PHOENIX β Lawmakers agreed Monday to alter state law so the newest member of the Arizona Corporation Commission can vote on pending electric rate cases.
But this is not the last word.
HB 2123 specifically would allow Andy Tobin to participate in debates and vote on requests by power companies to increase charges to customers who generate some of their own power through rooftop solar units. The electric companies contend they are not paying their fair share of fixed costs.
As approved, it redefines the statutes so that the fact that Tobinβs vote could affect the employment of his son-in-law would no longer be an illegal conflict of interest.
Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, said the measure is no big deal.
He pointed out that the employment of a family member is considered only a βremoteβ conflict of interest that does not preclude a state legislator from voting on an issue. Allen said all this does is extend the same standard to the five-member commission.
But Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, chided his colleagues for using a standard for a 60-member House and 30-member Senate for a five-member board.
βWe are completely different animals,β he said.
Farnsworth, however, agreed to provide the margin of victory to push the measure out of the House after Allen promised to make changes when it goes to the Senate.
Allen insisted after Mondayβs vote thereβs nothing particularly wrong with the language he brought to the House floor. But he conceded that changes are necessary to get final approval.
What he does not know is exactly what he will alter.
The problem is so-called βnet metering,β where utilities are required to purchase the power generated by customers with solar cells.
Utilities want to reduce what they are required to pay or eliminate the requirement entirely. And they also are proposing βpeak demandβ charges for their solar customers, charges they say ensure that everyone pays a fair share of maintaining the electric grid.
Tobinβs son-in-law is an inventory-control specialist for SolarCity, a firm that manufactures and installs solar units. SolarCity also has taken an active role in opposing utility efforts to change the system.
More to the point, when Nevada utility regulators adopted changes sought by utilities in that state, SolarCity laid off workers. That raises the question of whether a similar decision by the commission here would endanger the job of Tobinβs son-in-law.
Based on that concern, a commission attorney told Tobin he could not vote on any matters involving SolarCity.
Allenβs crafted changes would say that situations like Tobin finds himself in are a βremoteβ conflict of interest that would not require him to abstain. Allen said thatβs the same standard used by legislators in deciding whether they can vote on proposed laws.
βWe all are members of a community and we all have interests,β he said. Allen said thatβs why, βYou elect people of high moral standards.β
And he said that, in situations like this, βThatβs up to the individual to decide.β
βItβs ridiculous to think that someone would be so easily compromised,β Allen said.
Rep. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, acknowledged that lawmakers use a standard that there is no conflict β and no requirement to abstain from voting β if someone is only one member of a βclassβ which is affected. Using that standard, any legislator who has a relative simply employed by a solar company could vote on issues affecting that industry.
But Alston said what the commission does is far different β deciding how much utilities can charge and who pays.
βThe Corporation Commission has immense power,β she told colleagues.
βBecause of that, they have a higher standard of conflict than legislators,β she continued. βAnd their standards are more like judges because, in many ways, they are judges.β
Thatβs also the way Farnsworth sees the issue.
He said the Legislature has 90 members, with powers split between the House and Senate. By contrast, one member of the commission wields 20 percent of the vote β and can be the deciding vote in a 2-2 tie.
