project WORLDVIEW                  copyright 2025                      Home                back to Choices We Make

selected past "Science Works" Daily Courier Columns 

note: you can reach Science Works columnist Stephen Cook via email: feedback@projectworldview.org  

you can find water issues related columns here

************************************************************************************************************

June 8, 2025

The Prescott City Council, Groupthink, and Academics 

by Stephen P. Cook

 Before ending with appointing Patrick Grady to fill an open seat, the May 20th Prescott City Council meeting encouraged thinking about the purpose of higher education, and was (dramatically / unexpectedly?) forced to navigate through “groupthink” territory. Wikipedia defines groupthink as “a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” Fortunately,  Councilman Ted Gambogi may have helped steer the Council decision-making process.

 In introducing a critical thinking skills related interview question he asked of all three finalists, Ted expressed the opinion that colleges should teach students how—not what—to think. After the hour-long interview process, and three public comments, the Council adjourned to executive session—supposedly necessitated by legal considerations. It returned with an announcement: two of the six members were recusing themselves from voting, given oaths they’d taken to support only registered Republicans. Unless they were willing to break their oaths, Patrick—a registered Democrat—would not be getting their votes. Perhaps the City Attorney suggested that— to avoid critics charging “the system is rigged” in filling this supposedly non-partisan seat—civic duty should take precedence over political party loyalty?

 As a fan of academic freedom I have no use for oaths to political parties—the very thing George Washington warned against. I insist on making decisions based on my own thinking aided by a free inquiry process to fill gaps in my knowledge if needed. Moreover, as a long-time science educator, my over-riding goal has always been to teach critical thinking skills.

 As a scientist, I value honesty, communicating facts—what is known to be true after unbiased, objective examination— and “playing fair.” (In scientific method terms this is part of striving for “reproducible results.”) This is quite different from what politicians value. Physicist and U.S. Congressman Bill Foster once distinguished between science and politics, saying "In science, if you stand up and say something you know is not true, it is a career-ending move...In politics...for many who practice it, the question is not "Is it true?" but "What can I convince the voting public is true?" Alas, it increasingly seems politicians value their tribe “winning” more than doing what’s right.  

 Thus Democrats hesitate rather than insisting their aging president serve only one term. (See “The Original Sin” by CNN’s Tapper and Thompson.)  And, fearful of consequences should they speak, Republicans are silent as the new administration begins with firing 17 inspector generals. The blatant action goes beyond having the metaphorical fox guard the chicken coop, it removes any oversight. A May 30 PBS Washington Week in Review “Profit and Power” program discussion documents recent unprecedented Trump administration corruption. Given a Supreme Court mandate, Trump is immune from prosecution—unless a few courageous Republicans in Congress escape groupthink and join Democrats in impeachment proceedings.

 Those in bed with—sorry for mixing metaphors—fossil fuel or building industries, have no interest investigating the global threat posed by greenhouse gas driven climate change, or the local threat to the Verde River posed by building a pipeline to pull water out of the Big Chino acquifer. Some attempt to hide behind science in justifying what’s really a position based on a self-serving (typically money-making development) agenda. Example: see my (May 4) column “Simmering Solar, Languishing Libertarians” linking a climate change skeptical article to Big Oil company / petroleum geologists.

 A June 1 rant described me as “a California academic” preferring “moonbeams and ‘out of the box’ theories” to “rocks and reality.” Yes, I grew up in southern California but knew, by age 15, I had to get out. I haven’t lived there in nearly fifty years. Given my life —which includes teaching thousands of students and winning related awards (including at Prescott High School) —I say characterizing me as ungrounded in reality is laughable. Hey— I’ve built three houses doing essentially all of the work— including digging foundations, plumbing and electrical— myself. I worked as a volunteer wildland fire fighter for many years. (My science background aided these pursuits.) The “californication” I’m most concerned about: Prescott open spaces filling up with energy— and water— guzzling, huge  (unaffordable?) new homes. 

Yes, I’m an academic meaning I prefer knowledge to ignorance. Yes, I’m an “out-of-the-box” thinker meaning I prefer that to groupthink.  I don’t like being attacked by culture warriors. Gosh —I’m not even a registered Democrat! The May 20 Council session ended —after Patrick and many of his supporters thanked me for speaking on his behalf—with my offering an “olive branch” to one of the finalists not selected. Knowing of her leadership among Prescott Republican women, I recalled my (February 23) column and expressed hope that her group would accept the invitation from the Prescott Democratic women for a get-together.

April 20, 2025                  Banning Natural Gas? Tariffs? Not So Fast!

by Stephen P. Cook

 Imagine: (see Rants and Raves, April 8) all the Prescott City Council candidates really are “leftist” [they aren’t!] Imagine, as 2025 ends, a “radical environmentalist” Council majority drafts an ordinance prohibiting extending natural gas lines to new homes—only to have legal counsel inform them “What you’re proposing is illegal. Years ago Governor Ducey signed HB 2686, which prevents municipalities from discriminating against different utilities in issuing building permits and making zoning decisions. It prevents Arizona cities from banning natural gas.”

 Would my imagined scenario get that far—would Council members be ignorant of this 2020 Arizona law?  Unlikely—but  increasingly many of us live in a “news bubble” where we’re fed what some algorithm “thinks” we want to hear. And, rather than talking to people, we—me included— often decide  we know someone else’s position on an issue based on supposed clues. We may too hastily put a person into a category—like “leftist,” “liberal, ” or “redneck” —rather “dehumanizing” and prejudicially unscientific.  How so? More generally, science teaches us to avoid “Confirmation Bias”—meaning “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior belief.”

 Many see societal problems in black and white terms and seek simple solutions. This includes, I fear, Donald Trump. He sees tariffs as a simple way to fix a trade imbalance problem. He notes they once supplied all of our government’s revenue. My reply: “Yes, back in 1900 when USA federal spending was 2.7 % of GDP—today it’s 23%!” And consider this recent (subreddit) post: “I voted for Trump because I wanted to see liberals growl like dogs. I wanted affordable groceries, but the tariffs are going to make everything worse and my life savings will be gone.” Sad—the consequences.of simple, short-sighted “solutions” to complicated problems.

More examples: “Don’t worry about gigatons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning causing climate change” since, as one of my readers said, “climate has been in flux since the beginning of time, with or without human influence.” Or (see my last column) “Goodbye Utility Bills. Use Free Solar Energy.” Or, (reader) response to rising electricity costs, “Deregulate electricity in Arizona.” If only it were that simple!

Years ago when legislators were debating HB 2686—and some were getting large campaign contributions from big utility Southwest Gas—I realized this wasn’t a simple issue. For starters, unexpectedly, libertarian (often Republican) types— who like “freedom to choose” and disdain “big government” limiting choices local governments might make—supported the bill. And unexpectedly, consumer advocates (often Democrats) were on the banning gas / opposing the bill side—though natural gas can save consumers money (especially for home heating) compared to using electricity in meeting similar needs.

I stayed neutral, despite environmentalist friends favoring phasing out natural gas—given its chief (96%) component is methane, a potent greenhouse gas—being against the bill. As explained in my August 25, 2024 column, the USA has 78 million residential methane gas customers served by 2.2 million miles of pipelines. With such infrastructure in place, seems a shame not to use it. As I mentioned, biogas (renewable energy) from livestock manure or made in digesters from rotten hay, cornstalks, or wood waste could eventually replace fossil fuel.

One new development: in The Economist’s “The World Ahead 2025” issue, California-based Terraform Industries announced “We’re now making cheap synthetic natural gas from sunlight, water, and air.” And pulling greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air in doing it! Sounds too good to be true—often a signal one should dig deeper! Terraform says they’re making “pipeline grade synthetic natural gas for $35 per thousand cubic foot (MCF.)” Much higher than what my calculation says Prescott gas costs: $5 to $6 per MCF. But that price is deceptively low because pollution is not factored in. Accounting for 120 lbs of carbon dioxide associated with burning 1 MCF of methane—using social cost of carbon $200 / ton—adds $11 per MCF.

Even with that, solar-derived natural gas looks twice as expensive as current fossil fuel offerings. Nevertheless—if it meant having no gas for cooking, for backup to solar water heating, or for staying warm in emergencies—I’d pay that price. Having this choice is important to me. But I see two reasons for banning natural gas: 1) current use of methane is a greenhouse gas nightmare, and 2) dreaming of a renewable energy / biogas future may be a pipe dream (pun intended) when the gas industry is slow to fix methane leaks, and seems reluctant to change. A complicated issue!

Interested in utility-related economic and environmental issues? You’ll want to attend the April 24 6:30—8:00 PM program “Energy Choice for Arizona” I’ll be moderating at Prescott College’s Crossroads Center. See you there!

 ***************************************************************************************************************

April 6, 2025     Economic Freedom and High Electric Bills 

by Stephen P. Cook

 Jack Saville lived “off the grid northwest of Prescott” when his book Magic Machines was published in 2013. The machines referred to are “simple solar appliances you can build” –a phrase appearing just above “Goodbye Utility Bills. Use Free Solar Energy” on the book’s cover. Its back cover includes pictures—of solar batch water heater, and solar air heater— and proclaims: “Magic Machines is about economic freedom.” 

 A long-time seeker of economic freedom, do-it-yourself (DIY) solar practitioner, and author of a 1984 book Achieving Self-Reliance—Backyard Energy Lessons—I’m well-qualified to review Jack’s book. I won’t do that here. I will say, “Though the solar DIY route is not for everywhere, it represents the biggest bang for money invested.” (Note: Jack’s book does not cover using photovoltaic solar panels.)

 With respect to payback, energysage.com reports that Arizonans need 10.88 years to recoup (with reduced energy costs / credits) paying a third-party (say $20,000) for a rooftop photovoltaic solar / grid-tie system. Ideally by year eleven (of forty year lifetime?) you’d have free electricity—except for utility company basic fees / grid access charges. To escape those, you need to go off-grid and invest in battery storage. You’d then be free from what some call “utility company tyranny.” Note many more appreciate electric company / APS service and reliability.        

 Unfortunately, given shaded house location, my Prescott friend Jenny— who relies on electricity to stay warm— lacks solar options. Her average APS bill for December 2024 and January 2025 was $468 per month. This is up from $314 for similar time periods five years earlier (when temperatures were comparable) —a nearly 11 % per year increase. What APS customers pay is based on a rate of return allowed by the Arizona Corporation Commission. This “lacking competition” Arizona model incentivizes utilities to make unneeded investments to increase their rate base and profits. It deincentivizes their keeping expenses in check and rates low. Typically USA public power regulators allow rate of return on utility company investments of around 10% per year. Very high compared to the 4 % or so that investors in CDs or T-notes get. 

In recent years I’ve been working on changing this system. On February 11 I planned to testify in support of a bill that would have promoted energy competition and choice. Sadly, I never got the chance. Reportedly a lobbyist from another Arizona utility company (not APS) convinced the committee chairman to withdraw support, effectively gutting the bill. Since then I’ve learned two things that strengthen my contention that such companies are failing ratepayers.  

 First, from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2024 figures, I learned Arizona gets 47% (5400 gigawatthours) of its electrical energy from natural gas. So perhaps rising gas costs are behind our rising cost of electricity? If so, you’d expect Prescott supplier Unisource Energy’s (USE) bills to show big increases. Surprise: since July 2014, USE gas delivery charges have not changed and the current cost of gas ($0.4555 per therm) is 20% lower than a decade ago ($0.5831 per therm.)  

Second, EIA figures show Arizona gets only 12% of its electricity from solar and wind—compared to neighboring New Mexico’s 49%. Seems New Mexico residential customers— paying 7% less (average 14.26 cents per kWH says electricchoice.com) than Arizonans (15.20 cents per kWH) —are benefitting from these clean, relatively inexpensive sources of energy more than we are.

 The gutted bill I mentioned would have increased energy generation choices and restored retail competition to the Arizona electricity marketplace. Since then another bill has advanced that, if it becomes law, will tighten the monopoly investor-owned utilities stranglehold. HB 2774 would allow utilities and their industrial partners to install small modular nuclear reactors without having to apply for a certificate of environmental compatibility and face a public hearing.

Utility company preference for gas and nuclear will not benefit Arizona electric ratepayers. Small nukes’ electricity won’t be available until 2030, is estimated to cost 30 cents per kWH, and will necessitate managing radioactive waste for thousands of years. In contrast, average 2024 power purchase contracts wholesale prices (from lbl.gov) for solar / battery storage electricity averaged 6 cents per kWH. Given such economic realities, such installations accounted for 84 percent of new US electricity generation capacity last year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association / Wood Mackenzie. Not so much in Arizona though…

 Arizona also lags ten other states in not allowing cities and counties to set up community choice aggregates to purchase low-cost power on behalf of residents.  Conceivably, suffering Arizona consumers could demand legislation that makes this possible. Laying the educational foundation for this is an important part of what the April 24 6:30 PM program “Energy Choice for Arizona” I’ll be moderating at Prescott College’s Crossroads Center is about. Those interested in economic freedom are welcome!  

***************************************************************************************************************

March 23, 2025                        Prescott, Paradise, and Kiss it Goodbye

by Stephen P. Cook

 Years ago, my sister, after listening to raves about our area, replied, “It sounds like Paradise.” Hearing this, I thought of a line from the 1976 Eagles song “The Last Resort”: “Call someplace Paradise, kiss it goodbye.”  Years later, after a wildfire destroyed Paradise, California, the Prescott—Paradise link became a “don’t follow the path we blazed” cautionary tale. Putting aside that connection, Prescott residents supporting the protecting open spaces measure on the August election ballot, will like the song’s “development destroys natural beauty” theme.

 I will “act locally” and vote “yes” on that, but in what follows I’ll paint a bigger “think globally” picture. I’ll start with a feeling the Eagles Don Henley expressed in a 1978 interview when talking about this song: “We have mortgaged our future for gain and greed.”  We’ll return to this economic connection, but first note: this song is not angry in tone. It’s like a hymn— one that preaches “stewardship and caring for creation,” not “having dominion over.” 

 Another Eagles song, “Hole in the World” — written in response to 9/11/2001 terrorism— is similarly quasi-religious. Here paradise = promised land —as in the line: “Until we learn to love one another, we will never see the promised land.”  Enough—this religious stuff hardly belongs in a science column! Onward, to “big picture” economic science connections—and two “holes in the world” of our market-based capitalist economic system which merit discussion.

 First, consider a question French economist Thomas Piketty studies, “Will capital accumulate and wealth become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands?”  He fears “Yes” unless something changes. Others characterize the problem in terms of an unfair economic playing field—notably described by Donald Trump saying “the system is rigged.” If something is rigged, the outcome’s a foregone conclusion. There’s no competition: big and powerful triumph over small and weak. Big government allies / large corporations win; individual consumers / small businesses lose.

 Second, consider the problem oil company (Exxon) former executive Oystein Dahle’s identifies: “Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth.” Simply put, market prices typically don’t include true environmental costs. Most critically the failure to ignore the consequences of burning fossil fuel and costs of associated (heat-trapping carbon-dioxide gas) emissions is magnified as climate change impacts grow. Economists tell us carbon pricing is the best way to plug this hole.

 If fossil fuel was more expensive, we would burn less of it. Emissions would fall—reversing their dangerous (almost unbelievable?) climb. In the fifty years since Don Henley wrote “The Last Resort,” humanity has added roughly 1350 million metric tons (mmt) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere—three times the amount (450 mmt) added in the 250 years before 1976 dating back to the industrial revolution’s beginning. Not surprisingly, since 1980, says the NOAA climate.gov website, USA climate-related disasters costing more than $1 billion (in constant 2024 dollars) have grown from 2 to 3 per year (1980-1982) to 28 and 27 (2023-2024). Notable here: the 2018 fire that destroyed Paradise and the 2023 fire that wiped out Lahaina in Hawaii.

 While no one can definitely attribute a particular disaster to greenhouse gas emissions, climate scientists increasingly connect them in terms of increased likelihood of occurrence. Cumulatively the 403 disasters over the last 45 years that NOAA documents have cost nearly $3 trillion. They provide a database for considering the social cost of carbon (SCC) —the cost to society of an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions. That’s a term which a Day One Trump executive order discouraged federal agencies from using. Indeed, by the end of January 2025—after costly ($250 billion?) Southern California fires in Altadena, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu—few wanted to think about climate-related disaster costs.

 Almost prophetically, Paradise, Lahaina, and Malibu are mentioned in “The Last Resort” lyrics. The costly recovery from what happened in those places—and in those affected by (fall 2024) Hurricane Helene—suggest a 2016 Obama Administration SSC=$37/ton figure was too low, not too high as Congressman Andy Biggs (conceivably Arizona’s next Governor?) argued. A 2022 study published in Nature—perhaps the world’s foremost science journal—estimated SSC=$185/ton. Last month its authors refuted a conservative Heritage Foundation paper supposedly justifying banning federal SCC considerations.

 Ignoring the true costs of rising carbon emissions, and looking to save money by cutting US Forest Service fire fighter jobs—such stupidity could be disastrous for drought-stricken Prescott. But Prescott consumers are suffering today from sky-rocketing electric utility rates. My next column will document how Arizona’s “the system is rigged” monopoly investor-owned utility model fails to protect consumers, and how those utilities are steering us toward a future increasingly powered by unneeded natural gas and expensive small nuclear reactors. It will describe an alternative to the “kiss it goodbye” path we’re on.  

************************************************************************************************************

November 3, 2024       Information Wars—A Report from the Local Front

by Stephen P. Cook

The term “Info Wars” was popularized by a website run by Alex Jones, one devoted to spreading fake news and baseless conspiracy theories—and making money. Founded in 1999, its notoriety grew with claims the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was “completely fake” and when followers began harassing grieving parents of murdered children. By 2015, InfoWars.com was fourth on a “Top Ten Worst Anti-Science Websites” list.

Both science and our legal system depend on facts established beyond reasonable doubt. Courtrooms are where those peddling false claims face consequences. Consider defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones, Fox News corporation, Donald Trump, Arizona would-be politician Kari Lake, and former New York mayor / Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. They all have essentially lost these lawsuits and have paid— or are wrangling over how much they will have to pay­—victims.

And facts…Jones, facing jury awards of $1.487 billion in damages, declared personal bankruptcy in 2022.  Last year Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million.  Shortly thereafter a jury found Trump liable for sexual (“forced digital penetration”) abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll. In January another jury ordered him to additionally pay Carroll $83.3 million. In late March, Lake—who recently appeared with Trump at a Prescott Valley rally— declined to defend herself and filed for default judgment in a defamation lawsuit brought by Maricopa County Recorder, Republican Stephen Richer. In the last two weeks, Giuliani, owing $150 million, was ordered to begin paying Georgia election workers he slandered. And Trump was hit with a defamation lawsuit from the Central Park 5—teenagers accused in 1989 and imprisoned for many years before they were exonerated—for lies he told about them during the September 10 presidential debate.

Many conspiracy theories have no obvious victims and their inventors have not faced courtroom scrutiny.  Two examples: 1) Jewish people were behind the 9/11/2001 attacks, and 2) the QAnon conspiracy theory. The latter involves supposed patriot Q battling “deep state,” Satan worshippers, child-molesting pedophiles, and cannibals—typically all Democrats. What do these conspiracy theories have to do with Prescott? The man widely expected to next represent us in the Arizona Senate—Republican LD1 candidate Mark Finchem——“built his brand on election fraud and other conspiracy theories ” according to Arizona Mirror reporting following the Islamist terror attacks 23^rd anniversary when he went on a talk show with anti-Semitic host Scott McKay. Note: Finchem spoke at an October 24, 2021 QAnon convention in Las Vegas.

Anti-science is not exclusively Republican territory—see a July 2023 NPR story headlined “RFK Jr. is building a presidential campaign around conspiracy theories.” My advice: “Voters beware. Electing politicians who spread baseless conspiracy theories and don’t respect facts can empower them to thwart efforts to hold law-breakers accountable.”

Conspiracy theories involving scientists and their relationship with government are often laughable and easy to debunk to well-educated audiences. But communicating reasons for skepticism to the scientifically illiterate can be challenging. One example: that supposedly NASA faked the whole 1969 lunar landing. Note: in recent years Prescott has had a special relationship with a guy promoting this —he’s been called “our town celebrity” and “enthusiastic flat-earther” See a YouTube video “Prescott’s Oddity: The NASA Is A Hoax Truck” and my June 9, 2024 column for more.

Another example: the supposed “climate hoax.” As described recently in the Courier, this involves scientists supposedly seeking to profit from “the money river from government” by continually “pushing a man-made climate change lie”.  They are “fear-mongering” since supposedly “the climate is fluctuating within a normal range.” I disagree and offer three things.

First, no one disputes that climate naturally fluctuates. Over periods spanning thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, solar energy received by Earth varies in complicated, but well understood, cycles. Second, the warming of the last 150 years cannot be understood as part of this. For details see “Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming” on the science.nasa.gov website. For a graph, see “Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today’s Warming ‘Unprecedented’” on the news.arizona.edu website. This is from University of Arizona professor Jessica Tierney, a member of the world’s preeminent climate science authority: the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Third, for my responses to readers comments and more, see “Courier Climate Dialogues” on the projectworldview.org website.

Finally, two Hurricane Helene / North Carolina additions to my last column. First, PBS News reports “Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientists [preliminarily] determined that climate change caused 50% more rainfall” and “observed rainfall was made up to 20 times more likely in these areas because of global warming.”  Second, the recovery effort has been complicated by conspiracy theories. Notably, Alex Jones posted a video claiming the government aimed Helene at North Carolina—supposedly to force people out so it could mine large lithium reserves.

****************************************************************************************************************

August 25, 2024              What’s the Fight Over?—It’s a Gas!

By Stephen P. Cook

 Who’s fighting? People who value individual freedom vs. those who value protecting consumers and the environment.  Those who value living for today vs. those also concerned about future generations’ quality of life. Corporations wanting to make a profit vs. people working to enforce laws governing their operations. Elected officials, government regulators, lobbyists—often based in government offices or corporate boardrooms—vs. those with ties to the land. Dispassionate folks who value science-based decision-making vs. emotional culture warriors…I know: drawing battle lines like this is incomplete and too simplistic!  For example, “What box do you put someone who values the freedom to make informed, responsible, caring choices in?”

 Consider the fight in Arizona over issues tied to methane gas. Many call this—typically extracted by oil and gas company drilling—natural gas (= 96% methane,) and use it to heat their homes, water, and for cooking. Utilities like Arizona Public Service (APS) increasingly want to use it to generate electricity elsewhere in the state. Their critics ask, “Why not use solar?” 

In Yavapai County, some are questioning why methane produced by micro-organisms feeding on carbon-rich material under anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the Waste Management (WM) remote Gray Wolf Landfill is not being put to good use? Instead the “landfill gas” collected from wells drilled into the waste mass is being burned producing a bright “candlestick” flare—with resulting light and air pollution.  At other landfills, WM uses gas it collects to generate electricity and power its trucks. Will this eventually happen at Gray Wolf? I’d like Prescott officials—given our city’s contract with WM—to ask! 

 Why does WM no longer let the methane to escape into the atmosphere? Answer: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules established in 2016 require its collection. These rules reflect growing concern about global warming and recognize that methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that needs to be controlled.  Fortunately, methane vented to air lasts at most 20 years—in contrast to better known GHG carbon dioxide, which can last 1000 years. But, over those 20 years, methane is 84 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat that would otherwise escape to space. According to EPA, “the largest sources of methane emissions in the US are oil and gas systems, livestock enteric fermentation, and landfills.” Many feel that fixing pipeline and other leaks—which new technology make easy to locate—is the “low hanging fruit” in the battle against climate change. And, given methane’s short atmospheric lifetime, that each cow annually belches about 220 lbs. of it is of less concern. Of greater concern is long-lasting carbon dioxide generated by burning methane.

 That concern led over 100 cities—beginning in 2019—to ban gas hookups in new home construction. In response, Governor Ducey signed “the nation’s first prohibition on building gas bans” to make sure Arizona cities could not do this. I see both sides of this issue. According to a March 2022 Pew Research Center poll, 69 % of Americans “favor the US taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050.” It’s not hard to imagine that methane, as currently produced by oil and gas industry, will have no place in a fossil fuel free future. It’s also been linked to indoor air pollution related health effects. But many—me included— much prefer cooking with gas to cooking with electricity. I would hate to see people not have that choice. 

 I feel “win-win” solutions can be found. Rather than abandon nearly 80 million residential methane gas customers and 2.2 million miles of gas pipelines that serve them, I’d like to see a renewable biogas industry develop as fossil fuels are phased out. Landfill gas could be part of this—although ideally people would put food waste in compost piles they maintain, rather than sending it to landfills. There are two more promising Yavapai County routes to biogas. First, rotten hay, cornstalks, etc. can feed cellulose digesters, and—with proper pretreatment— wood waste also used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion. A wood-chip derived biogas market could help spur thinning Prescott National Forest in response to wildfire concerns. Second, ranchers can use cow or horse manure to make methane for their own use, or to sell.

Speaking of local ranchers: they have a stake in a current battle over whether expensive gas or much cheaper solar is used to generate electricity. These owners of altogether over 800,000 acres of Yavapai County land should contact the County Board of Supervisors (before September 4 meeting vote.)  Urge them to NOT limit acres for solar development to a mere 12,000. This not needed regulation could cause a potential big $ revenue stream for ranchers—solar land leasing—to dry up before it gets started!  I feel sheepish saying this, but grazing livestock and solar panels can coexist.

 ************************************************************************************************************

July 21, 2024               Prescott Girl’s Legacy with ACC Threatened

By Stephen P. Cook

 If this was a sports—not a science-related—column, from the headline one might guess that a star Prescott High School graduate’s college basketball scoring record in the Atlantic Coast Conference is about to be broken? But while our tale does begin with a PHS student winning a scholarship, it was the prestigious Flinn Scholarship, not a basketball scholarship. The “girl” involved is Kris Mayes—currently Arizona Attorney General; the “ACC” is the Arizona Corporation Commission.  

 The ACC, sometimes called Arizona’s fourth Branch of Government, is most importantly tasked with ensuring Arizonans have safe, reliable, and affordable utility services. Ideally its decision-making—weighing consumers’ interest in its setting lower utility rates versus the interest of profit-seeking, public service monopoly utilities it regulates in wanting higher ones—should be done in professional, fact-based, unemotional, science-based fashion. Done fairly—without political or self-interest based prejudice. One would like to imagine that the ACC more or less operated like this during Mayes’ 2003 to 2010 tenure.  During that time—as an ASU web site (where she subsequently found employment) put it — “Professor Mayes… helped co-author [in 2006] the Arizona Renewable Energy Standard (REST), which requires that by 2025 utilities must generate 15 percent of their overall energy portfolio from renewable sources…The Standard contains the most aggressive distributed generation [i.e. rooftop solar] requirement in the country…”

After she left, the ACC became increasingly political. An NPR Marketplace (October 10, 2022) program would later document how a utility the ACC is charged with regulating, APS, secretly financed a $10.2 million 2014 election racially twinged smear campaign to defeat pro-solar Commissioner Sandra Kennedy. By 2018, four of five Commissioners  (Bob Burns excepted) were backed by APS campaign contributions. Critics called it “The Arizona Corruption Commission.” Wanting to build on her legacy, increase Arizona electricity coming from renewable sources from 15 to 50 percent, and bypass the ACC,  Kris Mayes turned to 2018 election voters. She authored ballot provision Proposition 127. APS worked hard to defeat it.

 First, Attorney General Mark Brnovich—reportedly beneficiary of $450,000 from APS—changed the language in Mayes’ draft so that the version of Prop 127 that went on the ballot was more to APS’ liking. Second—as the Arizona Republic reported on January 17, 2019 —APS spent $37.9 million in its attempt to defeat this clean energy ballot measure. And defeat Prop 127 it did—but voters also elected new ACC Commissioners, including Sandra Kennedy. She, Burns, and others eventually produced a bipartisan “Clean Energy Rules” package. As preliminarily approved on October 29, 2020, this required regulated utilities to be 100 percent carbon free by 2050, and meet benchmarks—including a 50 percent renewable energy standard by 2035. Incredibly however, after three years of work on these rules, key Commissioners changed their minds and by mid-2022 voted to kill the entire package!

 The ACC increasingly operates as a “rogue” agency. Last month, in overturning a 9 to 2 vote of the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee, it authorized methane gas-fueled power plant expansion without environmental review. In personnel matters, the mid-2023 firing of Robin Mitchell, long-time legal division head, triggered allegations that three Republican commissioners were systematically attempting to remove non-white staff members from leadership positions. They replaced Mitchell with a less qualified attorney whose political resume—showing he’d worked for Sarah Palin and Paul Gosar—they liked. And in decisions that have made consumer advocates cringe, by typical 4 to 1 vote— with Democrat Anna Tovar dissenting—they put utility company “fair profit on investment” considerations first. They did this six times in 2023, according to a 12 News independent analysis—disregarding what the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO), a state agency that represents the interest of consumers at the Commission, recommended. 

 Most insulting to Mayes: a February ACC vote to repeal the 2006 REST mandate she’d crafted. Thus today, unlike most states, Arizona has no renewable energy standard: not 15 percent by 2025, not 50 percent by 2035, but zero. Why not? They cost consumers money, Republican opponents say. ACC Chair Jim O’Connor claimed that REST cost ratepayers $2.3 billion. Granted in 2006 solar electricity could not compete with methane gas, but today in sunny Arizona it handily wins that competition. Conservative Republicans interested in helping Arizona ratepayers know this.

 In an April 1, 2022 Arizona Capital Times article, David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, reported Arizona wholesale prices of new solar generated electricity paired with storage were but one-third those of methane gas generated electricity. For the USA as a whole, an August 2, 2023 National Public Utilities Council report put unsubsidized levelized per MWh costs of electricity from (onshore) wind at $24 to $75, from utility scale solar with battery storage at $42 to $102, from (baseline) gas / steam turbines at $39 to $101, and from (peaking) quick response gas turbines at $115 to $221. 

 Sadly, Arizona ratepayers are not benefitting from abundant sunshine and the technology that can turn it into reliable, cheap electricity.  Rates continue to rise. Why? Many feel a rogue ACC—beholden to investor-owned utilities it’s supposed to regulate—is the problem. (For the record, CEO Jeff Guldner has pledged APS “will neither directly or indirectly participate” in any election of ACC Commissioners.) One obvious solution: Arizona voters can educate themselves and vote out ACC Commissioners deemed irresponsible. Kris Mayes would be pleased.  

**************************************************************************************************************