Taxpayers in Arizona dodged an economic bullet after the State Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 207 and its hefty tax increases cannot be on the November ballot. This is no doubt great news, but taxpayers aren’t in the clear just yet as there is another dangerous measure that voters must still decide on: Proposition 127. If enacted, the heavy-handed energy regulations will cause crippling price increases on energy consumers and stymie economic growth and prosperity. On election day, voters should reject these California-style regulations.
The ballot measure in question would amend the state constitution to require utility providers to generate at least 50 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by the year 2030. As it stands, Arizona generates about 15 percent of its power from renewable resources and with a 12-year implementation deadline would cause a severe shock to the system. So while clean clean energy activists tout this scheme as a win for the environment and for Arizonans, in reality, its costs will far outweigh the benefits.
In an examination of the economic impacts of implementing Proposition 127, an Arizona State University analysis found particularly concerning results. The study projected that if enacted, Proposition 127 would cost Arizona 500,000 jobs, slash incomes by $42 billion, reduce state and local tax revenues by $6 billion, and shrink the economy by $72 billion over the long term. While the goal of diversifying the state energy system is laudable, it should not come at the expense of workers and the economy.
With such strict energy mandates and a short time for providers to meet these standards, this ballot proposition would cause energy providers to shell out billions of dollars to finance major investments to their complex infrastructure and purchase an untold number of solar panels or windmills.
Proponents might claim that the only casualty will be “evil” utility companies, but ultimately it will be ratepayers who bear the true cost of Proposition 127. Experts believe that these new changes would double the monthly energy bill for the average Arizona household, taking an additional $1,000 out of the pockets of hardworking families. This is an expense few can afford. Worse yet, higher energy prices function as a regressive tax, punishing Arizona’s poorest the most.
Some might say that these numbers are just being used as scare tactics and are not indicative of what might happen. But you don’t have to look far to see a real life example. In neighboring California, public utilities have been in the process of implementing the same energy standard and the effects are devastating. Because of these strict mandates, consumers are now paying 25 percent more for electricity than they were just five years ago and prices are more than 50 percent higher than the national average. While the vast majority of consumers in other states are benefiting from flat or falling electricity prices, prices in California are the highest among the western states and about double those of Washington state.
Renewable energy is an important and growing part of the overall energy portfolio, but special interests should not have to use heavy-handed and unrealistic government mandates to increase their market share. Instead, they should work to reduce the upfront costs and make it a more attractive option for electricity providers, which would in turn reduce costs for ratepayers.
Voters know crony capitalism doesn’t work for the masses, only the few who have a lot to gain. Unfortunately, the gain for the few comes at the expense of the many. Job cuts, lower wages, and higher utility bills will not lead to greater prosperity for the Grand Canyon State which is why voters should strongly oppose Proposition 127.