>> COMING UP ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF ARIZONA HORIZON, IT'S A DEBATE AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THE CANDIDATES RUNNING FROM ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION INTO A ONE HOUR CLEAN ELECTION'S DEBATE AND NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON.

WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL ELECTION 2022 EDITION OF ARIZONA ELECTION.

TONIGHT, IT'S A ONE-HOUR DEBATE SPONSORED BY CLEAN ELECTIONS, YOUR SOURCE FOR NON-PARTISAN ELECTION INFORMATION.

TONIGHT'S DEBATE FEATURES THE FOUR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE TWO OPEN SEATS ON THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION.

IT'S BEST KNOWN FOR REGULATING UTILITY RATES AND OVERSEES RAILROAD AND PIPELINE ALONG WITH SECURITY'S REGULATION.

>> TONIGHT'S DEBATE IS NOT A FORMAL EXERCISE BUT AN OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GIVE AND TAKE BETWEEN CANDIDATES FOR ONE OF THE STATE'S MOST IMPORTANT OFFICES.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN CANDIDATES IS ENCOURAGED, PROVIDED ALL SIDES GET A FAIR SHAKE AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ENSURE THAT HAPPENS.

CANDIDATES WILL GIVE OPENING STATEMENTS IN A RANDOMLY SELECTED ORDER AND WE'LL GIVE CLOSING STATEMENTS IN THE OPPOSITE ORDER.

>> JOINING US, DEMOCRAT SANDRA KENNEDY ON THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AND IS A FORMER STATE LAWMAKER.

DEMOCRAT LAUREN COOVY AND SCIENTIST AT ASU, REPUBLICAN NICK MEYERS, A POLICY ADVISER TO JUSTIN OLSEN AND KEVIN THOMPSON, A MESA CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THINGS STARTED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS AND WE BEGIN WITH SANDRA KENNEDY.

>> GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU TO THE CLEAN ELECTION'S COMMISSION, PBS HORIZON AND ITS STAFF AND TO OUR TWO HOSTS TONIGHT FOR HOSTING US AND YOU ALLOWING US INTO YOUR SPACE.

MY NAME IS SANDRA KENNEDY.

I'M A WIFE, A MOTHER, A GRANDMOTHER OF TWO BEAUTIFUL GRAND D.C.BABIES AND I'M YOUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

I WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE YOUR ADVOCATE, TO BE THE PERSON WHO SPEAKS OUT TO TALK ABOUT THE LOWEST RATE, THE PERSON WHO TALKS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.

AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEING YOUR SOLER ADVOCATE, ALSO, AND MAKING SURE THAT ARIZONA'S PROSPERITY CONTINUES TO RISE HERE.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE MOST TRANSPARENCY AND PROSPERITY IN THIS STATE WHEN IT COMES TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND I WANT TO DO THAT FOR YOU.

ARIZONA'S TIME IN THE SUN IS NOW.

THANK YOU.

>> AND FOR OUR NEXT OPENING STATEMENT, WE TURN TO LAUREN.

>> I'M A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER AND VICE MAYOR OF TEMPE.

I SOLD MY LAST POTHOLE ON JULY 1st AND I'M A SCIENTIST AT ASU AND THE CITY, I LEAD ON CLIMATE SOLUTIONS AND TRANSPARENCY IF GOVERNMENT AND SETTING FAIR AND JUST, WATER AND WASTE WATER RATES FOR RESIDENTS.

I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU, I'VE TRAVELED THE STATE AND WE ARE ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS, BE IT WILDFIRES, DROUGHT, FLOODING AND EXTREME TEMPERATURES AND ONLY RISING AND AMONGST THE WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE NATION.

BUT WITH CRISIS COMES OPPORTUNITY AND WE NEED TO LEAD A CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION FOR OUR STATE.

THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT SOLAR ENERGY BEING SO CHEAP AND PLENTY FULL, THE SUN SO PLENTY FULL, IT WILL LEAD TO JOBS THAT OUR GREAT PAYING JOBS AND LOWER COSTS FOR CONSUMERS.

I'M RUNNING WITH SANDRA KENNEDY FOR COMMISSION.

>> NEXT FROM NICK MEYERS.

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

I'M ONE HALF OF THE NICK MEYERS KEVIN THOMPSON TEAM AND THE NUMBER ONE JOB OF THE CORPORATION IS TO SET JUST AND REASONABLE RATES, AS WELL AS PROTECTING THE GRID AND KEEPING IT RELIABLE AND RESILIANT.

MY BACKGROUND IS 20 YEARS IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, DOING ENGINEERING AND I'VE BEEN IN TEN YEARS IN SMALL BUSINESS, WHERE ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES WAS DELIVERING RURAL TO PINAL COUNTY AND HAD TO DEAL WITH A ROGUE WATER UTILITY AND LONG STORY SHORT, THAT UTILITY NO LONGER DOES BUSINESS IN ARIZONA.

HE TOOK WATER AWAY FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A YEAR AND WE HAD TO FIGHT TO GET THAT BACK.

THAT YEAR-LONG BATTLE CULMINATED IN ME GETTING A POSITION AS A POLICY ADVISER AND I LOOK FORWARD IN CONTINUING THAT WORK AS A RATE PAIR ADVOCATE PAIR PAYER ADVOCATE.

>> AND LASTLY KEVIN THOMPSON.

>> I'M KEVIN THOMPSON AND I'M THE OTHER HALF.

MY PUBLIC SERVICE STARTED EARLY.

WHEN WAS 19, I JOINED THE UNITED STATES AIRFORCE AND I WAS DEPLOYED TO DESERT STORM AND I CAME BACK STATE-SIDE TO LAS VEGAS.

WHILE I WAS ACTIVE DUTY, I PUT MYSELF THROUGH SCHOOL EARNING MY BACHELOR DEGREE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND MOVED TO ARIZONA AND TOOK A JOB WITH SOUTHWEST GAS, WHERE I SPENT 17 YEARS IN VARIOUS POSITIONS, ENGINEERING INCLUDING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS.

AND IT WAS IN THAT GOVERNMENT RELATION'S ROLE AND LIAISON WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE COMPANY THAT I SAW THE GOOD AND BAD OF POLITICS.

I DECIDED I WANTED TO RUN FOR MISA CITY COUNCIL AND I WON MY RACE AND RAN FOR REELECTION AND WON THAT.

I'M RUNNING BECAUSE WE SEE THE FAILED POLICIES TAKING PLAY NEXT DOOR IN CALIFORNIA.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THOSE GREEN NEW DEALS AND FAILED POLICIES OUT OF ARIZONA.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND LET'S GET THINGS STARTED.

SANSANDRA, WE'LL START WITH YOU.

WHAT DO YOU SEE AND WHY DO YOU THINK THIS WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> WELL, IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE OUR FOREFATHERS SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO AND WANTED TO PROTECT THE RATE PAYERS AND CREATED THE CORPORATION COMMISSION.

THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THE RATE PAYERS FROM THE BIG OIL COMPANIES AND SO WE HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY, NOT JUST TO UTILITY ISSUES, BUT WE HAVE A HEARING DIVISION, A CORPORATION'S DIVISION AND I CALL THE CORPORATION DIVISIONS THE BANK.

THISWE HAVE A SECURITY'S DIVISION AND ALSO A PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION AND THE VERY PIPES UNDER OUR FEET, ARE THEY SAFE IN.

>> THEHOW DO YOU SEE THIS AND, AGAIN, HOW DO YOU SEE THE COMMISSIONS AND WHAT IT'S CHARGED WITH?

>> IT'S SET TO ESTABLISH FAIR RATES AND JUST RATES FOR RATE PAYERS AND IT, THOUGH, IS CHARGED WITH THE CARE AND COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE AND PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT ROLE.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS, ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, THEY SPENT MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION THAN ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND IT'S BECAUSE THE LOBBYISTS, THE RAILROAD LOBBYISTS WERE POWERFUL AT THE TIME AND WORRIED THE GOVERNOR WOULD NOT HOLE HOLD THE PUBLIC IN MIND.

ONE OF ONLY SEVEN WHERE CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED AND IT'S A POWERFUL ROLE IN GOVERNMENT.

>> INTERESTING, LAUREN, YOU MENTIONED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND NICK, DO YOU SEE A CORPORATION COMMISSION AS A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?

>> I DO NOT.

I 'DO THINK IT'S DON'T THINK IT'S A FOURTH BRANCH AND POURS DELEGATED BY THE BRANCH AND NOT NECESSARILY A FOURTH BRANCH.

THERE IS STILL A LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AND THE CORPORATION IS BEHOLDEN TO WHAT THOSE BRANCHES DO AND WE'RE THERE TO EXECUTE THOSE LAW INTERESTSLAWS ANDWHATNOT AND WE'RE CLOSER TO THE FUNCTION WE PLAY AND WE'RE NOT A FOURTH BRANCH, PER SAY.

>> DO YOU THINK, KEVIN, THAT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION IS BEHOLDEN TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

>> I DON'T, TED.

I THINK THAT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION HAS REALLY STEPPED ITS BOUNDS AND HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THEIR MAJOR ROLE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THAT MAJOR ROLE BEING TO SET JUST AND REASONABLE RATES.

WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER TIME, THEY'VE EXPANDED POWER TO INCLUDE LEGISLATIVE AND I THINK THE JOHNSON UTILITY CASE STATES WHEN ANDREW GOLDEN, THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WROTE THE OPINION, HE SAID THAT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY IN THAT CORPORATION COMMISSION ONLY HAS THAT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WHEN IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACT.

>> I THINK THIS IS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND THE MOST POWERFUL ENTITY IN THE STATE NEXT TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

THEY CANNOT TAKE AWAY OUR AUTHORITY.

AND THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE SEEN LATELY, THE IMPEDING FROM THE LEGISLATURE ON OUR AUTHORITY TO TAKE OUR AUTHORITY AWAY.

>> LAUREN, THE IDEA THAT THE -- THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

>> THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE 1914 SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT SPOKE ABOUT THE SUPREMACY.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM THE OPPONENTS IS THAT THEY WERE OPPOSED TO THE RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARDS ESTABLISHED 16 YEARS AGO AND THOSE STANDARDS WITH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS SAVED US 23 BILLION GALLONS OF WATER AND EITHER GLAD ABOUT THAT AND AVOIDED 14 POUR 14 POWER POINTS AND SAVED THE RATE PAYERS $14 BILLION.

THIS SOMETIMES PUBLIC OPPONENTS WANT TO ROLL BACK, THEY HAVE BEEN SUPREME IN SAVING CONSUMERS MONEY FULL STOP.

>> YOU BROUGHT UP CALIFORNIA WHICH HAD THE THREAT OF ROLLING BLACK-OUTS THIS LAST WEEKEND.

WHAT DO YOU SEE THE PRIMARY ROLE OF THE CORPORATION KEEPING RATES LOW, BALANCING THAT WITH RELIABLE GRID AND HOW DO YOU PRIORITIZE THAT?

>> REALLY, FOR NICK AND I, WE BELIEVE IN THE ABOVE APPROACH.

SO UNLIKE CALIFORNIA AND UNLIKE TEXAS, WE BELIEVE THAT WITH SHOULDN'T PUT ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS IN ONE BASKET.

WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS BOTH, WE'VE SEEN THIS IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT IN LIEU OF TECHNOLOGY AND PUT ALL THEIR EGGS OR THEIR RENEWABLES AND RELIED VOID ON SOLELY ON RENEWABLES AND SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES NOW.

WHAT NICK AND I WANT TO DO IS ENSURE THE APPROACH WHERE WE'RE ALLOWING ALL TYPES OF GENERATION, WHETHER HYDRO, NUCLEAR, SOLAR, WIND, NATURAL GAS, COAL FIRED AND ALLOW TECHNOLOGY TO DICTATE WHEN IT'S TIME TO SHIFT TO RENEWABLES.

>> SOTHE SUSTAINABILITY PROFESSOR WOULD LIKE A WORD.

>> YEAH, AND THE CASE OF TEXAS, THEY ONLY HAVE 2% SOLAR IN THEIR PORTFOLIO.

SO IT WAS NATURAL GAS PLANTS THAT FAILED AND THEY HAVE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF FOSSIL FUELS IN THEIR ENERGY MIX.

THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

AND SO TO COMPARE US IS SILLY.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SOLAR AND 90% BY SOLAR IN THE STATE, BUT TO BLAME RENEWABLE ENERGY ON WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS JUST DEFIES REALITY.

>> AND IF I COULD, IF I COULD INTERJECT.

Mr. THOMPSON STATED WE COULD HAVE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT MIXES IN OUR PORTFOLIO AND WE ALREADY HAVE THEM.

WE HAVE HYDRO, NUCLEAR, SOLAR AND GAS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING TODAY THAT HE SUSPECTS THAT WE WILL DO IN THE FUTURE.

>> WELL, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE MOVE TOWARDS RENEWABLES TO BE DEPENDENT OB ON RENEWABLES, ONE STATED IF SHE WOULD BE ELECTED, THEY WOULD MOVE TO 100% CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030.

CARBON NEUTRALLY IS ELIMINATING ALL OF THE GENERATING TYPE SOURCES.

THAT'S PUTTING ALL OF YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET AND WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT IN ARIZONA.

>> YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> THERE WAS A WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE IS COUPLE OF DAYS AGO TALKING ABOUT CALIFORNIA AND THEIR DIRT ENERGY SECRET.

THEY OVERINVESTED IN RENEWABLES AND THEY HAVE A LARGE EXODUS IN COMPANIES FROM CALIFORNIA, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE MUCH MORE GENERATION ONLINE, TO THE TUNE OF A FEW GIG GIGAWATTS MORE.

THEY'RE BRINGING BACK ONLINE COAL PLANTS AND USING MORE NATURAL GAS THAN FROM THEY STARTED THAT INITIATIVE A FEW YEARS AGO.

>> SO CALIFORNIA, WE'RE NOT CALIFORNIA.

WE'RE ARIZONA.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND ARIZONA, WE'RE IMPORTING MOST FOSSIL FUNDAMENTALS AND OVERLY DEPENDENT ON SOURCES OF GENERATION OUTSIDE OF OUR STATE.

SO WE NEED TO USE OUR ABUNDANT RESOURCE, WHICH IS THE SUN AND BECOME MORE RELIABLE AS WE CREATE FLEXIBLE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION.

THAT'S WHAT CREATES MORE RELIABILITY ON THE GRID.

>> I DISAGREE.

THE SUN CANNOT BE COMMANDED TO SHINE.

AND WITHOUT STORAGE, WHICH IS A BIG PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, STORAGE JUST ISN'T THERE AND WE DON'T HAVE A HIGH HYDROGEN SOLUTION OR BATTERY SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE ABUNDANT YET.

THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR STORAGE AND THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM.

>> SANDRA, HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT TRANSITION, ESPECIALLY WITH STORAGE AND RELIABILITY?

BUT MOST PEOPLE AGREE, YOU HAVE TO GET TO THAT AREA WITH RENEWABLE AND HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT TRANSITION SAFELY?

>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED OF ONE OF THE LARGEST QUESTIONS HER IN THE STATEHERE IN THESTATE OF ARIZONA.

THAT CEO TOLD US IN AN OPEN MEETING, THEY SENT OUT NUMEROUS RFP'S AND WHAT CAME BACK IN THE CHEAPEST FORM IS RENEWABLE ENERGY.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE Mr. MEYERS IS.

HE WAS SITTING THERE THAT DAY WHEN THE CEO SAID THIS AND MAYBE HE WAS OUT GETTING ORANGE JUICE THAT DAY OR MAYBE OUT TO LUNCH.

BUT THE CEOS OF THE COMPANIES KNOW THAT IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF POWER THAT WE CAN GENERATE HERE IN ARIZONA TO KEEP THE POWER ON AND TO KEEP THE RATES LOW.

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION THERE AND GENERATING POWER IS DIFFERENT THAN STORING POWER AND ABLE TO USE IT WHEN YOU NEED IT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE, WHAT IS IT THE ENERGY INFORMATION WEBSITE, DIA.GOV, THAT WHEN YOU ADD STORAGE TO RENEWABLE GENERATION, THE COST IS ABOUT FIVE TIMES WHAT IT WAS.

THIS MAKES IT NO LONGER THE CHEAPEST.

TO MAKE IT USEABLE, IT'S NOT COST EFFECTIVE.

TO GENERATE IT, IS IT.

>> HOW DO IT DO IT SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY AND HOW DO YOU COULD THAT AS INEXPENSIVELY AS POSSIBLE?

>> YOU HAVE TO ALLOW TECHNOLOGY TO CATCH UP.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO MANDATE AND FORCE THE COMPANIES TO SHIFT AND ANY TIME GOVERNMENT MANDATES, THE COMPANY, THE UTILITY COMPANY SEES DOLLAR SIGNS AND YOU'RE FORCING THEM INTO AN AREA THEY'RE NOT READY TO MOVE INTO AND THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT THERE EXPECT EASIEST, MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY IS TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY, ELIMINATE THE MANDATES AND LET TECHNOLOGY DICTATE WHEN IT'S TIME TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION.

>> TO THAT POINT, ANY TIME YOU MANDATE A COMPANY TO DO SOMETHING, YOU'RE GUARANTEEING THEY WILL GET THAT BACK IN RATE PAYER MONEY.

SO YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THEIR ACCOUNTABLE AND BY ALLOWING THEM TOTHEMAND PROVING IT TO US WHEN IT COMES TIME, THEY NOW HAVE THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND WE CAN USE OUR HAMMER OF REDUCING IT IF THEY DON'T CHOOSE THE RIGHT SOLUTION.

NOT GOING DOWN THE MANDATES ROUTE IS HOLDING THE UTILITIES RELIABLE.

>> ELECTRICITY GENERATION HAS PROBLEMS ALL AROUND.

NUCLEAR IN FRANCE HAD 100 DAYS WHERE THE NUCLEAR PLANT DIDN'T RUN AND EVERY FORM OF ELECTRICITY HAS INTERMITTENT PROBLEMS.

SOLAR HELD STEADY AND IT WAS THE NATURAL GAS THAT FAILED EXPECT MANDATES, THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THEY SAVED ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR CONSUMERS.

WE AVOIDED 14 POWER MILITANTS PLANTS.

FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS SPEWING DIRTY AIR.

IMAGINE HOW THAT IMPACTED OUR HEALTH.

>> SHE BOUGHT THAT UP, THAT TEXAS WAS A FAILURE AND WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS DURING THE COLD WINTER A COUPLE YEARS AGO DURING WINTER, THEY ACTUALLY -- THERE'S A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION THAT DID A REPORT AND WHEN YOU READ THE REPORT, YOU'LL FIND THAT WHAT TRANSPIRED WAS WHEN THE CAPACITY STARTED BEING REDUCED AND THE LOADS STARTED GOING UP ON THE USAGE, THEY STARTED PUTTING INTO PLACE CURTAILMENT AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY CURTAILED WAS THE OIL AND GAS FIELDS.

NO WONDER THERE WAS NO FLOW OF GAS WHEN THEY SHUT OFF THE POWER TO THE OIL FIELDS AND GAS FIELDS.

THERE WAS NO LONGER A FLOW OF GAS TO THE GENERATING STATIONS.

THEY SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT BY CURTAILING AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND HAD EVERYTHING WITH FAILED POLICIES AND CHECKS AND BALANCES.

>> UPDATETHE REASON THEY GOT THEMSELVES INTO THAT CURTAILMENT, THE SOLAR PANELS WERE NOT PRODUCING PROPERLY AND NO WIND AT THE TIME AND THE TURBINES FROZE.

ALL OF THAT GENERATION WENT OFF-LINE DURING THAT STORM WHICH CAUSED THE CURTAILMENT TO IMMEDIATE TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THAT'S PART OF THE POINT.

>> LET'S TURN THE FOCUS TO ARIZONA, SHALL WE?

>> AND TEXAS DOESN'T HAVE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

THEY RELY ON NATURAL GAS.

>> MOVING US BACK TO ARIZONA, WE'VE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT OF POSSIBLE MANDATES AND DO YOU THINK -- AND UTILITIES HAVE MADE THEIR OWN PROMISES ABOUT MOVING TO RENEWABLES AND DO YOU THINK THEY DID THAT AS A RESULT OF WHAT WAS A MANDATE AND ARE THEY MOVING FAST ENOUGH AND CAN THE CORPORATION TO SPUR THEM FURTHER ALONG?

>> I BELIEVE THE MANDATE, AS YOU CALL MANDATE, WHAT I CALL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD.

IF IT HAD BEEN IN PLACE EVEN TODAY, WHICH WE KNOW IN 2020, WE HAD CANDIDATES THAT MADE PROMISES TO VOTE TO CONTINUE THE RENEWABLE STANDARD AND DID JUST THE OPPOSITE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT STANDARD ANYMORE.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT STANDARD.

WE NEED TO INCREASE THAT AND BRING IT BACK.

EVEN THOUGH THE UTILITIES BECAUSE WE SEE IT'S IN OUR BEST INTERESTS, ALSO, AND MAYBE A NUDGE FROM THE COMMISSIONER.

AND THOSE WHO REGULATE THOSE ENTITIES SHOULD SIT DOWN AND TELL THEM, WE WOULD LIKE YOUR IDEAS HERE ARE OURS, TOO, AND LET'S CREATE A STANDARD TO REPRESENT ARIZONA AND THE UTILITIES, TOO.

>> THE UTILITIES NEED A NUDGE.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DO.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SERIOUS FORMS INCLUDING MICRONUCLEAR.

BUT BACK TO ARIZONA, ONE OF THE OUTCOMES THAT MY OPPONENTS MENTIONED,DASM, APS HAD TO INVEST IN SALANA AND THEY HAD TO ENTER A LONG-TERM CONTRACT AT A FIXED RATE.

JUST LAST YEAR, MY OPPONENT WAS RAILING THE UTILITIES WAS RAILING AT A HIGH RATE AND DIDN'T LET THE TECHNOLOGY DRIVE THE CONVERSION OR TRANSITION AND THAT IS ENDING UP COSTING RATE PAYERS MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE WEREN'T PATIENT.

>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

LET SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> THAT'S VERY TRUE.

>> THERE'S VIDEO.

>> SALANO HAS A CONTRACT AND HAVE HAD IT OVER TEN YEARS AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO COME BACK AND SAY WE DON'T WANT THIS CONTRACT ANYMORE.

WHICH WOULD IS PUT THE UTILITY IN JEOPARDY.

IF WE ALLOW THE I'MS UTILITIES TO DO THESE UFP'S AND GET THE LOWEST FORM OF POWER, THEY COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE'LL DO AND WE WANT YOUR APPROVAL.

THAT'S THEY DID WHEN THEY WENT OUT AND DID THAT.

I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO BACK AND TELL A UTILITY, YOU HAVE TO STOP ACCEPTING THAT POWER BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE THAT'S ALL IT WAS.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

THAT WOULD BE IMPRUDENT.

IT WAS THE DEBATE AT THE TIME AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM CAME IN BECAUSE IT'S AN EXPENSIVE SOURCE OF ENERGY.

>> THAT'S THE EARLY DAYS OF ENERGY.

SO MUCH HAS HAPPENED AND A DISRUPTION, A POSITIVE DISRUPTION, WORKING AT THE INNOVATION AND HOW MANY STRIDES WITH BATTERY STORAGE AND SOLAR COLLECTION AND THERE IS ONE TOPIC ABOUT ENERGY THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AND THAT IS ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE CHEAPEST FORM, AVOIDED COST IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF ENERGY.

THE COMMISSION LET THAT ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD EXPIRE AT THE END OF DECEMBER, THE CURRENT WORK AND THE BEST WAY IS TO MAKE SURE YOUR ENERGY EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMES WATER CONSERVATION AND THERE'S A WATER ENERGY NEXUS TO FOCUS ON.

>> I'LL GO BACK BECAUSE SHE SAID IT ONCE AGAIN, TECHNOLOGY HAS GOTTEN BETTER.

SO WHY MANDATE -- WHY DON'T WE ALLOW TECHNOLOGY TO CATCH UP AND ALLOW TECHNOLOGY BE THE DECIDING FACTOR ON WHEN WE MOVE TOWARDS RENEWABLE?

>> IF IT'S TO HOLD UTILITIES ACCOUNTABLE, WHY SIT IS IT NEEDED?

>> THEY SAID IT WON'T WORK AND COST MORE AND IT ENDED UP SAVING CONSUMERS TWO BILLION DOLLARS.

WE HAVE ACTUAL RECENT HISTORY TO LOOK AT AND SEE THE SUCCESS OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WE WERE THE FIRST IN THE NATION AND THE FIRST ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD AND ARIZONA LEAD THE STANDARD AND WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE TRANSITION.

>> THE TWO BILLION DOLLARS SHE KEEPS THROWING OUT AND AGAIN, WE'RE PAYING EXTRA BECAUSE WE WERE LOCKED INTO LONG-TERM CONTRACTS AND I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT OR THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S A SUBSIDY.

YOU'RE SHIFTING COSTS TO WANT WEATHER STRIPPING TO THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T USING IT ARE THE ONES PAYING FOR IT.

THAT SHIFTING COST IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZED THROUGH EDUCATION EXPECT SAVING AND THE SAVINGS ON THEIR OWN BILLS.

AND IT'S MORE COMPLICATED.

>> WE'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.

VALID.

>> THERE'S TO SHIFTING COST.

IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO PUT SOY LARSOLARON YOUR ROOFTOP, ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS THE NEXT BEST THING.

I DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S SAYING THERE'S SHIFTING COSTS, THERE'S NOENERGY SHIFTING.

>> IT'S ROLLED BACK INTO THE RATES.

>> OUR OFFICIALS ARE OPPOSED TO REBATE INCENTIVES SAY FOR A PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTAT.

IT SAVES YOUR NEIGHBOR MONEY.

>> THEN WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR IT?

>> LET ME SPEAK.

IT SAVES UTILITIES MONEY AND IT WORKS SAVING ENERGY AND YOU'RE SAVING WATER AND SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND THE SOUTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED WITH STUDY, WITH DATA AND SCIENCE THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY, YOU GET $4 BACK AND THAT'S A SMART DECISION.

>> DO YOU THINK CONSUMERS WOULD DO THAT ON YOUR OWN OR NEED A NUDGE?

>> IF CONSUMERS WANT TO SAVE MONEY, THIGH DO THEY'LL DO IT ON YOUR OWN.

WHEN YOU INSENT INCENTIVIZE, THAT'S A SUBSIDY.

THEY TAKE THAT AND PUT IT IN THE RATES AND ALL OF US ARE PAYING.

PLUS, AN ADDITIONAL 8% TO 10% BECAUSE OVER THE PAST DECADES, THE TYPICAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT FROM THE CORPORATION COMMISSION HAS BEEN 8% TO 10%.

>> WE MANAGE OUR SEMI SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND SRP, WHICH IS MY UTILITY, THEY PAY ME $120 A YEAR.

IF I CHARGE MY CAR AND PLUG IT IN DURING THE ON PEAK HOURS, I SAVE 1 $120 ON MY BILL.

>> WHO PAYS FOR THAT?

>> THE REASON, IT SAVES THEM BECAUSE WE WANT TO AVOID BLACK-OUTS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SOLAR BUILD RESILIENCY AND MAKE POWER MORE RELIABLE.

>> NO SUCH THING AS FREE MONEY.

SOMEBODY PAYS FOR IT.

>> IT'S CLEAN ENERGY THAT'S BEING GENERATED AND PUT BACK ON THE GRID.

>> LET'S SHIFT TOPICS HERE AND SANDRA, ARIZONA'S ELECTRIC INDUSTRY, SHOULD IT BE DEREGULATED?

>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT COMPETITION AND I LOVE THE IDEA OF TALKING ABOUT COMPETITION AND I EVEN HAD A PROPOSAL TO DO A SMALL SAMPLE OR A SMALL PILOT ON COMPETITION BUT COULDN'T GET THAT GOING AT THE COMMISSION, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK BACK AT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DID THIS YEAR AND OUR OPPONENTS SUPPORTED THE BILL TO TAKE AWAY.

>> NO, OPPOSITE.

>> ON IT OF THAT.

>> THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPETITION.

>> DID YOU SUPPORT THAT IDEA?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

IN FACT, NICK AND I WERE ON RECORD EARLY ON SAYING AS REPUBLICANS, WE SUPPORT CONSUMER CHOICE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE LEGISLATURE SAW IT DIFFERENT AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN AND UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE ALLOWS CONSUMER CHOICE, IT'S A MOOT POINT.

>> THEY SPOKE AND SAID THIS IS RIGHT.

>> AFTER THE FACT.

>> WE DID SUPPORT THE LEGISLATURE MAKING THE DECISIONS, ABSOLUTELY.

WE HAVE NOT TAKEN AN OFFICIAL STANCE ON WHETHER, YOU THOUGH, RETAIL COMPETITION IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN HAD IN ARIZONA.

WE DID NOT OPPOSE OR SUPPORT THE BILL TO REMOVE THE ARS40.

>> BUT IS COMPETITION SOMETHING THAT ARIZONA SHOULD BE LOOK AT?

>> RIGHT.

>> SHOULD WE LOCK AT COMPETITION?

DO WE DEREGULATE IT?

>> I SAY NO.

I THINK THE CORPORATION COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE SOME FORM OF OVERSIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO COMPETITION.

>> BUT OUR CONSTITUTION CLEARLY DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE DEREGULATION OF UTILITIES AND EVEN WITH THE TELECOMS, THE COMMISSION STILL REGULATES THE TELECOM.

IN ARIZONA YOU CAN'T REGULATE AND IT'S A MOOT POINT BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPOKEN AND CANNOT HAVE CONSUMER CHOICE CHOICE IN ARIZONA.

>> DOES THE SHADOW OF ENRON EXIST WITH UTILITIES, ELECTRIC POWER UTILITIES?

>> YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE MULTIPLE GRIDS AND WE ALL SHARE THE GRID AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ARIZONA CONSUMERS WANT CHOICE AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE WEALTHY AND LIVE IN A HOME THAT IS PERFECTLY SITUATED FOR SOLAR.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY THAT CONSUMERS CAN HAVE CHOICE.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT COMMUNITY SOLAR WHICH THE COMMUNITY IS EXAMINING.

WE NEED ENERGY WHERE CITIES CAN CONSTRUCT AND BUILD MORE SOLAR INSTALLATIONS, AS WELL.

THAT IS ALL SOMETHING -- WE NEED ENABLING LEGISLATION FROM THE LEGISLATURE, BUT THE COMMISSIONER COULD STUDY COMMUNITY CHOICE.

>> THE CONCEPT AND IDEA OF ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION, COMPETITION, THAT'S USUALLY SOMETHING REPUBLICANS SEEM TO ENJOY AND PROMOTE AND DOES IT WORK IN THIS PARTICULAR VENUE?

>> I'M NOT SURE EXPECT REASON, PHELPS DODGE LAID OUT A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH FULL-ON DEREGULATION LIKE THE RULES AND SOME OF THOSE -- I WON'T GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER, WE HAVE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET OVER THE PARTICULAR HURDLES.

>> WHICHWHICH HURDLES?

>> SEPARATION FROM TRANSMISSION AND SPLIT THEIR COMPANY IN TWO AND YOU CANNOT FORCE THEM.

THAT'S A SUCCESSFUL TRAIT OF DEREGULATED STATES.

ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT OUR OPPONENTS HERE, THEY ONLY TALK ABOUT COMPETITION IN THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY SOLAR.

THAT'S NOT FULL COMPETITION AND, BY THE WAY, THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN NOTHING BUT COST SHIFT DOING THAT.

AND THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE CONTINUALLY TALK ABOUT.

FOR COMMISSION TO WORK, IT NEEDS TO BE FULL COMMISSION, NOT JUST FOR SOLAR AND NOT JUST A PILOT PROGRAM FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS IN ONE TERRITORY.

>> SANDRA?

>> I INTRODUCED A FORM OF A PILOT AND THAT PILOT HAD LARGE AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL, LARGE AND SMALL COMMERCIAL AND MOM AND POP OPERATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL IN IT.

YOU KNOW, UP IN YUMA, ON THE BASE, THEY HAVE SOMEWHAT OF WHAT I WOULD CALL A POSITION OF RUNNING AND GENERATING THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY THERE.

WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT SOMEWHERE IN ARIZONA SO THAT WE CAN SEE IF IT WORKS RATHER THAN JUST GO FULL BLOWN COMPETITION?

>> AS THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRANSITION, WE'VE SEEN SRP KNOCK DOWN OR STOP OPERATING COAL FIRED MILITANTS PLANTS WHERE IT'S BEEN A BLOW.

DO THE COMMUNITIES OWE ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN DECIMATED BY A PLANT CLOSING?

>> YES, THEY DO.

>> THE ANSWER IS NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

I AM NOT A FAN OF JUST GIVING MONEY TO SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITIES.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE A NEWERRING LIKE MICRONUCLEAR PURPOSE WE.WE HAD A COMPANY IN THE U.S. CERTIFIED FOR MICRONUCLEAR.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN AT THE END OF THE DECADE AND TRANSITIONING THEM TO NEW GENERATION AND KEEP THAT ECONOMY WORKING.

THEY WOULD PROVIDE MORE JOBS AND BETTER PAYING JOB BECAUSE IT'S NUCLEAR VERSUS COAL.

ET CETERA DOING IT GENTLY RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON NUCLEAR.

>> I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GROW OUR CITIES, ALL OF OUR CITIES BECAUSE OF EXTRACTING RESOURCES FROM THE COAL-BASE THEBASED COMMUNITIES.

LOOK AT THE NAVAJO NATION AND IT WAS DRAINED IN 50 YEARS.

LOOK AT JOSEPH CITY, ST. JOHN'S AND COAL AND WE CANNOT LEAVE THEM BEHIND.

I WANT TO CREDIT COMMISSIONER KENNEDY FOR LEADING A NUMBER OF TOWN HALLS AND HE'S BEEN HEARING CONCERNS.

IT'S A MORAL STAIN UPON OUR STATE THAT WE HAVE NOT SOMEHOW GIVEN BACK AND HAD A PROCESS IN PLACE SO WE CAN HAVE A FAIR AND JUST TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY.

IT HAS TO BE RESIDENT LEAD.

THE RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW HOW THAT'S MADE.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY BECAUSE IT HAS LESS MAINTENANCE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE WHETHER IT'S HEALTHCARE AND WE NEED TO GIVE BACK.

WE WOULDN'T BE THOSE CITIES WE ARE TODAY.

>> WHO SHOULD GIVE BACK?

>> I THINK THE COMPANIES SHOULD GIVE BACK.

HAVE YOU HAVE AFFORDED FLIPPING ON YOUR LIGHTS?

WE THINK ABOUT THE POWER PLANTS GENERATING A LOT OF POWER AND THOSE COMMUNITIES NOW, THEY'RE STRINGS ARE NOT FLOWING, THE WATER IS GONE AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE COAL PLANTS THAT HAVE CLOSED, THEY'VE JUST LEFT BEHIND THEIR TRASH.

THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT TO THOSE COMMUNITIES.

>> LET KEVIN GET IN GET IN THERE.

>> THE EPA IS MANDATING THIS AND DEALS WITH THE HAZE ISSUES.

I DON'T THINK THE RATE PAYERS SHOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR REIMBURSING OR BAILING OUT THE COMMUNITIES ACROSS ARIZONA.

THIS IS SOMETHING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FORCED UPON ARIZONA AND IT SHOULD BE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE THEY SHOULD BAIL OUT THESE COMMUNITIES.

I THINK TO NICK'S POINT, A MORE FAIR TRANSITION TO ADD IN THE MICRONUCLEAR AS NICK STATED EARLIER, A NEW SCALE WITH THE CERTIFICATIONS IN PLACE.

LET'S BRING IN THE MICRONUCLEAR.

WE HAVE THE WIRES AND POLES AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE, SO WHY NOT BRING IN THE MICRONUCLEAR UNITS?

>> THAT'S NOT THE CHEAPEST FORM OF POWER GENERATION.

>> IT'S NOT.

>> IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

IT'S ECONOMICS, SIMPLE MARKET ECONOMICS.

>> I WOULD SAY IT WAS THE OH BAM THATOBAMAERA ADMINISTRATION AND THE EPA THAT FORCED UP THE COST OF COAL TO MAKE IT NONECONOMIC.

>> IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE TO RUN A COAL PLANT THAN TO RUN A NEW SOLAR BATTERY STORAGE.

THE ECONOMICS AND THE PAST DECADE, THERE'S A 600% DECREASE IN THE COST OF SOLAR AND MARKET ECONOMICS.

YOU DON'T SEE EPS SAYING WE WANT A NEW COAL POWER PLANT AND IN ARIZONA, ALL OF THE WATER USED FOR THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY, THAT EQUATES TO ALL WATER IN TUCSON.

>> WHAT NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIES THAT HAVE THE COAL PLANTS, THEY HAVE RAKED IN BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM TAXES FOR THOSE PLANTS FROM ENERGY, FROM MONEY, FROM THE ENERGY SOLD FROM THE COAL TV THEY'VE BEEN SELLING.

IT'S BEEN MULTIPLE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THESE NATIONS HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED.

SO TO SAY THEY NEED TO HAVE MORE MONEY AND MORE TRANSITION, I THINK IS DIS- DISINGENUOUS.

>> ARE YOU BLAMING THEM FOR A FUTURE THEY HAVE NOT SEEN?

>> I THINK THERE MAY BE AN ARGUMENT WE'RE SHUTTING IT DOWN EARLY, BUT YES, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE PLANNED BETTER BECAUSE THEY KNEW THESE WOULD HAPPEN, BUT THE BIG ISSUE IS, IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE RATE PAYERS IN ARIZONA TO GET INTO FOREIGN AID.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRIBAL LANDS, FOREIGN AID IS UNDER THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL FOR OUR LEGISLATURE TO STEP IN ON THIS DISCUSSION.

LET ALONE HAVE THEM PUT RATE PAIR MONEY TOWARDS THAT.

>> WHERE WOULD WE WERE BE?

THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS.

>> OVER 70% OF ALL OF THE UNELECTRIFIED HOMES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ARE IN THE NAVAJO COUNTRY?

>> I HEARD MICRONUCLEAR AND SHOULD NUCLEAR POWER BE INCLUDED IN ANY KIND OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO AND MAYBE CLEAN ENERGY NOTORIOUSLY.

ENERGY?

>> IT'S ONE OF THE CLEANEST FORMS OF ELECTRIC GENERATION.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT, AND RELIABILITY.

>> AND IT USES THE MOST WATER.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND WE ARE IN A DROUGHT.

>> I WROTE A LETTER, TELL US WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DOING, KNOWN WE'RE IN A DROUGHT, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE MICRONUCLEAR?

>> IT DOES NOT.

>> HOLD ON, LET HER FINISH.

>> I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE -- THEY SAY TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING EVERYDAY.

WHAT CAN MICRONUCLEAR DO COMPARED TO WHAT NUCLEAR PLANT WE HAVE HERE TODAY AND COST US MORE MONEY?

>> WHAT CAN IT DO?

GENERATE RELIABLE MONEY WITHOUT USING THE QUANTITY OF WATER AND CERTAIN DESIGNS OF MICRONUCLEAR TO STORE THE ENERGY THAT'S CREATED THROUGH THE DAY TO OFFSET THE PEAK FROM SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLES AND THEY ARE SMALLER, SO THEY CAN BE DISPERSED FOR RELIABILITY AND THERE ARE SOME CLAIMS THEY'RE ONE TIMES MORE EFFICIENT AND THREE HUNDRED TIMES SAFER THAN NUCLEAR.

THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF ADVANTAGES FOR NUCLEAR.

>> CAN YOU NOT INCLUDE THAT INTO A PORTFOLIO THAT INCLUDE INCLUDES SOLAR?

>> YES.

WE HAVE 28% OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN ARIZONA FROM NUCLEAR AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE WAY IT IS FOR A NUMBER OF DECADES, BUT LET'S LOOK, THE FIRST NUCLEAR PLANT IN 30 YEARS IS BUILT IN GEORGIA.

$30 BILLION.

THEY'VE HAD A $12 BILLION COST OVERRUN.

IF YOU DID A TECHNOLOGY PROPOSAL AND LOOKED AT THE COST OF NUCLEAR, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF THE CAPITALIZATION COSTS ARE ENORMOUS.

>> EXCUSE ME?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> YOU LOCK AT THE LOOK AT THE THREATS TO NUCLEAR AND WE SEE THAT UKRAINE.

IT CAN ENDANGER THAT TO ENERGY SUPPLIES.

>> DOES ALL OF THAT APPLY TO MICRONUCLEAR.

>> WE'RE FAR AWAY FROM THAT AND OTHER STATES TESTING.

CALIFORNIA TESTED EARLY AND LET SEE WHAT THE TEST IS, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CAPITALIZATION OF MICRONUCLEAR, YOU STILL HAVE ENORMOUS COSTS TO THE CONSUMER AND NOT JUST FOR THAT TO BE BUILT BUT FOR THE WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE OVER THE YEARS TO LOBBY AND SUPPORT THAT.

>> I'VE NEVER HEARD THE WORLD MICRONUCLEAR UNTIL 40 MINUTES BEFORE AND I WANT TO GOOGLE IT.

>> THEY'RE CALLED SMR'S.

>> IS IT AN ISSUE WITH WASTE AND SAFETY?

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?

>> SO A LOT OF -- AGAIN, THREE HUNDRED TIMES SAFER AND EFFICIENT.

THERE'S LITTLE, IF ANY WASTE THAT COMES OUT OF THESE AND STUDIES DONE NOW TO USE TRADITIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE AND PUT IT IN THESE REACTORS TO HELP DISPOSE OF IT AND SO THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CLASSIFYING MICRONUCLEAR AS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE AS OPPOSED TO CLEAN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL GET THERE AND THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT IS TO BEING VERY EFFICIENT AND USING PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING YOU PUT INTO IT SO THERE'S NO WASTE.

>> IS THERE A FUTURE MORE PALO VERDE?

>> I THINK IT WILL BE IN THE MIX AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING ANYWHERE AND I DON'T THINK YOU'LL HEAR ANY UTILITY SAY, WELL, WE'VE GOT A REQUEST BACK OR AN OFFER BACK FROM PUTTING OUT AN RFP TO DO CHEAP NUCLEAR.

YOU WON'T FIND IT ANYWHERE.

>> AND I AGREE, YOU WON'T FIND THAT RIGHT NOW.

OUR JOB AS COMMISSIONERS IS TO START OPENING UP THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS CAN BE HAD.

AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE UNTIL THE END OF THE DECADE, WHICH MEANS IT'S A GOOD TIME RIGHT NOW FOR US TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION TO ALLOW NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND NOT JUST MICROTECHNOLOGY.

I'M A GEEK BUT TIME NOT AN VOLK ADVOCATE FOR IT.

>> I FIND THAT INTERESTING.

I'M GOING TO GET TO YOUR QUESTION IN A SECOND HERE, BUT SHOULD THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AND KEVIN, WE'LL START WITH YOU.

SHOULD THE COMMISSIONERS ADVOCATE FOR ANY KIND OF ENERGY?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE SHOULDN'T BE PICKING WINNERS AND USERS.

WE SHOULD ALLOW THE UTILITIES TO DO THEIR JOBS NOT MICROMANAGE THE UTILITIES.

THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY GET A RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE TAKING THE RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITIES.

ONCE WE START INTERFERING, WHY HAVE A MANAGEMENT TEAM IN PLACE.

>> NO PLACE TO PROMOTE A CERTAIN KIND OF MANAGEMENT?

>> WE ARE CHARGED WITH A CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY WHEN WE MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND WE KNOW SOLAR IS CHEAPER.

IT'S MORE HEALTHFUL AND USES FAR LESS WATER AND WE NEED TO CREATE CLEANER AIR AND WATER IN OUR STATE.

SO WE NEED TO USE THOSE AND WE MAKE RATE DECISIONS AND RULES.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SCIENCE AND THE DATA.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I LOVE SCIENCE.

>> IS IT PART OF THE PROCESS OF REGULATION TO PROMOTE SOMETHING AND MAYBE NOT PROMOTE SO MUCH SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD NOT BE AS GOOD FOR ARIZONA?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF OUR JOB.

OUR JOB IS TO HOLD THE UTILITIES ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY MAKE THE WRONG DECISION.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TO COME IN AND DICTATE WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.

IF WE'RE DICTATING WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WE'RE GUARANTEEING WE RECOUPE THAT IN THE RATE BASE.

OUR JOB IF THEY MESS UP, WE KEEP THE RATES LOW.

IT'S THEIR JOB AS COMMISSIONERS WHY THIS WAS THE BEST TECHNOLOGY.

>> AS A REGULATOR, I NEVER GUARANTEE ANY UTILITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET A RATE OF RETURN, NEVER.

>> ONCE YOU MAKE IT, YOU DO.

>> I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

BECAUSE ONCE YOU START SAYING, OK, IF YOU DO THIS, OR YOU DO THAT, YOU GET A RATE OF RETURN, YOU DON'T NEED ME.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE CALLED REGULATORS, TO SET THE TONE TONE.

>> MEANING PROMOTING CERTAIN THINGS.

>> PROMOTING CERTAIN THINGS.

I THANK THEM BACK IF 2006 WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD.

IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN SO FORWARD-THINKING, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

>> THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AND YOU WERE ONE OF THE PEOPLE VOTING AND AS POLICY ADVISER, JUSTIN OLSEN VOTED NOTE AND SRP EXPANDING A NATURAL GAS PLANT, AND SRP TODAY TALKED ABOUT BUILDING MORE PLANTS AT A HIGHER COST.

LOOKING BACK WITH LITTLE TIME, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY, WAS THAT THE RIGHT DECISION TO SAY NO TO THE PLANT EXPANSION?

>> IT WAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT THING TO DO AND TO SEE SRP COME BEHIND OUR DECISION AND DECIDE TO DO SMALLER GENERATION PLANTS OR PROPOSE THEM, IT JUST MAKE THEY WONDER ABOUT THEIR BOARD SUSPECT DECISIONS THEIR BOARD ARE MAKING.

I THOUGHT OUR DECISION WAS VERY LOUD AND CLEAR.

I THOUGHT THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR OUTSPOKEN OPPOSITION TO THAT PLANT DOWN THERE WAS PRETTY LOUD AND CLEAR.

I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A DEAF EAR.

>> THE COMMUNITY OF RANDOLPH?

>> I THINK SRP HAS A DEAF EAR AND I THINK RANDOLPH IS OUTSPOKEN AND SPOKE LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.

>> AS POLICY ADVICER TO THE NO VOTE, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE DECISION?

>> REGULATORY IS A BIG DECISION AND WHEN YOU CHANGE RULES, THAT'S INSTABILITY BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.

THE UTILITY IN THIS CASE, THEY CHECKED THE BOXES AND THE LINE SIGNING COMMITTEE GAVE IT A THUMBS UP AND GOOD TO GO.

NOT OUR JOB TO SAY, WAIT, WE WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES AND SUMMITSUBMIT THIS EXTRA STUFF AND WE'LL SAY NO.

YOU HEARD IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, NUMEROUS UTILITIES COMING FORWARD SAYING, WE WON'T HAVE THE GENERATION TO MEET THE DEMAND NEXT YEAR IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PLANTS.

YOU HEARD SRP SAYING THEY ALLOW US TO PUT MORE SOLAR IN.

THERE ARE A LOT OF ADVANTAGES AND ULTIMATELY, WHEN YOU BACK OUT AND LOOK AT THE POLICY HERE, WE CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME AND THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE COMMUNITY BEFORE.

>> YOU HAD A COMMUNITY COMING OUT SAYING PLEASE DON'T EXPAND THIS IN OUR BACKYARD.

>> THIS IS MADE UP OF A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL THAT LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIDE.

THEY LOOK AT THE BUSINESS SIDE AND COMMISSION SIDE AND RUNNING THE GAMUT AND A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE AND TAKES MANY, MANY MONTHS TO GO THROUGH A LINE-SIDING STUDY.

NO NICK'SWHAT HAPPENED, THEY MADE THE WRONG DECISION AND WERE MAKING A DECISION ON THE LINE SIDING ITSELF BUT BASED ON NOT BEING CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RACISTS.

THEIR POINT WAS NOT TO HARM RANDOLPH.

SRP HAS THE RIGHT TO INSTALL THOSE PLANTS AND WANTED TO INSTALL MORE GENERATION WHICH CAUSED THEM TO DO THE LINE SIDING AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW, THEY'RE GOING BACK AND GOING TO INSTALL, I THINK, TWO OR THREE OF THE PLANTS THREE THREE HAVETHREETHAT THEYHAVE THE RIGHT TO INSTALL.

>> THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND ENGAGEMENT WAS FAULTY, AT BEST.

THEY MADE THE DECISION AND THEN THEY BEGAN A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.

THEY DID NOT ISSUE A TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL RFP BECAUSE HAD THEY ISSUED THAT, GAS, JET ENGINES WOULD NOT HAVE COME OUT ON TOP.

WE SEE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THEY DID NOT MAKE THAT DECISION AND THIS WAS RAMMED DOWN THE NOTES OF THE RESIDENTS AND SPOKE UP AND IMPORTANT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, YOU THINK BEYOND THE AIR AND THE ACTUAL ENGINES AND YOU THINK HOW IT WILL IMPACT PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

>> WE'RE GETTING GETTING CLOSE TO CLOSING STATEMENTS.

DID THE COMMISSION EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY IN THAT DECISION?

>> NO.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK KEVIN?

>> YES.

>> DID THE COMMISSION EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY, NICK?

>> YES.

>> AND SANDRA?

>> NO.

>> THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO WRAP UP THE DEBATE PORTION AND TIME FOR CLOSING AND IN REVERSE OF THE OPENING, WE START WITH KEVIN THOMPSON.

>> THANK YOU, TED, AND THANK YOU ALL OF YOU FOR JOINING YOU TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, IN ARIZONA, IN SUMMER, WHEN WE TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONER, WE EXPECT IT TO COME ON AND OUR UTILITY BILLS TO BE AFFORDABLE AND AFFORDABILITY AND RELIABILITY IS WHAT IS AT STAKE.

WE CAN'T BEAT CALIFORNIA AND PLEASE, IF YOU WANT OUR FUTURE TO BE BRIGHT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OUR STATE TO CONTINUE TO ACCEPT IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, VOTE FOR NICK MEYERS AND KEVIN THOMPSON.

THANK YOU.

>> AND NOW, THE CLOSING STATEMENT FROM NICK MEYERS.

>> AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR TYPINGTUNING IN TODAY.

I'VE BEEN ON THE RATE PAYERS SIDE AND CORPORATE COMMISSIONER'S SIDE.

I CAN HIT THE GROUND RUNNING IN THIS POSITION AND COMBINED, CONCERN ANDKEVIN AND I HAVE 30 YEARS' EXPERIENCE AND WE WILL BE THE FIRST COMMISSIONERS SINCE 1990 TO COME INTO THE COMMISSION WITH THAT EXPERIENCE.

SO EXPERIENCE IS A VERY BIG DEAL AND DOES MATTER AND OUR OPPONENTS WANT TO BRING CALIFORNIA-STYLE ENERGY POLICY TO ARIZONA AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.

WE KNOW THAT THEY BAN GAS CARDS AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER, THEY SAY, DON'T CHARGE YOUR ELECTRIC CARS BECAUSE THE GRID IS UNSTABLE AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED IN COLORADO.

SO, YOU KNOW, KEVIN AND I WANT TO BE THERE TO ENSURE YOUR UTILITY RATES ARE LOW, THE GRID IS RELIABLE.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ME, NICKMEYERS.US AND MAKE SURE YOU VOTE NICK MEYERS AND KEVIN THOMPSON.

>> NEXT FROM LAUREN.

>> A NON-PARTISAN GROUP CONDUCTED A POLL AND DETERMINED OVER 74% OF ARIZONA WANTS A TRANSITION TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY AND VOTERS WANT TO SEE US TACKLE DROUGHT AND WANT TO SEE US TACKLE LAND USE ISSUES AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, TWO PEOPLE ARE RUNNING WHO WANT TO BE REGULATORS AND NOT DO THE JOB OF REGULATION.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO ELECT PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSUMER ADVOCATES AND SOLAR ADVOCATES, AS WELL, AND CORPORATION WATCHDOGS.

WE ARE POISED TO LEAD IN ARIZONA AND WITH HISTORIC FEDERAL INVESTMENT COMING FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE WILL LEAD AND CREATE BETTER JOBS, VERY HIGH QUALITY JOBS THAT ARE PAID WELL AND LOWER COSTS FOR CONSUMERS AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES.

WE DON'T WANT COMMISSIONERS WHO REPRESENT THE UTILITIES WHO HAVE BACKGROUNDS AS LOBBYISTS BUT THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA.

ALWAYS THINK ABOUT THAT.

IT'S THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA THAT WERE CHARGED WITH REPRESENTING.

AND WE COULD DO BIG THINGS IN THINGS IN ARIZONA.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING US IN YOUR SPACE TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TRULY SEEN TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT FROM OUR OPPONENTS AND THEY WANT TO BUILD NUCLEAR GENERATION AND WE WANT TO BUILD CLEANER GENERATION.

WE WANT TO GENERATE AND EXPORT AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR HAND IN YOUR POCKETBOOK.

WE KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT.

WE WILL BE VERY VIGILANT WHEN IT COMES TO BEING YOUR CONSUMER ADVOCATE.

WE WILL BE THERE AND SPEAKING ON YOUR BEHALF.

I ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR SANDRA KENNEDY AND LAUREN KOOBY.

GO TO REELECT SERVICE SANDRAKENNEDY2020.COM.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> ARIZONA HORIZON WILL HOST A DEBATE FOR THE CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

THAT DEBATE IS SET FOR THIS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14th AT 5:00 P.M. AND 10:00 P.M. >> YOU CAN WATCH THIS ON AZPPS.ORG WHERE YOU CAN WATCH ALL OF ARIZONA'S PAST PROGRAMMING.

THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS AND ALL OF OUR CANDIDATES AND DID YOU FOR JOINING US AND YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.