Tell the ACC: No to Southwest Gas Rate Hike
Recent research has documented that methane gas is too costly for our health, our communities, & our economy. Yet, Southwest Gas is seeking a 7.6% rate hike that includes $664,596 in 2021 membership dues for the American Gas Association & a line-extension allowance, which forces customers to pick up the tab when developers want to extend gas lines to residential & commercial properties. Shareholders, not ratepayers, should pay for such membership dues. And developers should pay their own way.
Tell the Arizona Corporation Commission “no” to consumers paying for extending dirty & dangerous gas. No to a 7.6% rate hike.
Southwest Gas recruited elected officials to back its rate increase, records show
"Championing Southwest Gas’ second rate increase in as many years, mayors in some of Arizona’s fastest-growing communities sent a letter of support to the Arizona Corporation Commission claiming proposals from a consumer interest group “would impose unnecessary and costly barriers for consumers” who want to use natural gas.
“If enacted, these misguided policies will slow our economic progress and jeopardize the safety of our communities,” the mayors wrote.
But the letter wasn’t an organic outpouring of community support. Rather, it was written by Southwest Gas as part of a concerted effort by the utility to drum up outside support of its desired 11.6% price hike. . .
✓ SWEEP became involved in the process in the wake of the gas
utility’s rate increase request to the Commission at the end of 2021,
about a year after its previous increase. The consumer advocacy group
applied for and received intervenor status so the public had representation in the process, which was overseen by an administrative law judge. . .
✓ SWEEP maintains that the Southwest Gas delivery system is in good shape after the utility spent more than $700 million on maintenance and upgrades in recent years, and the company will use the rate increase to pay for work that may ultimately prove to be unnecessary, redundant or “stranded assets” as the U.S. attempts to move to more sustainable forms of energy production.
The approved increase raises overall rates by $61.7 million annually, and will result in an average increase of 7.6% for Southwest Gas’s customers...
This comes on top of previous increases in the cost of gas that have raised customer rates significantly in the past year. The utility is not required to get approval from the Commission for rate increases due to fluctuations in the cost of fuel.Southwest Gas provides service to 10 counties in Arizona, serving approximately 1.1 million customers, and gets the majority of its gas from sources outside of Arizona, which has minimal natural gas reserves. With few producing wells and little new drilling activity, Arizona’s annual natural gas production has declined from its peak of more than 2.1 billion cubic feet in 1990 to about 66 million cubic feet in 2020. Arizona’s total consumption of natural gas in 2020 was 483 billion cubic feet.
Much of the natural gas consumed in Arizona is used for electric power generation — 43% of the state’s electricity is produced from natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — and comes from other states through pipelines that enter Arizona at the New Mexico border.
Lobbying for support
As the process made its way to the Corporation Commission for final action, Southwest Gas was hard at work behind the scenes rallying support for its rate increase and to discredit SWEEP.
. . .Public records requests filed by the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog organization working to expose “attacks on renewable energy and counter misinformation by fossil fuel and utility interests,” found that mayors in nine Arizona cities signed off on a letter to the Commission less than a week before the hearing.
Southwest Gas sent the mayors — Julia Wheatley of Queen Creek, Brigette Peterson of Gilbert, Joe Pizzillo of Goodyear, Eric Orsborn of Buckeye, Skip Hall of Surprise, Nancy Smith of Maricopa, Craig McFarland of Casa Grande, Ed Honea of Marana and Tom Murphy of Sahuarita — a draft of the letter for comment. The utility also solicited suggestions from Smith, Maricopa’s mayor, for local nonprofits that it could donate to. . .
Both Kerr and Griffin received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Southwest Gas’s political action committee, and U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko — also a recipient of Southwest Gas largesse, in addition to numerous political donations from other sectors of the extraction industry — published her own take on the issue in the weeks leading up to the hearing. . ..jpg)
.jpg)
Kevin Thompson Biography
Kevin Thompson served in the United States Air Force from 1988 to 1996. Thompson earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in 1998. His career experience includes working as a small business owner in economic development, as the manager of new business development for Southwest Gas, and in government affairs.
2023 - Present
2027
0
.jpg)
Prior offices
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
1 Kevin Thompson | Republican | 1,190,555 | 26.02% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| |
2 Nick Myers | Republican | 1,189,991 | 26.01 |
|---|
Nick Myers Biography
Nick Myers was born in Kansas.
His career experience includes working in the software industry, as an entrepreneur, and as a policy advisor for Commissioner Justin Olson.
.jpg)
Myers also previously worked as an engineer in the telecommunications industry.[1][2]
Elections
2022
See also: Arizona Corporation Commission election, 2022
General election for Arizona Corporation Commission (2 seats)
Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers defeated incumbent Sandra D. Kennedy, Lauren Kuby, and Christina Gibson in the general election for Arizona Corporation Commission on November 8, 2022.
Arizona held an election for two of five seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission on November 8, 2022. The primary was scheduled for August 2, 2022. The filing deadline was April 4, 2022.
Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers won election in the general election for Arizona Corporation Commission.
| Election details |
|---|
| Filing deadline: April 4, 2022 |
| Primary: August 2, 2022 General: November 8, 2022 Pre-election incumbent(s): Sandra Kennedy (Democratic) Justin Olson (Republican) |
Candidates and election results
General election candidates
- Sandra D. Kennedy (Incumbent) (Democratic Party)
- Lauren Kuby (Democratic Party)
- Nick Myers (Republican Party) ✔
- Kevin Thompson (Republican Party) ✔
- Christina Gibson (Independent) (Write-in)
Tell the ACC: No to Southwest Gas Rate Hike
Recent research has documented that methane gas is too costly for our health, our communities, & our economy. Yet, Southwest Gas is seeking a 7.6% rate hike that includes $664,596 in 2021 membership dues for the American Gas Association & a line-extension allowance, which forces customers to pick up the tab when developers want to extend gas lines to residential & commercial properties. Shareholders, not ratepayers, should pay for such membership dues. And developers should pay their own way.
Tell the Arizona Corporation Commission “no” to consumers paying for extending dirty & dangerous gas. No to a 7.6% rate hike.
Southwest Gas also received support from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which received $7,500 from Southwest Gas in 2021.
“Southwest Gas takes great pride in maintaining strong partnerships with a variety of stakeholders, including cities and towns, state agencies, economic development organizations, chambers of commerce, organized labor, infrastructure contractors and various industry associations,” Southwest Gas said in an emailed response to the Arizona Mirror. “After learning about these proposals and the impact they would have, several stakeholders asked how they could help. We were grateful that all interested Arizona stakeholders were able to participate in the numerous public comment sessions held by the Corporation Commission.”
Smith, Kerr and Griffin did not respond to requests for comment.
SWEEP rebuts claims in filing
The Colorado-based nonprofit SWEEP was founded in 2001 and has operated continuously in six western states, staffing offices with local residents who advocate for more accountability for energy producers across the southwest. With its mission to promote “greater energy efficiency and clean transportation in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming,” SWEEP receives a portion of its funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.
A Jan. 9 response to public comments filed by Potter and SWEEP Program Utility Manager Justin Brant took issue with characterizations of its role and intentions, both by Southwest Gas and its allies, including the elected officials the utility recruited to weigh in.
“While SWEEP’s headquarters is in Colorado, we have had in-state representation since our inception more than two decades ago,” the nonprofit wrote in response to public comments labeling them as out-of-state operators. “Southwest Gas has a similar corporate structure, with its headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada.”
As to SWEEP advocating for a “gas ban” and other accusations made throughout the process, the response ends with clarification of SWEEP’s intent.
“Throughout this proceeding, SWEEP has consistently focused on five critical issues, none of which call for an end to natural gas infrastructure or mandated building electrification. Rather, we have proposed sensible policies to eliminate undue economic hardships for Southwest Gas’s customers,” SWEEP states. “The fundamental question is whether the proposed rate increase is in the public interest. We are concerned that these distractions are red herrings that will cost customers millions of dollars.”
Potter reiterated SWEEP’s intentions in a follow-up email.
“Some have suggested that SWEEP has advocated for these policies because we want to ban gas infrastructure, which couldn’t be farther from the truth,” Potter wrote. “What we really want is to protect ratepayers from unnecessary costs and give the public greater visibility into the investments Southwest Gas is making on their behalf.”
In addition to denying SWEEP’s proposals, the Commission also extended the scope of Southwest Gas’s Low Income Ratepayer Assistance (LIRA) program that provides subsidies for low-income residents and denied Southwest Gas’s request to opt Arizona into its Move2Zero carbon offset program.
The Commission has until Feb. 8 before its decision becomes final. Public comments can be submitted until then."
RELATED CONTENT
Tell the ACC: No to Southwest Gas Rate Hike
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
thenevadaindependent.com
Supreme Court: Southwest Gas must justify costs included in customer rates – The Nevada Independent
When state regulators approve and set utility rates, they scrutinize utility expenditures to decide what expenses should and should not be passed on to customers. In cases when these costs are not fully accounted for, the burden to prove that they are prudent falls on the utility, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a case involving Southwest Gas.
In a unanimous ruling, the court affirmed a Clark County District Court’s ruling and sided with utility regulators and ratepayers, including large customers who often have high electric and natural gas bills. The Nevada Resort Association filed a brief in the case, saying it should not fall on customers and regulators to prove whether utility costs are prudent.
To do so, the resort association wrote in its brief, “would be inequitable, harmful to Nevada customers, and contrary to well- and long-established Nevada ratemaking law and policy.”
In 2018, Southwest Gas sued the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) after the regulatory agency did not allow the utility to recover costs from certain capital projects and decreased the rate of return that the utility is allowed to charge ratepayers from infrastructure investments.
The commission, which has a responsibility to protect ratepayers, denied the requests because it said Southwest Gas had not fully justified them. Southwest Gas argued that it was entitled to a presumption of prudence — that regulators should defer to the utility and assume its costs were reasonable. It also claimed, throughout the court case, that its due process right was violated.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument in its decision on Thursday. . ." READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment