Take The Quiz! Who Said It?

Who Said It!

It’s time to have a little fun and see if our readers can tell the difference between Fred DuVal and Scott Smith. We’ve pulled a number of quotes from or about each candidate on issues important to Arizonans. We’ll post the issue followed by the quote and then let the readers guess who said it. (And no using Google search to cheat!)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

A. “…we cannot continue with a broken system that keeps millions of people living in the shadows of our communities.”

B. “he supports driver’s licenses for young immigrants awarded work permits under a new Obama administration program. He also praised the U.S. Senate’s Gang of Eight for working on comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

DREAMERS

A. “My first action as governor will be to rescind Gov Brewer’s Executive Order against driver’s licenses for Dreamers.”

B. “The federal government’s half-steps on immigration are not doing us any favors, taking us further from the goal. These side discussions, such as the driver’s licenses discussion, are a distraction. The end game is a fair and just immigration process that includes allowing our DREAMERS to become legal.”

SB 1070

A. On Gov. Brewer “I think she got 1070 wrong…

B. “It’s not exactly the law I would have written.”

COMMON CORE

A. “I believe (Arizona’s) College and Career Ready Standards (Common Core) accomplish these objectives, and I support their implementation.”

B. “I fully support Common Core and applaud Governor Brewer’s efforts to ensure the implementation of these vital standards despite opposition from some members of her party.”

C. “And what we have proposed here, whether you call it common core or ready achievement or whatever, I don’t care the label you put on it, we have to do it. …”

D. “Rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all, Washington, D.C. approach to education, Common Core is a perfect example of how states can lead the way on improving education.”

OBAMACARE MEDICAID EXPANSION

A. “It would be a terrible mistake not to expand Medicaid on federal dollars.”

B. “I supported the governors Medicaid restoration because she did what was best for Arizona.”

TAXES / BUDGET

A. “After the massive cuts to K-12 schools, defunding all-day kindergarten, and ending the once-cent sales tax that funds our children’s schools, the last thing the folks at the Capitol should do is to set another tripwire on our children’s road to opportunity.”

B. “Nothing is more frustrating than seeing a state legislator cutting spending without raising taxes.”

ENVIRONMENT

A. “It’s the Senate’s turn to pass energy-climate legislation.”

B. “I welcome the opportunity to join with 1,000 of my peers in this truly bipartisan effort to improve not only the environment, but our communities and our nation.”

POLITICAL LEANINGS:

A. “…a self-described moderate, said serving in the House would be a “wonderful opportunity to reach across the divide.”

B. “He will allow himself to be called a progressive, but takes pains to note the lowercase ‘p’…”

 

Feel free to post your answers in the comments!

Scott Smith Flips and Withers over Kyoto Protocol

The race for Arizona governor took to the national airwaves on Hugh Hewitt’s show today as the conservative talk show host took the former Mayor of Mesa to task over his record on the Kyoto Protocol.

The conversation originated as Hugh Hewitt discussed his op-ed in the Washington Examiner in which he made the case for electing Doug Ducey as Arizona’s next governor – “Unlike his ice cream, Doug Ducey won’t melt in Arizona’s political heat

Hugh lambasted Ducey’s main foe Scott Smith and Governor Jan Brewer as big government Republicans (Brewer endorsed Smith last week for his support of expanding Obamacare in Arizona.) In addition to Obamacare expansion, Hugh mentioned Smith’s support for Common Core and the Kyoto Protocol. Scott Smith Twitter trolls then began attacking Hewitt online which prompted more discussion about Smith’s record.

Scott Smith then tweeted to Hewitt to let him on the show so he (Hewitt) would learn something

Smith Hewitt Tweet

Hugh cleared the phone lines and invited the mayor to call in to discuss his positions.

Scott Smith called in and Hewitt then proceeded to cross-examine him on why he supported the US Conference Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Kyoto Protocol) as the 1,000 signatory.

SmithUSConfKP

Smith then tried to argue why he signed off as the 1,000 mayor but wouldn’t mount a defense why he opposed provisions of the document.

Here’s the full audio of the call:

As the audio reveals, Scott Smith flipped and flopped over his support for the Agreement but then withered over his objections.

Hewitt pressed Smith if he even reviewed the the press release announcing his support of the agreement and why he didn’t demand a retraction, correction or clarification of his signature on Kyoto Protocol Agreement. Smith’s answer was he didn’t review it and didn’t want to cause waves.

Any listener who heard the exchange is left to believe that if Mayor Scott Smith was willing to sign off on the Kyoto Protocol without any protest, what kind of leadership could we expect from a Governor Smith when the EPA begins pressuring Arizona?

Call it a flip, flop or a wither. We don’t thing Scott Smith is up to the job of Governor.

=======================

A follow-up: Negotiations appear to be taking place via Twitter for Smith to call in again to the Hugh Hewitt show on Tuesday. We’ll wait and see if that actually happens.

Former Legislator Amanda Reeve Endorses Mark Brnovich for Attorney General

Mark Brnovich- skinny horizontal logo

Former Legislator Amanda Reeve Endorses Mark Brnovich for Attorney General

Today, Republican candidate for attorney general Mark Brnovich received the endorsement of former State Representative Amanda Reeve. Reeve remarked:

“Integrity in character, intelligence in reasoning, passion in morality, fairness in representation, and value in actions…these are the characteristics of a great Attorney General.  As its chief legal officer, Arizona needs these qualities in its Attorney General to fight for the rights of its citizens, protect the state and businesses from overzealous federal agencies; and provide guidance to the legislature and state agencies in the drafting and implementation of constitutional laws and sound rules. Mark Brnovich is this Attorney General and it is my great honor to endorse his candidacy.”

During her tenure in the Arizona House of Representatives, Reeve served as Chair of the House Environment Committee, and as member of the Energy & Natural Resources, Higher Education & Innovative Reform, Military Affairs & Public Safety, and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees. She is well-versed in Environmental and Natural Resources litigation and regulatory matters, as well as a vast array of other complex litigation and policy issues.

Mark remarked, “I am grateful for Amanda’s support. She is a well-respected policymaker – from her time spent as a State Representative to her current position where she researches, drafts, and advocates for issues important in the lives of Arizonans, including the environmental issues we face. I am encouraged by the diverse group of individuals supporting my campaign.”

Former Representative Amanda Reeve joins a quickly growing list of support, including that of former U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, U.S. Representative Trent Franks, former State Senators Linda Gray, Barbara Leff, Dean Martin, and Kathleen Dunbar, County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Representatives Debbie Lesko, Paul Boyer, T.J. Shope, Brenda Barton, John Allen, Nancy Barto, Karen Fann and Warren Petersen, Mayor Tom Shope, Len Munsil, former Congressman David McIntosh, and more than 120 grassroots leaders throughout Arizona in endorsing Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General.

For more information, please visit www.Mark4AZ.com

 

###

Martha McSally: Who does Ron Barber Really Stand With?

Martha McSally

TUCSON – Martha McSally, Congressional candidate for Arizona’s Second District, released the following statement today after the Obama Administration announced new energy regulations on states. The regulations are expected to increase energy prices on families and businesses while eliminating jobs across the country.

“At a time when both parties should be working together on bipartisan efforts to empower small businesses and get people back to work, President Obama appears to be pushing a hyper-partisan agenda to please his campaign donors over the needs of hardworking families. Plain and simple, this is a betrayal of middle class families who will be paying more in energy costs and will see many well-paying jobs disappear. What’s more, the poor and struggling who have the least ability to afford these higher costs will be hardest hit. I call on Congressman Barber to join bipartisan opposition to these harmful regulations and stand up for families of the Second District against his party’s job-destroying agenda.”

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced draft rules that would require 30% reductions in CO2 emissions across the country over the next 15 years. Under the proposed rules, Arizona would be forced to cut emissions by 52%, the second-highest mandate for any state in the country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated last week the new regulations would cost the U.S. economy $50 billion and eliminate 224,000 jobs. The EPA also has admitted the new regulations will increase energy costs for American consumers.

Will Kyrsten Sinema Support Obama’s Job Destroying Cap-and-Trade Scheme?

NRCC

Kyrsten Sinema Will Have to Choose Between Saving Jobs or Backing her Friends in D.C.

WASHINGTON – Is Kyrsten Sinema going to listen to Arizona voters and save American jobs, or will she fall in line with her Democrat allies and support President Obama’s latest cap-and-trade scheme that could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and eliminate an estimated 224,000 jobs?

A recent study, issued by the United States Chamber of Commerce, found that President Obama’s new cap-and-trade edict will force more than a “third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030.”

“Not only will this new Obama regulation cost billions of dollars for taxpayers, but it will limit American energy production and spike electricity prices – hurting families across America,” said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. “Arizona families deserve a Republican leader in Congress that will stand up to President Obama and his Administration’s job-destroying regulations.”

Will Kyrsten Sinema Support Obama’s Job Destroying Cap-and-Trade Scheme.
(Michael Bastasch, EPA To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions, The Daily Caller, 5/27/14)

“President Obama’s climate rule change will force more than a “third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030.”
(Mark Drajem, Chamber Study Predicts Obama Climate Rule Will Kill Jobs, Bloomberg, 5/28/14)

Cost nearly $50 billion and eliminate an estimated 224,000 jobs
(Energy Institute Report Finds That Potential New EPA Carbon Regulations Will Damage U.S. Economy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 5/28/14)

It will limit American energy production and spike electricity prices.
(Ralph Vartabedian, U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good, LA Times, 4/25/14)

ELECTRICITY: “U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. … ‘We are now in an era of rising electricity prices,’ said Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission…” (Los Angeles Times)

HEALTH CARE: “More employees are getting hit with higher health insurance premiums and co-payments, and many don’t have the money to cover unexpected medical expenses, a new report finds. More than half of companies (56%) increased employees’ share of health care premiums or co-payments for doctors’ visits in 2013, and 59% of employers say they intend to do the same in 2014, according to the annual Aflac WorkForces Report.” (USA TODAY)

FOOD: “Rising food prices bite into household budgets. Prices are rising for a range of food staples, from meat and pork to fruits and vegetables, squeezing consumers still struggling with modest wage gains.” (USA TODAY)

FLYING, THE MOVIES, OIL CHANGES, AND MORE: “David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff, said other areas beyond food and energy … are getting costlier as well. ‘Airline fares are on the rise,’ he said in his morning note Tuesday. ‘Movie tickets and other such recreational services are on the rise. Repair service fees are on the rise. Shelter costs in general are on the rise. Tuition costs are on the rise. Medical service prices are on the rise.’” (NBC News)

Rep Brenda Barton Applauds Recent Reversal in USFS Hunter RV Enforcement

Representative Brenda Barton (R – Payson) said that she was, “greatly pleased ” at the sudden change of heart by the United States Forest Service (USFS). “This is a wonderful example of how federal agencies can work with local communities to resolve issues like these.  It’s the holiday season and the Forest Service has finally gotten into the spirit. ”

The USFS has recently reversed its seemly sudden policy of restricting hunters to a 72-hour rule.  Instead, they have made it clear that sportsmen may keep their trailers set up for the regular two-week period, and in many cases covering the term of their hunting permit.

Many local economies in Barton’s sprawling rural district rely on the revenues brought to their communities by sportsmen and hunters.  Barton concluded that “…this could have had negative economic impacts on several of the local communities in my district and I truly applaud the Forest Service decision to reverse their previous action.”

About Brenda Barton:

A 5th generation native of rural Arizona, Representative Barton retired from municipal service after over 21 years. First elected to office in 2010, she now chairs the important Agriculture and Water committee in the House. Brenda has made Arizona’s agriculture industry and securing our water supply a main focal point of her work in the Legislature.  A graduate of the Dodie London Excellence in Public Service Series program, and past state director of the Arizona Federation of Republican Woman, Brenda also serves on the North American Council of the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Legislative Summit.

Governor Jan Brewer: Arizona to Keep Grand Canyon Open Amid Continued Federal Inaction

Governor authorizes state funding for additional 9 days           

            PHOENIX – Governor Jan Brewer today announced the State of Arizona will continue funding Grand Canyon National Park in light of the continued federal government shutdown.

“Grand Canyon’s importance to Arizona’s tourism industry and overall economy cannot be ignored,” said Governor Brewer. “While I am pleased the state is able to ensure the Canyon remains open during this critical season, it is well past time for the federal government to end this shutdown and pay its bills. We are doing our job. It’s time the President and Congress do theirs.”

On Friday, the governor negotiated an agreement to reopen Grand Canyon for up to at least seven days using state and local monies. Under the terms of the agreement, the State of Arizona is paying $93,000 per day to the National Park Service to fully fund park operations. Governor Brewer today authorized the use of state dollars from the Arizona Office of Tourism to continue funding the Canyon for up to an additional nine days, through October 27, if the federal budget stalemate in Washington persists. If the shutdown ends prior to then, Arizona will be refunded for any unspent days.

Visitors to Arizona’s national parks have spent an average of $2.5 million a day during October in recent years – $1.2 million per day at Grand Canyon National Park alone.

The State of Arizona will seek support from members of its congressional delegation to authorize federal reimbursement of any state dollars expended to fund park operations during the shutdown.

Andy Tobin: Ann Kirkpatrick Chose Obamacare Over The Grand Canyon

Andy-Tobin

In announcing bid for Congress, Arizona House Speaker says: 
“The truth is, I’m just sick of Washington, D.C.”

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin announced his candidacy for U.S. Congress today, calling out Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick for voting to close down the Grand Canyon this week in order to protect ObamaCare (H.J. Res. 70, Oct. 1, 2013). The vote is just another example, Tobin said, of Washington’s assault on Arizona.

“There could be no harsher reminder of why we need new leadership in Washington,” Tobin said. “Arizona is under attack by the federal government, and Ann Kirkpatrick is part of the problem. Kirkpatrick is so committed to protecting ObamaCare and supporting Nancy Pelosi, she has literally voted to shut down the Grand Canyon.”

Tobin’s remarks came as he announced his candidacy for Congress in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, launched www.AndyTobin.com and released a web video. Tobin plans to continue visiting every corner of the vast district in the days, weeks and months ahead.

“The truth is, I’m just sick of Washington, D.C.,” Tobin said. “From ObamaCare to over regulation of our small businesses and our lives, it’s clear that President Obama and Ann Kirkpatrick are totally out-of-touch with rural Arizonans. In Congress, I’ll stand for the same conservative principles I always have and fight back against Washington’s assault on our state.”

ABOUT ANDY TOBIN:

Andy Tobin is a dad, husband and small business owner who has devoted his life to job creation, public service and advocating for conservative principles. Tobin has built successful careers in the real estate, banking and insurance industries, creating jobs and helping small businesses grow and expand.

Tobin has been elected four times to represent rural Arizona in the Legislature since 2007. As Speaker of the House, he has overseen the largest budget reductions in the history of Arizona and led the fight against ObamaCare in Arizona.

Tobin and his wife Jennifer have five children.

YouTube Preview Image

AZ Electric Utility Rates: Regulated Monopoly or Free-Market Competition?

gavel1-300x223In May, 2013, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) opened a docket to gather information on how Arizona might allow competition among electric companies. On September 11, they shut down the docket with a 4-1 vote, citing “legal issues” that were apparently just too much trouble to tackle. Maybe the ACC will tell us more about that later(?).

So until & unless a new docket on the subject is opened, it’s over.  Of course, Arizona residents do still have a choice: either sign up with the one company legally allowed to provide electric service in your area or go without electricity altogether.

APS and SRP are regulated monopolies. The ACC sets the rate of return that they are allowed to earn on their capital investment in generating stations, transmission lines, and so on*. Their day-to-day operating expenses, depreciation expenses, taxes, etc. are fully covered, dollar-for-dollar, by their customers (you and me). That’s the law.

power-transmissionIs that so bad? Yes, it can be. This is the classic problem of regulated monopolies. While their rate of return is firmly capped by ACC, what are the incentives these monopolies have to hold down their capital expenditures on which they earn that guaranteed return? And what are their incentives to minimize expenses such as payroll? Technically, there aren’t any, other than their own good will and the ACC looking over their shoulder.

So can’t the ACC guarantee that the monopolies are run efficiently?  Oh, would that it were!  No, ACC politicians can’t hope to micromanage a monopoly for efficiency.  On the other hand, if there were competition, the utility would have to run itself efficiently or lose customers to a more efficient competitor that could charge lower prices.

Even when the monopolies are run by people of good will and good intentions**, they can easily slip into inefficient behaviors when there is no overriding free-market, profit-motivated, competitive incentive to stay efficient and keep prices down.

Bell_System_1939I’ve been through deregulation before. From 1969 to 1984, I worked at Bell Laboratories, the research arm of the biggest regulated monopoly ever — the old Bell System (“Ma Bell”).  We even had our own tightly coupled manufacturing arm called Western Electric.  The old Bell System was heavily regulated at the federal, state, and (in some states like Texas) local level.

In the old Bell System our advertising proudly claimed that we provided the world’s best telephone service at the world’s lowest prices. And we really did. But the DOJ Antitrust Division broke up AT&T anyway in 1984, opening the long-distance and equipment manufacturing businesses to competition. It was traumatic for us.  It was complicated.  But the job got done, and today’s telecom industry is much more competitive, innovative, entrepreneurial, and a lot cheaper than it would be if we still had one grand national monopoly.

powerlinesWouldn’t it be nice if the same thing happened with electric power in Arizona?  It could — but not until the ACC opens another docket and attacks those “legal issues” anew.

————————————————————

*Correction: As shown on the ACC website, ACC regulates rates for APS, but on SRP, ACC is only involved when SRP wants to build large power plants (100 Megawatts) or very high voltage transmission lines (115 kVolts.)  ACC also regulates Tucson Electric Power (TEP).

** Regarding good intentions:  A look at the SRP and APS websites will show that these utilities are indeed responsible corporate citizens, offering ratepayers tips, a choice of rate plans, rebates, and other assistance to help customers lower their electric bills. Both utilities and their employees are involved in conservation, and I know first-hand of their contributions to public education in Arizona. But business is business, and there’s nothing like the pressure of competition and the incentive of higher profits to drive a company to run the most efficient operation and offer the lowest prices possible.

EPA overreach at Navajo Generating Station yields bad energy policy for Arizona

By Douglas Little, Phoenix Conservative Examiner

In one of the most egregious abuses of it regulatory power, the EPA is forcing the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) located near Page, AZ to make unnecessary and costly modifications to the generation facilities that would have no measurable effect on emissions in the region.

Using the Clean Air Act as its regulatory authority, the EPA claims that emissions from NGS are contributing to haze in the Grand Canyon area and in February of this year, proposed a regional haze restriction that would require NGS expenditures of $1.1 billion on additional emission reduction controls. This claim also ignores the fact that prevailing winds in the region result in plant emissions being blown away from the Grand Canyon, not towards it.

At the same time the EPA issued their ruling, a U.S. Department of Energy study concluded there would be no visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon after the controls were added. Why would the EPA pursue such a expensive and punitive rule when it would have no perceptible effect on haze at the Grand Canyon?

Opponents of the EPA action are reporting that the EPA doesn’t care about haze at all. They say what the EPA really wants is to provide a precedent for shutting down coal-fired electric generating plants. The Obama administration has a stated objective to reduce carbon emissions and last year attempted to implement a “cap and trade” approach to regulating fossil fuels. Republicans in the US Congress voted down the enabling legislation, with some calling it a “war on coal”.

Why is the EPA going after NGS and why is NGS so critical to Arizona?

The Navajo Generating Station was constructed at a cost of $650 million beginning in 1970 and ending in 1976 when the last of the three generating units was completed. The project was sited in its current location based on readily available coal fuel, a reliable source of water for cooling and the proximity of the city of Page which could provide for many of the project’s infrastructure needs, including an available skilled labor pool. The plant is located approximately 100 miles northeast of the Grand Canyon.

The primary purpose of the NGS was to provide power to support the Central Arizona Project (CAP) which is responsible for supplying Arizona’s share of Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona. To get water from the far northwest corner of Arizona to the rest of the state, CAP built a network of pumps, pipelines and and surface canals over 336 miles in length to transport Arizona’s annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet of water to Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. The pumps must raise the water over 3000 feet to allow it to flow into central Arizona. The majority of the power generated by NGS powers the CAP pumps.

NGS has a long history of taking a proactive approach to emissions reduction. In 1999, NGS completed a $420 million retrofit that reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant by 90%. In additional overhauls conducted between 2003 and 2005, electrostatic precipitators were overhauled for reliability and performance gains. In 2007, the Salt River Project, the plant operator, conducted studies on how to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions to reduce haze in the region and voluntarily installed emission reduction equipment on each of their three plants between 2009 and 2011.

Apparently, the best efforts of NGS were not good enough. The EPA rule proposed in February is one of the most stringent regional haze rules in the entire nation. It imposes a standard that is more rigorous that the standards for a brand new coal plant. At the 1600 megawatt Prairie State Energy Campus which first came online in 2012, the permitted level of NO emissions are 0.07 parts per million (ppm) while the standard for NGS, a 37 year old plant, is 0.055 ppm.

In an attempt to find a reasonable middle ground, a working group consisting of the EPA, U.S. Department of the Interior, the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Gila River Indian Community, the Navajo Nation and the Western Resource Advocates began negotiations to find a “Reasonable Progress Alternative” to the BART rule issued by the EPA in February.

These negotiations were closed-door sessions and while the working group included non-stakeholder environmental activists like the Environmental Defense Fund, they did not solicit or accept input from important stakeholders like the Arizona Corporation Commission, which is the primary regulatory body for energy and water resources in the state. Arizona’s Attorney General was also excluded from legal review and comment on the proposed agreement.

Under the proposed settlement, visibility standards and haze causing nitrogen oxide standards are not even addressed. However, in one section of the proposed agreement, the Department of the Interior makes commitments to reduce or offset carbon dioxide emissions by 3% per year “in furtherance of the President’s 2013 Climate Action Plan”. It further states that “This commitment is intended to accomplish two aims: reduce carbon dioxide emissions and demonstrate the workability of a credit-based system to achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions” (emphasis added).

This action by the Department of the Interior and the EPA essentially unilaterally implements “cap and trade” at NGS even though they do not have Congressional authority to do so.

The working group proposal also calls for the early shutdown of one generation unit in 2020 or the equivalent reduction of output equal to the closure of one unit from 2020 to 2030. There is no consideration in the plan for any increased cost in replacement power or an increase in water rates due to those increased power costs.

While clearly not a great deal for SRP, the Navajo and CAP, why are they supporting it? The original rule issued by the EPA would have imposed the most stringent nitrogen oxide standards in the country and would require retrofits to the generating plants at a cost of over a billion dollars. Had that rule been implemented, the economic viability of the entire plant was in jeopardy. The Arizona stakeholders felt that the EPA was holding the plant hostage under its rule-making authority. They felt that the working group agreement was probably the best deal they could get under the circumstances, enabling them to keep the plant going at least until 2035.

Unfortunately, the working group agreement has some fairly large holes in it. Many of the commitments made by the Department of the Interior may require Congressional action to implement. In the current belt-tightening by the federal government, Congress may not be willing to fund the $100 million in commitments made by the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the agreement anticipates a dramatic increase in water rates, but make no provision for it. In addition, it does not address the loss of jobs, economic benefit and tribal revenues that will result from the terms of the agreement.

A critical reading of the proposed working group agreement seems to indicate that these regulations are not about reducing regional haze. There is no meaningful reduction of nitrogen oxide in the proposed agreement. Instead, there is a focus on carbon dioxide emission reduction. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas and has no impact on visible haze.

In addition, the agreement is an apparent attempt to unilaterally implement a “cap and trade” system for regulating carbon emissions for which the Department of the Interior and the EPA have no statutory or regulatory authority.

Finally, it appears to be a blatant EPA attack on coal-fired generating plants with the full support and encouragement of environmental activists.

Is the EPA doing all of this for a reduction in haze that the federal government’s own study said would be imperceptible to the human eye? More likely, the haze standard simply gives the EPA the opening they need to accomplish their real objectives of shutting another coal plant and promoting Obama’s energy agenda.

EPA overreach? Good energy policy? The right choice for Arizona? You decide.

The public comment period on the proposed agreement will close on October 4th, 2013.

You can go here to comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009-0111