>> Ted: Coming up next on Arizona horizon, it's a debate and we will hear from the republican candidates for Arizona corporation commission and it's a one-hour clean election's debate and it's next on Arizona horizon.

Good evening and welcome to the special election 2022 edition of Arizona horizon.

I'm Ted Simons and tonight it's a debate sponsored by clean election for north Partisan election information.

Tonight's debate features the Arizona commission.

Interruptions are allowed provided each side gets a fair shake and candidates give opening statements in a randomly selected opening order and joining us for tonight's debate, Nick Myers, policy advisesser add viederand we begin with Kevin Thompson.

>> My public service started early and I joined the airforce out of high school, deployed to desert storm and ended up in Las Vegas after the ceasefire and I put myself through college and graduating in 1998 and received an honorable discharge in 1996 and after college, I was recruited by Southwest gas and was traps transferred to Arizona.

In their engineering department but in the regulatory affair's department and so I have firsthand experience of working in the utility world and a council member where I've set utility rates for our customers and citizens.

And so I look forward to tonight's debate and to your support and thank you very much.

>> Thank you, and now we turn to Kim Owens.

>> Good evening.

I'm your republican candidate for the Arizona corporation commission and I have spent my dull life and service to my community in this state where I have earned the trust to voters and kept the interrupt trust to voters, I am currently a commissioner on thes as power authority where I have put the customers first and my comprehensive experience that sets me apart, but it's my ethical standards and my position on the issues and I'm the only candidate not using lobbiest dollars and opposed the tried and filled policy of retail competition that came from Texas and California that would raise rates and lower reliability and I'm Kim Owens and asking for your support.

>> Thank you very much and for our last opening statement, we turn to Nick Meyers.

>> Good evening, everybody.

I'm the other half of the Nick Meyers, Kevin Thompson team and I'm software engineering, engineering management and ten years in the entrepreneurial world and I delivered world to rural Pinal county to take on one of the local utilities and I learned a lot from that experience and ended up winning and offered a position as a policy adviser and we now have that endorsement as well as another commissioner, but we ultimately have teamed up, largely because we have to double our buyer power to get through this race and, again, as Kevin said, thank you for our support and looking forward to your support in the primaries and generals.

>> Ted: Let's get things started and Kevin, the primary responsibility of the Arizona corporation commission is what?

>> To protect the consumers, so primarily, it's protect the consumers and ensure that we have a reliable and resiliant grid.

>> There are several things the commission does.

The utility commission most are concerned about and that is the primary situation there and it's to provide just and reasonable rates to the consumers and that is making sure the utilities are managed well so that people know when they turn on a light switch they get power and clean water.

>> What do you see, Nick?

>> Part of the utility I fought, the result from that was the Johnson utility's case in the Supreme Court and clearly defined the roles of the corporation commission and threaten employeeandplenty of authority and the responsibility as both of these guys said, it's a matter of protecting the rate payers and grid and setting just and reasonable rates and that's for both sides of the equation.

>> Ted: Nick, do you see this as a fourth branch of government?

>> Not necessaricy.

It was defined by our constitution as a separate entity and we act as an executive branch rather than, you know, a judicial or legislative, but we have all of those authorities underneath our umbrella.

So, you know, it could be argued either way, I think, and ultimately, the constitution sets up three main branches.

>> Ted: Do you see this was a third main branch?

>> I do in an elected office and not appointed so that it would responsible to the voters like all of the other constitutional offices.

The constitutional is very clear about the role of the commission and what it is supposed to do.

Article 15 lays it out clearly.

If it wasn't a branch of the government, I believe something subject to the legislature and founding.

>> Ted: We talk about that regarding the founding commission.

Fourth branch of government, is that what the constitution called for with this commission?

>> I don't believe so.

It was originally founded or developed in 1912 with the constitution and primarily to regulate the railroads and over time, it has expanded to include the utilities and we are regulatory authority over the utilities in Arizona and other things, as Nick said, other areas that we focus on and we are primarily an executive branch as well as qasjudicial.

>> Ted: Have they exceeded their authority?

There there >> There was a time where they have set mandates and policy and in my honest opinion and we all share this point of view, the commission shall not be setting policy and that's not their job but a legislative branch.

And so, to some extent, yes, they have exceeded their authority.

>> Ted: Do you think commissioners, current and past have exceeded their authority and you're the only three who sees this as a fourth branch and what is their authority if they've exceeded it?

>> With the clean energy, that was one place they exceeded their authority and article 15 talks about what the commission can't do but when it goes into that sort of micromanagement, I think it's exceeded the authority and one reason I believe it is a fourth branch of government because it has part executive, part judicial, part legislative and it is bound by so many rules within the constitution that it's very specific.

Energy mandates, the reason they exsealed the role of the commission, it forces rates to increase.

When you say a company will produce X amounts of solar or wind, when it comes and asks for a rate case and say we're doing what you told us to do, they're obably datedoblatedobably datedobligated to be reimbursed.

>> Ted: You said the renewable energy starred should be something the legislature to be involved with.

>> There's rule-making allowed within article 15 and within the rule-making process, that's a portion of the legislative type action.

>> Ted: Legislative type action with the commission and we can go into it, but again, does that mean you exceed your authority if you're on the commission and you're saying something along the lines of we need to get you to 30% or 25% by a certain year?

>> I think the corporation commission has the authority to make rules in the absence of laws and anything that's state-wide policy should be done at the legislature and in that case, if you're making renewable energy, standard rules, you're exceeding that authority because you're setting a baseline versus the private utilities you manage and I believe any time you mandate something, you're exceeding your authority because there are things at play where you're telling the utilities what to do and how to run their company.

Ultimately, the job of the commission is to make a decision and determination of just and reasonable and telling them what to did, you're making that decision for them and not allowing them to run their business and they are private utilities and by that token, step back and do your job to see if it's reasonable and prudent.

>> Ted: Parse those out for us.

Let's go with Kevin.

>> So, you know, think time government gets involved and starts trying to dictate a company, I've said the two areas of the government doesn't belong in the board room or bedroom and we 'do foe how don't know how to run that in the stakeholders and shareholds and notshareholders.

>> Ted: Up to a point you would agree, true?

>> If you start exceeding, when you start exceeding your authority by mandating, you know, a company to do something, you're involving yourself in their day-to-day operations and anywaysthat's not the role of government.

>> The majority of these companies are investor owned and if you can find that in a renewable energy standard, the market will show that and that's when company can choose to make those decisions understanding that's their financial risk remember discuss putting the taxpayers on the line.

>> Ted: Then why we would have a commission regulating these?

>> To show they're prudent investmentses.

investments.

They go hand-in-hand.

If you're saying this is our budget and I'm the electric company and this is my budget and where the money has been spent and so, this is what I'm looking to recoupe from rate payers, the corporation commission -- and we saw in this last rate case, they made a decision about something considered an investment.

If it comes before the commission and that was not a prudent investment and the rate payers should not be on the hook, that's the role of the commission.

>> There's a couple of things here, number one, if we are making all of the decisions for the company, they shouldn't be making a rate of return, right?

The whole point of a rate of return is because they are taking the risk and their job to prief itprief it wasprove it was a viable risk.

It was a roadmap to go through the process.

Well, utility up north will have something different than southern Arizona because of the environments and everything else and it's not up to the commission to mandate something state-wide and of the best interests of the local areas to have the utilities and the rate payers make decisions come to us to justify and that's the best way to make this happen.

>> Ted: Can you add to that?

>> The IRP is the integrated resource plans going from point A to point A B and it identifies their generation and types of j andofgeneration and we work with them on that and to make sure they're staying focused on their roadmap.

>> Ted: The current RES, it was met and it's getting there and there and everything, you know, we'll talk about whether or not it needs to be increased and there because of the standard and because utilities were pushed in that direction.

Kevin, is that a viable argument?

>> I would say yes.

The energy standards pushed by previous commissions, dating back, probably, 15, 20 years ago and kind of where the whole energy, the energy plans you're seeing now, that the utilities are going towards with the renewables and those were started a long time ago and you're starting to see that, that the utilities expand into that renewable field.

You're seeing this across the board and some are doing it volunteerly.

From the regulatory standpoint, if that's something they're doing on their own, should the rate payers be forced to pay for that.

>> The argument that they needed a shove or a push to get to where they are now and get to where they could be going and talking about an increase, is that a viable argument?

Would we be seeing renewable energy standards or numbers as they are without the standards?

>> It's a speculation.

>> Ted: Sure.

>> And begin that there is an appetite with an investors for clean energy production, probably so and if you look at whereas aswhere Arizona is now, we're ahead of the curve and a lot of to work do, no question about that.

But we need -- you can never substitute reliability and that's the thing I worry about the most when we look at standards.

>> So there's actually some precedents that caused a stir at the commission and that was the Salona plant that APS had to invest in.

The commission mandated they have these renewable energy standards and stuff.

And so APS invested in the energy standards and entered into a 30-year contract with a brand new technology because that was the only way to get into that to meet those mandates and forward to fast-forward to a 30-year contract and now we have to allow that recouping and it was a problem of, they tried to force the problem before the technology was ready and now we're stuck with higher rates because of that and it was a backwards argument.

>> Sounds like a balancing act to me and isn't that the job to balance?

>> Yes.

>> To a degree, to a degree, but you have to keep in mind that there are all kinds of amazing technologies on the forefront right now and that these companies -- as tee they've said, these companies, their job to look for the most affordable way to provide power and when you say it will be X and not Y, you're limiting what can happen and forcing them to invest in something that maybe obsolete and so we need to bring it to the excision, commission and let the commission decide if it was a prudent commission.

>> Ted: Should the standard be increased?

>> No.

>> I don't think so.

For me, technology will dictate when it's time to switch to renewable and when battery storage gets to the point where your electric grid is not intermit wanttent and so solar is not reliable and technology has -- I think technology has a role and we should encourage a broad portfolio and we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one basket.

>> If the previous standard got to us to where we are now, would an increased standard move us forward?

>> You're assuming we're in the same place we are now.

>> Ted: Would it be wise and pry depthpryprudent to do that?

>> I think we allow the rate payer.

>> It should not be increased and roll it back.

And the reason for that is, technology.

There are a lot of cool technology out there and our utilities are not focusing on neat technologies to help in a more sustainable way, ultimately, as with go forward or looking at it because we are energy standards in place a path we mandated.

>> Ted: It could be argued mandates helped to get you there.

Are you buying that?

>> It will help force the issue and is that the right direction for Arizona?

I don't think so because all rate payers will pay for that and technology when it first comes out is extremely expensive and maybe adopted later so we don't pay an exorbitant price.

>> A good example is the modular nuclear tried out right now and, you know, five U.S.-based companies working with the federal energy regulatory commission right now and they're working through the issues, but they're working in Utah and working in Anchorage, Alaska and why arm they aren't they working in Arizona?

>> And they could be.

>> Ted: I want to get the industry and this technology and this innovation going, a little bit of a enough isn't a bad thing, is it?

>> Describe your alternative, the standard?

>> Ted: Yes.

>> You can't go back and say what would have happened.

It's where we are now and today, it's the idea that micronuclear technology, Hydrogen, hydropower and geothermal storage and we're do many things out there that are available that when we pijeon hydro-as clean, then we're short-changing the ray payer.

>> Ted: Sounds like nuclear should be qualified as clean?

Absolutely.

>> Ted: How so?

>> It's not carbon, if we reduce carbon, nothing more reliable and 365, 24/7 than nuclear and needs to be qualified.

>> Ted: Clean and not renewable, should we move in that direction?

>> I would?

Nuclear, I think, is great, but again, we shouldn't adopt what California has done.

They've gone to the extreme of eliminating nuclear and natural gas and coal and look at the perils they're in.

We want to make sure that doesn't happen in Arizona.

>> Look at Europe this winter.

Parts of Europe that were so afraid people would freeze to death because they had shut down coal and no nuclear and dependent on foreign, imported national gas and in France with the heavy dependency and nuclear and doing fine.

>> The biggest group of people you hurt by forcing new technologies and the cost are low income.

income and fixed income.

You hurt those people first always.

The moral case of keeping coal to an extreme is coal energy helped us to the point where life spans are longer and the environment is cleaner.

>> Ted: If there's an emphasis on coal that other people may not want to see is info innovation moving at the same pace?

>> Any time the government is involved, you cause things to go slower.

Is there an argument to say do we allow sta extra money from the utilities, that's an argument could entertain, but we would have to make sure we vet that thoroughly before we allow it in the rate base.

>> Ted: Did government clean standards hurt the economy and people?

>> It's the technologies that they bring forward.

Solar, if you look at the EIA, the energy information administration, they put out a report awhile ago that solar has caused about a 13% increase in utility rates over the last decade and that's strictly hurting the low income and fixed income individual.

So by trying to move and force to a clean standard is hurting the people that you're trying to help the most.

>> Ted: Are subsidies with solar the same with gas?

>> We don't like subsidies.

>> Ted: What would happen to rates?

>> That the rates would go down because all subsidies are rebates go back to the rate base and the utilities can collect those funds and they get traditionally another 8% to 10% on top of that as a part of just and reasonable return on investment.

>> There's an argument and mindset that users should pay, right, and so if you're using the service, you should be responsible for that and if I'm paying for neighbor's solar panels and not using them, that's unjust and reasonable, if my opinion and the same goes for between utilities, right?

Each utility serves a group of people and subsidizing across them is not a good thing either.

So there's a lot of arguments to say no subsidizing.

If you don't like that, maybe you do something in your own area the.

>> Ted: Let's get back to the duties.

Should the commission be promoting things like micronuclear technology and promoting things like coal and gas?

Is that the job of the commission?

>> I would say clean energy standards does that.

It promotes those technology.

Ted is that >> Ted: Is that a good thing or bad thing in.

>> You open up the power of info innovation and now you have companies competing in the marketplace to produce ideas and technologies that one, keep them friendly I investors and produce the most efficient and effective form of electricity.

So when we leave it to the experts, that's when its comes out to be the best.

Government should not be putting their finger on the scale for anybody.

And solar, the subsidies for solar increased the rates for everybody because utility companies are expected to make sure that they have enough power so that on a sunny day or a rainy day, those people that need it have it and so we're all paying for that max amount of power.

>> Ted: They point out, yeah, you're complaining about our subsidies and look at what the other energy suspects experts get.

>> A lot of discussions should regulated companies take part in political campaigns?

And the one group has put more into races than anybody else and they're not regulated by the corp com but stand to make a profit.

>> Ted: Should an industry regulated by be able to correct to people running campaigns for that regulatory group?

>> I'm runs running because I do not want to except donations for business before the commission and I've extended that not taking lobbyist dollars.

Because we have to be independent injuryists.

independent jurists.

>> Ted: Kim's opening statement, you mentioned these two are taking lobbyists -- >> I said other candidates.

>> Ted: Are you taking lobbyists dollars?

>> I probably have a couple, but at the end of the day if you think my vote could be bought, we have bigger problems to talk about.

>> That's a very valid point and she's right.

Maybe we have some that I wasn't aware of where a lobbyist where we took it or even if we do, $180 is the same, utility and nonutilities can give.

>> Ted: Tucson electric, should they be able to donate to folks like you?

>> Directly from the utilities, absolutely not.

I don't think it's appropriate to donate.

>> Ted: How much influence should they have on candidates running for the race?

>> If they don't have monetary influence, I'm not sure there's a lot of other influence they will have because that's what wins races.

>> Ted: You have the lobbyists and things like that.

>> Lobbyists are the communication's conduit between the community and they're important people, too.

>> Ted: Again, the idea of a a regulatory agency agency getting influence from the people regulating has been a big topic and not so much now but in year's past, this dominated the conversation and what do you think?

>> Being on the city council in Mes waxera, there's plenty of the same exact zoning attorneys that would bring projects forward and I would tell them no and I would vote against their projects and, you know, that donation basically said, my door is open to you and I will listen to your project unbiased and at the end of the day, I won't necessarily vote for your project and depends on if it's God good for community and we should not be taking money from Southwest gas and unifore.

You have your hand if the regulatory arena in those utilities everyday.

>> I don't think you should have to make a donation for my door to be open to you.

And when we say clean election's candidate -- and I've heard everywhere say this -- we're not taking special interest money.

You have to have some intellectual off authenticity with that.

If it's $180, you're taking the max amount that donor can give you and you know they represent a special interest.

For me personally, I've chop chop chosen not to do that because it doesn't meet my ethical standard of not excepting that and taking money from lobbyist.

>> Ted: How do you respond?

>> I don't pay attention who donates while I'm running a clean election's campaign because we're doing everything.

A lot of it goes straight through me, through the website to the treasurer and I have on the forms that we have a check box that says I'm not a clean election -- I'm not an employee or anybody that's going to come before the economics and commission and we added that to the $5 forms that we don't want that from them.

So it is possible some slip through?

Absolutely and problematic.

So, one thing that not everything clone candidate clean candidate does is how it can affect them to the depending and maybe they use standard forms they may not know that someone from a utility donated.

I have plausible deniability because they signed the form.

>> Ted: Kim, you mentioned the idea of competition and doe deregulation and should Arizona rest industry be deregulated?

>> No.

>> Ted: Why not?

>> In 1998 it was rampant and rampant and a great idea and everybody embraced hoping it would lower rates do what it had done in other industries and tried it and failed and did not work.

Two years later, we reverted back to the same model and two years later, the phelp case where the court said deregulation vi lated violated the Arizona constitution.

The few remaining statutes were left in and this year, the Arizona state legislature took that up with proposition 2101.

The reason I opposed this has nothing to do with the idea of I 'do want todon't want to see competition but how it impacts rate payers.

20 years of evidence that shows in every state, in every year, retail customers paid more for their power than incumbent utilities.

That in the state of Texas, they paid 20 billion more.

>> Ted: I want a response, deregulation, Arizona utilities, good idea?

>> Unknown.

The reason is because since Phelps dodge, they had a few items that needed to be addressed in order for the energy rules to work and discussions not had since that and I shouldn't say discussions, but stakeholder meetings in Arizona have not been had and Kevin and I have not taken a position because we don't have all of the evidence yet and I also disagree on the Texas thing.

Even in the nasty freeze that the people like to bring up a year or so ago.

The baker institute put out a report that said that Texas has monopoly and retail.

Baker institute said competition areas in Texas fared 5% to 7% better than the monopoly air areas and retail is better.

Is that good for Arizona?

Absolutely not because we are not Arizona and we have a lot of other things going on and that may not be the best solution for us and we can't know-year-old know.

>> Ted: It's unknowable.

>> It's not.

>> Ted: I want Kevin's response and you have an idea and the shadow of Enron hits and Nick mentioned, some areas are seeing increased costs and not seeing increased for rate payers and the Maryland, Pennsylvania and Illinois seem like areas that did see it and there's enough there to have a little more, huh?

>> You know, as a republican, I think most republicans support the free market approach and irregardless if it's energy or what have you.

I think experience does matter because you can throw out California all day long and California was not retail competition.

That was wholesale competition and different conversation.

And if you read what happened in Texas, if you look at the federal investigation into Texas, what happened had everything to do with bad policy, setting, and there was no -- the utilities didn't winterize their generating stations no checks and balances in place and there was -- it was a perfect storm for the storm that ended up costing Texas.

But the fact that on the retail side -- on the wholesale side if Texas, they had caps put in place and those caps actually protected the consumers.

>> Pennsylvania, believe it or not, his sister lives in Pennsylvania and pay half our electric rates and fully deregulated.

>> First of all, the area in Texas, they were escalated to the highest rate and the highest rate is $9,000 a kill kilowatt hour.

They kept the lights on and a pretty price they paid.

In Texas, the deregulated area, their rate is 21% higher than the rate.

And Massachusetts is rolling it back because it's so abusive to fixed income sand low incomes and such an open market for fraud.

They have maintained lower rates against the incumbent utility.

You can pick and choose states that this state has a lower rate than this state.

So it's apples to appled and retail will always increase rates.

For the freeze, while it wasn't a direct response, what happened in Texas, they moved from a service-oriented, reliability oriented to poor profit.

In 2011, Texas had almost the same problem and told to fix it and didn't.

>> Experience matters.

Our opponent made a difference of $9,000 a kilowatt hour but it wasn't.

It was $9,000 a megawatt hour.

>> Did somebody get a $16,000 electric bill.

>> What does it matter?

>> It matters.

>> People did have high energy bills.

>> $10,000.

>> They made the choice to pick a plan closer to the whole did salewholesalerate even knowing knowing that.

The reason like in telecom, you can't deregulate in Arizona from our constitutional standpoint.

The way we handles that in telecom, we put a price range that can be charged and that is where the utilities can operate and that's what we would have to do here and Phelp's dodge said this is the way to address to problem and that is how we would do it in Arizona, which is why we're not Texas.

>> At the same time, that $9,000 per megawatt was the wholesale market and what the utilities were buying on the wholesale market for and that $9,000 per megawatt hour was spread out across their base and wasn't a single person getting a bill for $9,000.

That was the wholesale market and that's what the utilities were charged, but that was the cap at the time.

>> The rates are higher in Texas.

>> So if you had an Exxon station on every single corner, do you think less than competition introduced, the fact you have a circle-K, a mobile?

>> Ted: I think we get market athat will sis andmakingand fooling around with security and electric and reliability and they want it to be there when they turn on the lights.

>> We're Arizona and not Texas and those discussions, why doesn't it matter is because we aren't Texas and we wouldn't have the same rules and regulations and because we learned from Texas Texas.

and it doesn't matter in the sense we'll learn if it.

from it.

>> Ted, consumer choice is such a complex issue and that's why we need to have stakeholder meetings and why we need the conversations.

We can't just shove it under the rug and say, well, we don't like it.

>> As republicans, we need to default to the idea of competition first and then, if it can't happen, I'm not voting for it and not saying it can't happen.

All of those things are difficult topics and now way it's a exit cut and dried answer.

>> Ted: Last word on this.

>> I'm the only one that sided with the republican majority.

The republican majority in the legislature saw this as a threat to safety reliability and affordability to our state and this is a big state and the history of retail commission is clear, you go into rural Arizona where they can charge -- you put a cap and nobody is obligated to go to those areas get the provider of last resort and those people can charge outrageous amounts.

You look at greenly county and who will go there when their price is capped and can't make it up.

This has been tried and I'm the only one who supported the idea of maintaining a regulation for the protection of consumers and Nick signed on in opposition to the bill.

>> You're right, I did and the reason I signed on -- >> Can I speak?

>> Ted: Why did you sign on?

>> This is something that our opponent here has been constantly been misconstruing and she knows better because I don't feel the robust discussions have been had at the legislature.

I want that before they voted.

>> Nothing that prevents robust discussion.

You could have voted yet and had robust discussions.

Where we create something that's Arizona centric.

This is removing 24-year-old policies that nobody has tried to use because they were problematic.

If you wanted to have a conversation, we could have had those conversations.

>> Ted: We got you.

>> The only people who side sided on the side with Nick and the big environmentalist groups to bring in the grown new deal.

>> Ted: You're suggesting Nick is in ca cahoots with the big environmentalists?

>> No.

>> The utilities are the ones that ran that bill and the reason is because another utility came in to try to force the issue of competition is so it was in direct response to a threat of a lawsuit as to why this bill got pushed through.

And I understand why they did it.

Ultimately, this discussion is a moot point because they did pass it and wee have we won't have those discussions in Arizona and they should have been made at the legislature.

>> It was the right place for it.

>> We will uphold what the legislature says.

>> Ted: Kevin, state water concerns, how should the corporation commission address those concerns and there are big concerns out there.

>> Huge concerns, Ted.

We're in a tier one drought and expecting probably to go to a 2B probably next year and if not go to three because the lefts, lake Meade and lake Powell levels are so bad.

The corporation commission, though, doesn't get involved until the utility picks up the water.

So the time they pick up the water until it's delivered is where we get involved and I think it won't be behooved to take conservation seriously and investing and making sure they are maintaining their pipes and fixing leaks so forth.

We need to be cognizant of every dopdrop of water.

>> Ted: Should it incentivize water conservation?

>> I'm not sure the water commission is the place.

I'm thinking the legislature.

, butWe have an issue.

There are dozens who have not been before the commission in over a decade and to ensure that those companies are managing water wells and the infrastructures are in place and that we're not losing water that could be going to homeowners repairs.

>> Ted: Better ensuring to do what they're doing.

>> Absolutely.

We had a discussion ba their plan is for water going forward and discussions about finding other sources and not coming out Colorado river and we have a case on the agenda for next week, for the open meeting, a utility on the same rates since 1964 and I just saw in there today that they have a 24% water loss and that is huge.

So those kind of things where we're working with the smaller utilities specifically to -- and honestly, I work with a utility on its own for 20 years and the reason I had to fight it and a lot of experience I gained and I want to go to a lot of these utilities and make the rate-making process easier to come in and work only things like water loss issues and they can work on rates that are actually appropriate for their situation.

>> Ted: How much should climate change impact what the corporation commission does in terms of water but in termses in terms of letter andelectricity and the gran grand schemes of things and climate change is the cloud.

Do you agree with that?

>> Ted, all of us, Republicans, Democrats, independents, think we all agree we want clean air and clean potable water and it is an issue in Arizona.

There's times when policy may cross the line of not maintaining a reliable grid or not providing the water for the communities and I'm always going to fault or default to ensuring that our grid is protected and that our consumers are protected.

Even if that means we're not necessarily following climate action plans or something of that nature, I'm always going to ensure that we're protecting the consumer.

>> Ted: It sounds like short-term as opposed to long-term.

>> You can do both.

You come up with the long-term solutions and our number one priority has going got to be reliability of service and it does you no good if the power doesn't come on.

We have to make sure that we talked about Texas and that doesn't happen here and we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that.

>> Ted: Didn't mean to be words in your mouth and emphasis on short-term and long-term, but does that make sense and is that what republican voters, the republic primary want?

>> They wantNowhere does it have to say we have to abide by a climate change problem.

Now with that side, as long we can keep cost down because I don't want people to force between Atlantic electric bill and medications.

If we can work climate issues alongside those two things, absolutely.

It's not number one.

>> Ted: Grid reliability, should there push, nudge, to get utilities to transition from coal gas to renewable and cleaner energy?

>> I think we need -- we can nudge and hint and do all of that and that's not necessarily what we judge on.

With that said, accelerated transitions out of coal plants, things like that, the user will pay for those and those are stranded costs and now you're paying and going to pay for the new technology they bring online.

So it's raising rates dramatically and should we focus on that.

Look at costs.

>> Ted: As opposed to transitioning from old energy to new?

>> I think you have to look long term?

Can you start with something now that you can step that out and that's when you have to look at long-term potential.

Look at coal.

We're talking about coal.

Coal is not without cost.

You have to think about what it costs to maintain a coal plant, the right scrubbers and those things in place and those are highly expensive and you can't -- it's not necessarily as easy as short-term long-term and looking at the whole picture and affecting consumers and any kind of environmental impact.

>> Ted: The SRP expansion and I'm throwing a bomb at the last second, the commission voted it down and we'll see where it goes.

One of the concerns, there wasn't a look at at way for at a way to transition to other forms of energy and this was easy, quick and at the expense of a community.

Does that ring any kind of bell for you?

>> To some extent, right, and think because we don't regulate SRP.

I think in the grand scheme of things, the commission should be looking at the line siding portion.

That should have been their focus and they got hijacked so some extend extent to allow the speaker plant to be installed and looking at the linesiding portion itself.

But from a bigger picture want does this do for grid reliability.

That's one of my bigger concerns.

You're not seeing new generation comingcoming online and the old coal power plants and that will cause it long term.

>> Ted: The commissioner, Nick, you worked for was the one vote for the expansion that said let's go for the expansion and the other said not fast and there wasn't a look at alternative ways to get the job done.

Valid concerns?

>> Nope.

>> Ted: How come?

It was to >> It was to meet all of the line checks and that was our understanding and I'm not going to take a position on this, but that's the way our office, since you specifically asked.

Now, I think there's an argument here about changing the rules and if we wanted to look at those things, the rules should have been changed before they came to the line siding committee and another thing, to change the constitution before you can make those decision.

>> Ted: Did the commission do the right thing in that initial 4-1 vote?

>> In the initial 4-1 vote, I'm going to say no.

It stares back up and that is our way to get to cleaner energy.

And you remove that saying we'll have to depend on more coal and so what you have there is a lack of foresite, but particular issue, it should have been on the line siding and not the overall package.

>> Ted: We'll stop it right there and good conversation and time for closing statements in reverse order, we start with Nick Meyers.

>> Well, thank you, Ted, and thank you for having us.

Honestly, folks, this is an experience where position does matter.

We bring relevant bots on the ground and this is since the '90s and, you know, we are the conservative team for corporation commission and it's not just us saying that.

We have a whole slew of endorsements from the tea party AZ, great state alliance and we've got Arizona republican assembly and all of the way down the list and a slew on our website and can find it from votemeyersthompson.com and you can look and see the Andy Biggs and Paul Gosars of the world.

>> Ted: And now Kim Owens.

>> I'm the candidate for the republican, nomination for the republican corporation and I'm the only candidate to represent rate payers and I'm the only candidate running who has stood the test of time and has been elected as a school board member five times, salt river fly three times and kept the trust of voters.

Tonight you heard someone say they don't care how higher rates go and it's a matter of choice.

You could pick that and if it's a bad deal, so what?

I would say that's the wrong attitude if you're protecting customers.

We need to make sure that you know what you're signing up for and that when the bill comes in the mail, you know what to expect.

I'm Kim Owens and you can see my slew of endorsements from state-wide voters at electkimowens.com.

>> Ted: Our final statement from Kevin Thompson.

>> Thank you all for tuning in tonight and watching this debate and it's been a pleasure being if your livingroom talking to you this evening.

As Nick said, this is a position won't experience truly matters.

Do you want people who don't have experience.

You want people that understand the consumer's concerns and have the actual foots boots on the ground experience.

We're not monopolies and that's what our opponent loves and we're about consumer choice and at the end of the day, we want our consumers protected and energy grids maintained, reliable and strong.

Thank you to all and we look forward to your support.

>> Ted: Thank you very much.

Our next doe debate Monday, June 27th and you can watch it at APBS.org.

S organize where you can catch all of Arizona horizon's past shows.

Thank you for joining campus havejoinjoining us andhave a great evening.