Tensions Surge: Fateful Clash 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 escalating between the Arizona Legislature and the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) as lawmakers address residential utility costs, energy reliability, and wildfire mitigation. The ACC, tasked with regulating public utility companies, has faced numerous legislative proposals aimed at safeguarding ratepayers from rising costs and severe weather events.

However, commissioners express concern that they have not been adequately consulted during the legislation drafting process. This disconnect has led to mounting frustration, especially when new bills introduce additional responsibilities without input from the commission. The strange dynamics are notable, given that both bodies are under Republican control.

At an open ACC meeting on March 12, emotions ran high as commissioners confronted Republican lawmakers and Arizona Public Service (APS) for rushing legislation without allowing the ACC proper time to respond. ACC Chairman Kevin Thompson voiced his frustration over the lack of communication, particularly regarding a complex bill that APS did not share with the commission prior to its introduction.

Thompson highlighted a specific bill from Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, mandating utility companies to devise wildfire mitigation plans. He criticized the process, stating that APS had not involved the ACC in any of the drafting stages, undermining the effectiveness of the commission’s input.

In addition to their verbal objections, ACC members drafted letters to lawmakers outlining their concerns about the bills. During the March 12 meeting, the commission voted to formally oppose several proposals.

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, received notably harsh criticism from the ACC for his proposed legislation, which aimed to regulate the movement of personnel between the commission and utility companies. Thompson described Olson’s initial bill as poorly constructed and emphasized the lack of thoughtful collaboration, particularly from someone with past experience at the ACC.

Olson responded, asserting that his bill served its intended purpose of preventing “regulatory capture.” Despite the backlash, he stood firm in his belief but later amended the proposal to ease some of the ACC’s concerns. The revised bill now stipulates a two-year waiting period for commissioners seeking employment with utility companies.

Histories of collaboration between the ACC and the Legislature have been productive in the past, as noted by Andy Kvesic, a former chief counsel for the ACC. However, Kvesic acknowledged the legislators’ growing desire to influence policy, which didn’t lead to open conflicts during his tenure.

Sandy Bahr from the Sierra Club expressed surprise at the current friction between the two parties, noting the recent history of cooperation. She questioned the ACC’s delayed response to legislative proposals, suggesting that earlier communication could have mitigated the rising tensions.

Despite the challenges, Thompson indicated that not all interactions with lawmakers have been negative. Positive engagement with certain representatives, like Griffin and Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler, suggests a potential path for improved collaboration.

Going forward, Thompson emphasized the need for better coordination and communication with the Legislature. He urged lawmakers to recognize the ACC’s expertise in securities and energy, hoping for an open dialogue that could lead to more effective regulatory practices.