Page 10 - The Noise September 2016

Regular readers may recall Warren Woodward and his 3-year battle with APS, the electric company servicing
over 1 million Arizonans and accused of influencing Arizona’s Corporation Commission, the regulatory body that oversees electricity rate increases and business conduct in the state.
We encourage a dialogue of contemporary issues within these pages ... Whether you agree or disagree, please write in!
Just the other day I made a Motion in the APs rate case at the Arizona corporation commission (ACC). I requested a postponement of the case because both APS and the ACC are currently being investigated by the FBI, and also because of the blatant bias the ACC has in favor of APS’s controversial rip-off “demand rates” that APS is proposing to force on just about all their residential customers.
Hard on the heels of my Motion comes more evidence of the ACC’s lack of ethics. This is so blatant it would be laughable were it not for the fact that the Biased Boys at the ACC set the utility rates that APS requests ... and we end up paying.
ACC commissioner Tom Forese appeared in a promotional video for an APS program. I can’t help but wonder what other jobs Forese performs for APS. Maybe he shines CEO Don Brandt’s shoes?
Writing in the Arizona Republic newspaper about Forese’s new second job as actor for APS, Laurie Roberts had this to say:
So now comes Forese, starring in a video promoting APS’s Solar Partner pro- gram. The program allows low-income customers to score a discount from APS if they allow the utility to install solar panels on the roof.
APS and conservAmerica, the group that produced the video, believe it’s a way for customers who can’t otherwise take advantage of solar to reap the benefits. Rooftop solar companies, meanwhile, contend it’s just another way for APS to put them out of business.
Regardless of which is true, this much is absolutely true:
Right now, the money for the program is coming out of APS’s pocket.
APS is asking the Corporation Commission to stick you and me with the tab. It’s part
of the utility’s pending request for an 8% rate hike — one that’ll be decided by the com- mission next year.
Decided by four commissioners ... and the star.
But no worries. That, we are assured, is no conflict.
Forese told The Republic’s ryan randazzo that while he supports expanding solar op-
portunities to low-income people that doesn’t mean he supports APS’s plan to stick us with the cost of its program expanding solar opportunities to low-income people.
And unbelievably (or maybe not), the commission’s lawyer, chris Kempley, doesn’t see a problem either.
Kempley, don’t forget, is the ACC’s so-called “ethics officer.” I suppose his is the type of “ethics” the ACC gets when it’s the ACC that pays the ethics officer’s salary and bennies. Forese, don’t forget, is the commissioner who, when trying to promote a whitewashing “ACC Code of Ethics” at an ACC meeting last month, had to be warned four times he was violating Arizona’s open Meeting Law.
You can’t make this stuff up!
Lawyer Tom ryan, the guy who busted former ACC commissioner susan Bitter- smith for having multiple conflicts of interest at the ACC, left this comment at Roberts’ article (as usual, he nailed it):
ACC Commissioners are supposed to be Judges. They have an ethical obligation to be fair and impartial, and free from even the appearance of impropriety. So let’s evaluate Comm. Forese’s conduct here: Imagine if a judge in your case appears in a friendly ad for your opponent in the very case the judge is sitting upon. How are you going to feel about that judge’s impartiality and fairness towards you? In an ACC
case there are essentially two parties: the state granted market place monopolies like Arizona Public Service, and then there’s every rate payer in that monopoly’s marketplace. Here Commissioner Forese is appearing against the ratepayers who are a captive market for Arizona Public Service. This is just wrong!! Comm. Forese & Little stood silently by as the State Legislature and Governor gutted the strict anti- conflict of interest law for the ACC (ARS Sec. 41-101) and this is the kind of crappy conduct we now have to live with.
I think ACC could also stand for APS co-conspirators.
Numerous people have asked me recently who to vote for in the race for the three vacant seats at the Arizona Corporation Commission.
People have also sent me articles about incumbent Bob Burns, and also referenced his campaign claims about standing up to APS influence. In brief, don’t fall for Burns’ re- election ploy.
But first of all, understand that I am a registered Republican. I am not a doctrinaire Democrat out to bash Republicans.
That said, there is not a Republican ACC candidate worth voting for in either the pri- mary or the general election. You of course are free to vote for whomever you want, but in the primary election I will not be voting for any of the Republicans. I will leave that portion of the primary ballot blank.
In the general election in November, I will not be voting for any ACC Republican candi- dates either. I will vote for the two Democrats, Tom chabin and Bill Mundell. There are three seats open at the ACC this time, but I will be voting for only those two candidates (no one has to vote for three candidates just because there are three seats open).
Commissioner Bob Burns has attempted to present himself as a reformer, as someone who will stand up to APS. Coincident with the upcoming election and early primary bal- lots going out in the mail, Burns has just announced that he (with ACC/taxpayer funds, not his own) has hired an outside, independent lawyer (at $315/hr.) to investigate wheth- er APS has undue influence at the ACC.
1) Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that already and doesn’t need a $315 per hour “investigation” to figure it out.
2) Burns has been at the ACC since 2012 and he’s just getting around to this now?
3) Basically Burns, a career politician since 1989, is using taxpayer money to fund a
re-election publicity stunt.
4) In violation of conflict of interest law, Burns was a lobbyist for companies he regu-
lates at the ACC. I totally nailed him on it but the corrupt AZ Supreme Court declined to act on my filing. For that conflict of interest issue alone Burns does not deserve to be returned to office.
5) In two ACC issues I have followed closely and actively participated in, “smart” meters and the CenturyLink “facility relocation” add-on fee, Burns sided with corporate, not ratepayers, despite huge public outcries on both issues. He voted in favor of the un- deserved CenturyLink fee, and he voted to extort a fee from ratepayers not wanting a “smart” meter.
Indeed, on May 1st, 2013 Burns wrote an opinion piece in the Sedona Red Rock News parroting the APS “smart” meter line and valuing money over health and privacy. His oft-quoted “significant cost savings” line I’m sure was a slam-dunk rallying cry closing the Pinnacle West corporate retreats at the million-dollar resort down the street.
Do tell us exactly how much ratepayers will save per month? Substantiate your claim. Show us some numbers based on real life, not APS propaganda. If the cost savings are “significant” as you claim, then it should be easy for you to tell us specifically.
Several times since I wrote that in 2013 I challenged Burns to show everyone the sav- ings he said would be “passed on” to customers. Of course I never heard from him because there are no savings and never will be. The entire “smart” g rid is ahuge boondoggle. High- er rates are what gets “passed on” wherever it’s installed, and Arizona is no exception — especially now that APS is asking for an 8% rate hike in their pending rate case.
Turn Burns out. He’s burned ratepayers enough already.
Warren Woodward
Sedona, Arizona