Have you ever wound up somewhere and wondered how you got there?
That’s what it feels like to me looking at the ballot for this current city of Tucson election, over Prop. 412.
It’s just a yes or no question, sure, but when I step back and consider the ballot, it feels a lot more complicated than that.
How did I end up with this ballot asking me to charge myself a little less than a dollar a month on my electric bill for 25 years?
Why is it a 25-year deal when the project that the fee is to pay for will have its costs covered within 10?
What will happen with the remaining millions of dollars we would be voluntarily paying out?
Why are we looking at this in late April instead of at a more normal election time, like August or November?
In my position, of course, I’m supposed to know these things already, having diligently followed all the local news for years. But the truth is I slacked off on this particular story about tall power lines, leaving coverage to colleagues, so I had to do what everyone else does when confronted with a ballot.
I looked at the voters’ guide — briefly. Then I realized it was the dry, 28-page text of the proposal, beginning with definitions such as “ ‘Agreement’ “ means this ‘franchise agreement.’ “ That’s no help.
So I got to work: A review of the Star’s archives, interviews with some of the players and re-watching City Council meetings shows there are reasons for why we got here, even though being asked to make this decision now may feel a bit confusing. Here’s the series of events as I understand them going back a few years:
Tucson Electric Power needs to upgrade transmission lines in spots around the metro area due to population growth and increasing energy use
They propose a line through central Tucson between a substation at Kino and 36th and another near Grant and I-10, connecting with a new substation near the U of A
The Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee approves the plan
Residents of neighborhoods near the route, especially adjacent to North Campbell Avenue, complain about the height of the poles, up to 110 feet
The city of Tucson tells Tucson Electric Power that this project, with its tall poles, would likely violate the zoning ordinance governing “gateway corridors”
Tucson Electric Power withdraws its plan and permit from the line siting committee
The city and Tucson Electric Power come up with a process to make exceptions to the gateway corridor ordinance
The idea emerges of putting the lines underground, at an extra cost of about $50 million, by paying for it through a renewal of the city’s 25-year franchise agreement with the utility, which expires in 2026.
Council Member Kevin Dahl and others negotiate a deal whereby some of the money raised from the new fee would pay for the city’s climate-resiliency planning, too.
The Council makes a few tweaks at a Jan. 24 meeting and puts it on the ballot for a May election, citing the need for TEP to get started on the years-long project
Tucson Electric Power pays for the cost of holding this special election and for putting on a campaign in support of it.
At a Jan. 24, 2023 Tucson City Council meeting, Tucson Electric Power executive Erik Bakken explained the proposed new franchise agreement, allowing the utility to bury power lines in exchange for customers within city limits paying more on their electric bills.
So here we are, ballot in hand. While the city’s power structure has gotten behind the initiative, arguing that it solves the power-line problem at a relatively low cost to individuals, some people have made strong criticisms about it that I relate to.
On the political left, many people have pointed out, including in the Star’s pages, that the plan does little to accelerate TEP’s transition away from burning fossil fuels and that the utility itself pays nothing out of pocket. The argument here is that if we are going to give TEP another 25 years of access to our roads and rights of way through the franchise agreement, we should demand more climate action.
Council Member Steve Kozachik is hoping to boost the appeal of the initiative in these weeks of voting by asking TEP to sign a new memorandum of understanding now. He wants them to commit to 50 percent of the amount raised by the new fee, $2 million or so per year, from the utility’s own coffers into climate initiatives.
“If I were voting today, I would vote no, because there is no financial investment from TEP to climate resilience,” Kozachik said.
On the political right, a group argues that the fee is unnecessary more or less for the opposite reason — it collects money from us for climate initiatives they consider pointless or worse. I’m always amused when groups like this bring up 15-minute cities, the latest conservative conspiracy theory, but they make what I think is a key point.
Tucson Electric Power is in the middle of a rate case in which it is asking the Arizona Corporation Commission to raise rates on residential customers by about 12 percent, an average of $14 per month. Since TEP doesn’t think it would be appropriate to push the cost of undergrounding the new line to customers outside Tucson city limits, the new fee would be on top of any new rate increase that affects all customers, including those outside the city.
As my colleague David Wichner reported, there has been strong pushback against TEP’s rate proposal. It’s likely we won’t end up with the full $14 per month average increase, but we won’t know the outcome before our votes on Prop. 412 are due May 16.
TEP and city officials such as Mayor Regina Romero have pointed out that delay costs money. But the fact is, most Tucson voters are like me — we haven’t been focused on this issue. And coming to this proposal fresh, without knowing the long, complicated backstory and the work it took to get here, the proposal just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The vast majority of us have little self-interest in paying extra to bury the six miles of high-voltage lines distant from our homes and workplaces.
The agreement lasts for 25 years even though the undergrounding will be paid for within about 10 years. A newly formed city-utility group would decide how to spend the money not going to undergrounding lines.
While the transmission lines would be tall, if built, TEP renderings suggest they would be especially disruptive in certain areas, like the neighborhoods west of North Campbell Avenue, not along the entire route.
The amount of money going to climate initiatives would be relatively small, and TEP’s own financial obligations on climate would be nil.
It helps to know now how we got here, into this position of casting a yes or no vote in late April or early May. I would feel a lot more comfortable voting yes if the proposal were for one thing or the other — a larger-scale program of putting power lines underground or a bigger climate-action program.
Because of how this came together, it’s an unsatisfying combination of both. That, along with the looming rate case and ongoing inflation, makes it more likely I’ll vote no, hoping we’ll come up with a better plan soon.
