before Voting on Proposition 421.
In less than two weeks, Tucsonans will be going to the polls (if they haven't already voted by mail, as I did). The ballot for this election has an overwhelming number of propositions put forward by the state legislature to try to get bills passed that they couldn't get through in the regular session, but there are also a number of local propositions worth considering. Proposition 421, extending Tucson Electric Power's Franchise Agreement, is one of the most contentious.
A lot of Tucsonans I've heard from are viewing Prop 421 as a referendum on TEP. Sure, you can do that, but the reality is that voting No on Prop 421 isn't going to move Tucson toward renewable energy or municipalization any faster. Most of the obstacles to municipal power are legal and financial.
The legal hurdles are state law and Arizona Corporation Commission rules that prevent a lot of the actions environmentalists would like to see: solar shaded transit corridors, Community Choice, and competition within service areas. Voting down Prop 421 won't change any of that.
Financially, the process of condemning TEP infrastructure, purchasing or constructing infrastructure, hiring and training personnel, setting up service centers, and transitioning to a municipal electric utility for the first time in Tucson's history will take a long time and be very expensive. It's also a transition that is likely to be contested in court over a period of many years. In the end, most of the municipalization plans for Tucson are for city owned and operated power transmission and distribution, not generation. So, a new municipal power utility would be buying power in the current energy market. Building new fossil fuel-free generation infrastructure will also be quite expensive and will take years (though solar and storage can be built out relatively quickly). Can a city that has lost revenue from federal and state sources and has a shrinking local tax base afford that investment? It's a question that requires some serious study, not sloganeering.
In the meantime, many of the actions we as a city can take now to make our energy generation mix cleaner require working with TEP. Distributed Capacity Procurement is a promising path forward, but it would need to be done with TEP. I hope we will finally get some renewable energy friendly legislators and regulators to stop putting their thumbs on the scales in favor of fossil fuels, but even this election cycle won't get us all the way there.
Will voting No on Prop 421 get us closer to municipalization? I don't think so. TEP will still be our energy provider. The ACC will still set rates and rules. The only thing that would really change would be that routine maintenance and service expansions will have to go through the City permitting process, costing TEP more and the City more for staff to process the additional permit applications.
Whatever you decide, be sure to vote!
by Dan Stormont
Hi Dan- while I agree with much of your comment above, please produce some evidence on the permitting issue where you repeat what TEP has claimed without any evidence. It recently became clear from comments of several TEP folks that TEP, even with the franchise agreement now in place, DOES GET PERMITS FOR EACH OF THEIR PERMITTABLE PROJECTS, but they have an arrangement where they can get the permits AFTER THE FACT, reversing the usual order. But since City staff must still issue these permits, there seems to be no staff time or money savings from this process.
ReplyDeleteHi Bruce, You are correct that TEP needs a permit for the following work:
ReplyDelete"The Company shall, when required by applicable City Charter, Code, regulation or ordinance, obtain a permit and pay all applicable fees prior to removing, relocating, or reconstructing, if necessary, any portion of its Facilities in the Right-of-way."
My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer, I rely on the City Attorney's office for legal advice) is that normal maintenance does not fall into that "remove, relocate, or reconstruct" category requiring permitting. After-the-fact permitting happens for emergency repairs and that would be true even if Prop 421 is voted down. So, the permitting is significantly streamlined for all utilities that have a Franchise Agreement with the City and would not be streamlined without it, requiring more effort from the Permit Office.
Let's be honest, if there was no difference in the requirements with or without a FA, why would any utility pay to sign one with the City?