public office and took it seriously.

What have you learned from your time at the Corporation Commission?

My experience has taught me that we don’t need somebody who’s been in the Legislature for a bunch of years because there is a game that both teams play in those bodies. And I mean this with no disrespect. It’s gamesmanship and it’s all politics. I win, you lose. We all should have followed George Washington’s admonition after he left office and never created a political party, then you could go across the street and talk to your neighbor and not say, “Oh, you’re blue, I’m red. We gotta hate each other.” Come here, please, with business experience, not political experience. The political experience is all about winning the race, getting elected to the job. It kind of stops then, you don’t need any of that anymore. You gotta go forward and bring common sense, unbiased, open ears.

What have you learned from your time as chairman?

I think God picked the right guy for the right place at the right time. This commission, before your time and certainly up through my early two years, those meetings – you’d rather go visit somebody in prison for two or three or six hours. They were dull, they were boring, they were stiff, they were stilted. One of the things we brought in was Robert’s Rules of Order. [Arizona Public Interest Research Group] literally praised us, praised us for bringing order to the courtroom. We would have certain members, stakeholders, running up behind our general counsel’s table and having sidebars in the middle of an open meeting, I mean, unruly as can be. So we needed to make some changes to bring civility back and order back. I try to bring a little [humor] in the courtroom as well. And the feedback I’ve received has been very, very positive there. From the utility companies, both the water, the power, the gas, as well as all of the stakeholders. It’s a gift. It’s nothing Jim does. It’s heaven sent, and I apply it as liberally as I possibly can.

What do you wish people knew about the commission?

This may sound like an odd answer, but I’m going to use the word humility. Whether it’s the general public or lawmakers down the block or stakeholders that have an ax to grind. I would love for people to be more educated.

You talk a lot about your faith, how do you apply that to your role as a public servant?

I start every day with a little devotional. When I was inaugurated myself four years ago, I had my pastor come down and put a blessing on the Commission. Lea Marquez Peterson was elected chairwoman that day at that meeting, and she called me on the phone and said, “I was so moved by your pastor’s remarks at the inauguration, I’d like to reinstitute prayer before open meetings.” And for the last four years, we’ve had prayer rotated month-to-month through all five commissioners. I go back to the Scripture. I’m not one for chapter and verse. I wish I could, I tried, but it’s a big book. So the word tells us if we recognize God before our fellow people, Jesus will recognize us before the Father. So that’s what keeps me going every day.

Why did you decide not to run for reelection to the commission?

When Justin Olson called and asked me to run as a write-in candidate that faithful Memorial Day weekend in 2020, I wasn’t going to do it. I had tried in [2018]. I view that as sometimes God calls you to run but not win. He’s preparing you for something else. My wife runs an intercessory prayer group, actually, she runs three of them each week, and she had them all praying about whether I should run. And I had a lot of encouragement to run again. And [I had] the sense of, “Wow, I got so much done in my two years as chairman. If I had another four, I could get so much more done.” But there’s a part of me that always wanted to model passing the baton. I want to be a model of how to do it better, how to do it differently. But the word [my wife] got from the Lord is, I am not to run again, He’s got another plan for me. So whatever that may be, I’m packed and ready for sure.

Do you know what your next move is or are you still thinking and praying on it?

Both. The prayers have been going for quite some time now, as you might imagine, so I’m just waiting for a response. I just think at this particular point in my life and in the more-than-imagined success that we’ve had here at the commission … I’m very, very hopeful I’m leaving this in great hands. As a matter of fact, we’re moving from a four-to-one Republican [majority] to a five-to-zero. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect by any stretch, but I’m very optimistic that we’re going to keep what we’ve had for the last two years running at least for the next two and, God willing, beyond that. So I made a lasting contribution, and I’m probably better equipped now with this experience behind me than at any time in my life to be able to serve more. So that’s my goal.

Would you be interested in serving in public office again?

Let’s leave it at serving another kind of way.

What legacy do you hope you have left on the Corporation Commission and the state of Arizona?

If we honor God and are not ashamed to bring Him into our activities, whether public or private, He hears from us, and He gives us great favor. And the job that’s been accomplished at this commission with everybody involved, to me, is an answer to prayer. So the legacy would be His, not mine.

Democrat defends herself from accusations of open-meetings, ethics violations

Democratic Corporation Commissioner Anna Tovar has hired legal representation and denies any wrongdoing after Republican commissioners say she violated state laws related to executive sessions and the commission’s code of ethics.

The four Republicans on the commission voted to open an inquiry into Tovar during a meeting on Nov. 22 that Tovar did not attend. The inquiry is centered around a Nov. 15 letter in which Tovar explained her disagreement with a recent vote that approved a bonus for commission Executive Director Doug Clark.

The commissioners said Tovar’s letter violated executive-session confidentiality and several points of the commission’s Code of Ethics by discussing details of Clark’s employment. They instructed the commission’s general counsel, Tom Van Flein, to conduct the investigation and provide a report within 10 days.

Tovar, who will be leaving the commission in January after her term ends, is accused of violating ethics provisions related to decorum, harassment, conduct during open meetings and using political influence in personnel decisions. She denied any wrongdoing and called the investigation a “political witch hunt.”

“I’m going to stand firm for who I know I am, and I know that I have done absolutely nothing wrong except trying to advocate for consumers all across Arizona,” Tovar told the Arizona Capitol Times, saying she has obtained outside legal representation to handle the matter.

The trouble began on Nov. 15 when Tovar sent a letter to her fellow commissioners explaining why she voted against a $20,000 pay bonus for Clark on Nov. 6. In the letter, Tovar said no performance evaluation or metrics were performed to justify a bonus and argued that “things have remained the same if not become worse” under Clark’s leadership.

Tovar cited staff turnover, low pay, a discrimination lawsuit filed against the commission and more as issues that have arisen or worsened under Clark’s tenure.

“While I don’t necessarily solely fault Mr. Clark for these issues, this is why I do not think he is deserving of a bonus,” she wrote in the letter.

Tovar said that all of the information in her letter was publicly available and reflected the comments she made after the commission adjourned from executive session on Nov. 6. Danny Adelman, the executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, said it is hard to judge whether meeting laws were violated without knowing what was said during the executive session.

Adelman said there is likely a record of what was discussed in the executive session, even though it is not publicly available. If an investigation finds that Tovar did reveal information from that discussion publicly, the consequences could be severe.

“There are actually criminal statutes that talk about if you’ve intentionally or recklessly violated open meeting law,” Adelman said. “So it really depends on the strength of the case as to the violation, and the mindset of the person that violated it, but it can be serious.”

During the Nov. 22 meeting, Corporation Commission Chairman Jim O’Connor called the issue “disappointing” and also instructed Van Flein to investigate any harassment that might have occurred between the start of 2023 and the present. O’Connor referenced a former employee of the commission, but otherwise did not provide specifics related to the harassment allegations.

Tovar said those allegations of harassment are false and she is unaware of any complaints made against her during her time on the elected body.

“[It is] absolutely false and I take great offense to it,” she said.

Tovar said she found the steps the commissioners took “odd” because they do not follow the typical process for ethics complaints made at the commission. She has been an advocate for clarifying the ethics complaint and investigation process, but little change has been made.

According to Tovar, a meeting to discuss the issue was scheduled before any complaint was filed. She said she wasn’t aware of an issue until the meeting’s agenda was revised to name her specifically and a complaint wasn’t filed until an hour before the meeting took place on Nov. 22.

Tovar said she still has not received a copy of the complaint filed against her and she does not know who filed it. Commission spokeswoman Nicole Garcia said, “Per our General Counsel, the information you’re asking for is confidential until the investigation is completed, at which point the report will then be made public.”

Commissioners requested that Van Flein’s investigation into the matter be completed within 10 days. Tovar said other complaints filed to the commission have gone unaddressed for years.

“Why am I treated differently on this?” Tovar said. “There’s other complaints that are at the commission that have laid dormant for over a year, yet there isn’t a formal process or policy of how to address those. But I get a meeting scheduled on an executive session before a complaint is even filed.”

Environmental, business leaders weigh in on all-GOP Corporation Commission

In 2025, Republicans will fill all five seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission, but clean energy advocates, environmentalists and business leaders aren’t sounding a death knell for their causes.

Rachel Walden, Rene Lopez and incumbent Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson were the top three vote-getters in the Nov. 5 election to fill three open seats on the ACC. They edged out three Democratic candidates and two Green Party candidates.

Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathon Hill and Joshua Polacheck ran as an environmentally-friendly, climate-focused slate, while the Republicans campaigned on lowering utility rates through the free market and a diverse energy portfolio.

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter, said she was a bit surprised by the results.

“I did not anticipate that the Republicans would sweep it,” Bahr said. “I thought that there might at least be one or two Democrats, but I knew it was going to be tough.”

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and clean energy groups like Advanced Energy United say the supermajority will present challenges to environmental protection rules and the promotion of alternative energy sources. However, the Republicans held all five seats as recently as 2018, while Democrats haven’t had a majority since 2010.

Currently, the commission has a 4-1 Republican majority. Republican Chair Jim O’Connor and Democratic Commissioner Anna Tovar both decided not to run for reelection.

Bahr has been an environmental lobbyist at the state Capitol for decades and said groups like the Sierra Club are no strangers to working with Republican majorities – whether at the commission, the state Legislature or the Governor’s Office.

“We’re expecting to see more of the same, except there won’t be dissent on the Commission. I think they are likely to have a lot of five zero votes,” Bahr said.

She anticipates that the new commission will move forward with repealing the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff rules and the Electric Energy Efficiency Resource Standard. The commission enacted the two policies in 2006 and 2010 respectively, and they require utility companies to meet certain renewable energy and energy efficiency goals.

The commission voted earlier this year to start the process of repealing both standards, despite protests from the lone Democrat on the commission and clean energy advocates. The goals set by both policies have been met, but advocates say repealing the standards will allow utilities to fall behind or reduce progress that has already been made.

Bahr said she also expects the incoming commissioners to defend the commission’s June 2024 decision to exempt a UniSource Energy power plant expansion from environmental review. That decision is currently the subject of three lawsuits in Maricopa County Superior Court.

“I know that all sounds really negative, and I just think more than ever, people need to show up and speak up, and especially speak up for those who don’t have an opportunity either to come to the Legislature or be at the Corporation Commission,” Bahr said.

Michael Barrio, a policy expert with Advanced Energy United, said he has a more optimistic view on working with the new commission.

“The ACC makeup may initially seem challenging for some clean energy advocates, but I feel like for us, it really presents an opportunity to engage with the commission on the economic benefits of clean energy, especially as our energy demand rises and the reliability conversation becomes critical,” Barrio said.

He said he will be focused on pitching clean energy from an economic growth perspective, which current and future Republican commissioners have indicated is a priority.

“We have to do a better job of emphasizing how things like expanded [electric vehicle] infrastructure and community solar contribute to local job growth and tax revenue, and how that aligns with a Republican-leaning commission’s economic goals,” Barrio said.

Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said he doesn’t think anyone should expect “anything drastic” moving forward because he believes the commission is focused on the affordability and reliability of utilities.

“I don’t think they’ve said they’re against clean energy,” Seiden said. “I think they’re focused on a lot of renewables.”

Seiden said the chamber has supported the commission’s course in recent years because it brought business to Arizona and benefited the economy. He highlighted how the reliability of the state’s energy grid keeps Arizona competitive economically and attributed that to the commission.

“I think the Corporation Commission deserves a lot of respect and a lot of adulation for what they’ve been able to do,” Seiden said.

However, the commission has received criticism for its decisions related to renewable energy, environmental protections and increased utility rates.

Corporation Commission defends exempting power plant from environmental review

The Arizona Corporation Commission is denying claims made by Attorney General Kris Mayes and two environmental groups about the commission’s decision to exempt a power plant expansion from environmental review.

In three responses filed on Oct. 14 to three lawsuits, the commission asked Maricopa County Superior Court to dismiss the complaints and affirm the decision to exempt Unisource Energy from obtaining a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility on its planned expansion of the Black Mountain Generating Station in Golden Valley, near Kingman.

Mayes, the Sierra Club and Western Resources Advocates filed suit in August, saying the commission misinterpreted a statute governing power plant expansions and reversed decades of precedent set by previous commission votes.

The dispute revolves around the commission’s June decision to overturn a ruling from the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee that required UNSE to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for four new generators that are each 50 megawatts.

Under state law, plants with a nameplate rating of 100 megawatts or more must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility. UNSE argued that it should not have to obtain a certificate because each individual generator is less than 100 megawatts.

In its filing, the commission emphasized that state statute defines a plant as “each separate” … “generating unit,” which would not require a certificate for the expansion of the Black Mountain Generating Station, despite the total rating of the four generators adding up to 200 megawatts.

The commission said Mayes and the environmental groups were misunderstanding state statute and said the commission does not rely on precedent when making decisions. The commission also said utility companies have voluntarily obtained the certificates, so the UNSE case marked the first time the commission was asked to determine whether one was necessary.

In its response to Mayes’ complaint, the commission accused her of attempting to rewrite the statute via interpretation and said the Legislature would have to update the statute if there was a “hypothetical problem” with its implementation.

Mayes had accused the commission of creating “ambiguity in the law,” but spokespeople for the commission have said multiple times that the law left little room for interpretation.

“The Commission followed the letter of the law as written,” said Tom Van Flein, the commission’s general counsel, in a written statement provided in August. “Policy advocates wanted a different interpretation for policy reasons. That remains the purview of the Legislature.”

A spokesperson for the commission declined to comment on its responses in the case.

Autumn Johnson, an attorney who represents the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association in cases before the commission, said she thought the responses were “kind of absurd.” The solar group participated in the UNSE case when it was before the commission, but did not join the other parties in filing suit.

Johnson said she disagrees with the commission’s claim that this is the first time it has dealt with this issue.

“I think that was one of the things that was puzzling to me and my clients … there’s never been an articulation as to why this is different now than it was before,” Johnson said.

Johnson also said the assertion that utility companies voluntarily request CECs is untrue.

“I don’t think the utilities thought that they were doing it voluntarily,” Johnson said. “I have been involved now in a handful of different line siting matters, and they never started making the point that it was voluntary until [this case].”

Mayes, the Sierra Club and Western Resources Advocates also accused the commission of violating Arizona administrative code by communicating with staff members like Van Flein – who were named as parties in the case – during an executive session. The commission denied those allegations and said the presence of staff in the executive session did not violate commission rules related to ex parte, or one-sided, communications.

Johnson said there’s been “a lot of confusion, historically,” on rules related to ex parte communications at the commission.

“It’s not clear to me that anyone really understands the rule or knows how to explain it,” Johnson said.

She attributes that confusion to recent changes in the commission’s legal team, which sparked controversy and even a lawsuit after the former head of the legal division accused commissioners of retaliation and discrimination.

A hearing has not been set in any of the three lawsuits and Johnson said she does not expect the case to conclude before the upcoming election, during which voters will fill three open seats on the commission. Johnson said she expects the cases to be consolidated and for the issue to bleed over into other branches of government.

“I think this will be an issue with the Legislature this session – it’s obviously an issue with the courts [and] it’s an election issue,” Johnson said.

Your Arizona Corporation Commission vote will impact public health, your wallet

When you think about public health, you probably don’t immediately think about the Arizona Corporation Commission. But the reality is that the decisions made by the Commission have a profound impact on public health and your family’s finances.

The Connection Between Utility Rates & Health

Utility costs aren’t just a financial issue—they’re a public health issue. Skyrocketing electricity bills have a direct impact not just on a family’s ability to keep their house cool but on their ability to pay all the other household bills important for family health and development.

In recent years, the ACC has been quick to approve almost every rate increase requested by utilities, despite concerns that this puts undue financial stress on families.

These rate hikes make it harder for many Arizonans to afford their energy bills, forcing tough decisions about where to cut costs. For some, it means skipping out on medications or buying cheaper, less healthy food.

It’s essential that ACC candidates prioritize consumer health over industry profits. The commissioners—and the staff they hire to conduct analysis—should be focused on keeping energy affordable so families can live in healthy, safe environments, not just industry profits.

Air Quality & Health

Decisions made by the ACC also directly affect Arizona’s air quality, which has a big impact on public health. Air pollution, particularly from energy production, is linked to respiratory issues like asthma and other chronic lung diseases.

Recent decisions, like creating loopholes in utility environmental review requirements have allowed utilities to bypass critical environmental checks. This means more pollutants in the air affecting communities near energy production sites.

Clean Energy & Public Health

Another major area where the ACC’s decisions influence public health is via clean energy development. Transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar doesn’t just help fight climate change—it directly affects public health by reducing air pollution.

Sadly, decisions made by the Commission in recent years suggest they’ve been more interested in protecting the interests of traditional utility companies than pushing for clean energy innovation. Instead, recent ACC decisions have been far too willing to approve fossil fuel-based projects that contribute to pollution.

Industry Influence Over the ACC

One of my biggest concerns in recent years is that the Commission appears to have been “captured” by the industries they’re supposed to regulate. From approving rate hikes to loosening environmental review standards, the commission prioritizes utility company profits over the health and financial well-being of Arizonans.

When utility companies can count on the commission to approve nearly every request they ask for, it creates a dangerous cycle where public health takes a backseat to industry interests and investors.

Your Vote Matters

When you cast your vote for Arizona Corporation commissioners, you’re voting for people who will make decisions that directly affect your family’s health and well-being.

The Arizona Public Health Association urges you to pay close attention to candidates’ histories and their commitment to protecting public health—because the decisions made by the ACC will have far-reaching impacts on Arizona’s communities and families.

The Arizona Corporation Commission’s decisions may not always make front-page news, but they profoundly shape our daily lives. From the air we breathe to the electricity bills we pay; we need the commission to protect the public interest—not just industry profits.

Do your homework and research on candidates for the Corporation Commission Arizona. Your family’s and your community’s well-being are on the line.

Will Humble is the Executive Director of the Arizona Public Health Association and former Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services (2009-2015). You can follow him on X at @willhumble_az

The Hidden Power of the Arizona Corporation Commission: Why Your Vote Matters

There are a lot of really important issues on your ballot this fall. But it is not just the presidential candidates and the ballot propositions that you need to pay attention to. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) also has three out of its five members up for a vote in November. The ACC is the body that regulates water, gas, and electric utilities in Arizona. A five-member body sets the rates you pay to your monopoly utility every month. They are also in charge of energy policy in Arizona, meaning they decide if we keep using fossil fuels or transition to clean energy.

If you get electricity from Arizona Public Service (APS), Tucson Electric Power (TEP), Unisource, or a rural cooperative, the ACC impacts you. If you get gas from Southwest Gas, the ACC matters to you. If you get water from Global Water, EPCOR, Liberty, or any of these hundreds of companies, the ACC impacts you. If you have or ever hope to have solar panels, an electric vehicle, or an energy-efficient home, the ACC impacts you. If you are concerned about Arizona’s air quality or whether or not we will run out of water, the ACC impacts you.

Just since the last election, the ACC has made important decisions on rates for TEP, APS, Unisource, and Southwest Gas. They voted to prevent community solar from developing in Arizona. They have increased fixed fees on solar customers and decreased the value of the solar those same customers sell back to the grid. They have curtailed several energy efficiency programs. They have also voted to repeal renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements. Solar and energy efficiency are the only ways customers can meaningfully reduce their electric bills. Renewable energy uses less water than fossil fuels and does not contribute to air pollution.

Candidates for the ACC run statewide, meaning there are no districts, so all voters will have the same choices. You will find this race after other statewide and legislative candidates, but before judges and ballot propositions. You should vote for three, not just one, like a lot of other races. A lot of people that fill out a ballot just skip this race. That is because a lot of people do not know what the ACC is, think it only has to do with “corporations,” and do not realize that three people (because simple majority rules) decide nearly everything about electric, water, and gas utilities in the State. 57,000 votes was the difference between winning this election in 2022 and losing. That means your vote matters. And nearly 100,000 people who voted in the 2022 gubernatorial race did not vote in the ACC race.

Six candidates are running for three seats. All of these candidates have websites and social media. In alphabetical order, they are: Ylenia Aguilar (D) (website and social), Jonathon Hill (D) (website and social), Rene Lopez (R) (website and social), Lea Marquez Peterson (R) (website and social), Joshua Polacheck (D) (website and social), and Rachel Walden (R) (website and social). Only Marquez Peterson is an incumbent.

Ballots are mailed out on October 9th. You can request a mail-in ballot until October 25th. You need to mail back your ballot by October 29th. The last day to vote in-person, early is November 1st. Election day is November 5th and polls are open 6am-7pm. Get all of your voting info at the Secretary of State’s website. The ballot is going to be long this year, but take your time and complete all of it. Research the candidates. If you are voting from home, you have a lot of time to review the voter guides, candidate websites, and candidate social media accounts. If you are voting in person, plan ahead. The ACC race impacts you.

Autumn Johnson is the Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association.

Upcoming Event

Tag: Arizona Corporation Commission