Guest Opinion: Demand-based rate strategy makes sense

Media coverage of the electricity rate case filed by UniSource Energy Services (UES) has promoted dire predictions from California-based rooftop solar leasing companies that oppose the proposal. We encourage every utility customer to consider the facts of the UES case.

UES has proposed residential rates that reflect both total energy use and peak energy use, or “demand.” This makes sense because utility costs are driven by the need to satisfy customers’ energy demands during peak periods. Arizona business owners have been paying demand-based rates for years and have found them to be fair, simple and easy to use. They include a basic service fee, a relatively low usage-based charge and a demand charge that’s based on their highest monthly power use.

Critics claim demand rates are “too confusing.” As smart thermostats and app technology grow ever smarter, this claim falls short. Demand rates give consumers a new way to save money by managing their use of electric appliances during peak usage periods. Smart technology can help customers take advantage of demand rates to lower their bills significantly. At the same time, reducing energy usage during peak times helps ensure the stability of the power grid statewide.

Because demand charges would be offset by lower energy use charges, most residential customers would see little impact from the proposed change. In fact, the UES proposal protects customers by reducing the generous subsidies handed to rooftop leasing companies at the expense of the 98 percent of consumers who don’t have solar. That’s why we’re hearing the loud voice of protest from the solar industry’s PR machine. UES’s proposal will create a sustainable free market for clean energy and send the right price signals to encourage future energy innovation. That’s important to every Arizona business. All of us want our state to stay at the forefront of the clean energy movement and to continue to create jobs in that growing sector.

Unfortunately, jobs have become a political pawn for the rooftop leasing companies. In Nevada, these companies fired their own workers and fled the state as punishment after policy changes took the brunt of subsidy payments off the backs of non-solar customers. They’ve threatened the same punitive behavior in our state. This “take our toys and go home” approach will hurt Arizona families and our economy. As reputable case studies and testimony explain in detail, rooftop leasing companies can continue to make ample profit under a demand rate structure should they elect to compromise, rather than litigate and flee to other states where generous profits are still to be had on the backs of non-solar customers.

Using employees’ paychecks as a bargaining chip is wrong. So is intentionally disrupting the businesses of local installers – the very people the California-based national giants once claimed they wanted to help.

Arizona needs an energy policy that encourages a broad array of technologies and the highest degree of freedom and fairness for all power users. The more control consumers have – absent subsidies paid by the vast majority of power users to fund technology for the few – the better off our state will be. To hear the rooftop solar leasing companies tell it, you would think the goal of energy policy should be whatever helps them sell the most systems at the largest profit.

We take a broader view. We sincerely hope the Arizona Corporation Commission will take that broader view as well.

Glenn Hamer is the president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Lea Marquez Peterson is the president and CEO of the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Utility ‘Demand Charges’ Offers Best Solution to Utility Costs Problem

In a prior post I provided a primer on the economics and politics of the rooftop solar industry in Arizona. Net metering was essentially a solution to the initial introduction of rooftop solar into the residential consumer market. The rooftop solar industry took advantage of the political process by carving out a government-sanctioned incentive in the market that allowed them to operate and profit despite harsh economic realities in the renewable energy market.

Rooftop solar companies lease their solar panel system to consumers because the vast majority of consumers cannot afford a system that costs tens of thousands of dollars.  They needed an effective marketing message to “sell consumers” on leasing their product – an incentive to overcome the objection of cost. Thus net metering was offered as an incentive.

Here’s how it works. Most consumers do not use all the electricity generated by their rooftop system throughout the day. Net metering allows any excess electricity to be “sold” back to the main electrical grid. Consumers effectively build up a credit for the excess power they provide back to the grid. The amount of that credit is based on a retail rate that is higher than the wholesale market rate offered on the grid.

That difference between retail and wholesale electric rates is what has become the center of dispute between the rooftop solar industry and utility companies. It adds up to millions of dollars.

Utility companies argue that the cost to repair, maintain and upgrade the main power grid has not been taken into account as the market for rooftop solar has expanded. As utility companies continue the practice of net metering and purchasing back electricity at a rate higher than market value, it is negatively impacting the cost to maintain our electrical infrastructure. These costs ultimately get passed on to ratepayers, especially those who cannot afford to install and lease expensive rooftop solar systems. The result is that rooftop solar customers are paying less than non rooftop solar customers for the maintenance and improvement of our power grid.

This is where the idea of a “demand charges” becomes an economic and equitable solution for all users of the grid.

Rather than continuing an unfair solar net metering policy that gives wealthier ratepayers an advantage over lower income ratepayers when it comes to maintaining the grid, why not charge individuals for the demand that they actually place on the grid?

Most electricity consumers put most of their demand on the system during the early morning and early evening. It’s part of our daily routine: wake up, eat, prepare for work and head off to work. In the early evening, we come home, cook, clean and entertain ourselves before repeating the same routine the next day. Now aggregate that across millions of households and its easy to see how residential demand on the grid spikes twice a day.

Demand charges are determined by the maximum amount of electricity demanded by a consumer during a specific measure of time such as a day, week or billing period. This is the cost or strain placed on the grid when turning on appliances, air conditioning, etc. and is especially prevalent here in Arizona during summer months. Consumers who run all their appliances at the same time every day place a higher demand on the grid than those who spread their use of their appliances out over the same 24 hour period.

Here is a video put out by a South African utility company explaining the concept of energy demand charges:

Here in Arizona, the Arizona Corporation Commission is hearing a request from Tucson’s Unisource Energy Services – the utility that provides power to rural and southern Arizona. In its request it is seeking a rate increase and structure for ratepayers in Mohave and Santa Cruz County in order to alleviate the burden on the power grid and non-rooftop solar ratepayers. The request includes adjusting the net metering rates to current market values and implementing “demand charges” that allow it to compensate for the demand on the grid.

California-based rooftop solar companies are lined up in opposition to the changes and have even threatened to pull out of Arizona cutting hundreds of local jobs. These are the same companies who are profiting off the artificially-priced subsidy set in net metering. If UNS wins approval of the market rate adjustment in its net metering rate request, only new solar installations will receive the market-adjusted subsidy.

The UNS request also includes approval for a “demand charge” meant to cover the costs associated with peak demand. This charge would be optional for residents and small businesses but would be mandatory for any new rooftop solar installations which “create new cost burdens and reliability concerns for utilities and their customers.”

If approved, such changes will begin the process of correcting manipulations in the market and reducing special subsidies for residential rooftop solar industry.

As someone who opposes government sanctioned subsidies, it’s time that solar users finally help cover the cost of the grid that non-solar users have been paying for without receiving any benefit. Implementing “demand charges” and adjusting the net metering rate are necessary decisions to restore a free market solution to a corporate cronyism problem. It’s the fair and economically sound thing to do and maintain the reliability of our power grid to the benefit of all consumers.

The Economics and Politics of Solar Net Metering

It’s been some time since I’ve written on the topic of solar energy and the utility industry. This area has always interested me given my background in nuclear power, energy services and Arizona politics. In recent years, my curiosity with the off-grid lifestyle and homesteading has also fueled that interest.

Originally, I wrote from the perspective that the big utility monopolies were taking advantage of ratepayers by pushing for changes in net metering that would result in hurting the rooftop solar industry. It was the classic David vs Goliath narrative.

That was incorrect.

What further economic and policy research revealed was that the solar industry was actually being heavily subsidized by ratepayers via cost shifting from solar customers to non-solar customers. In other words, the full and long-term cost of energy was being redistributed from the solar haves to the solar have-nots.

Rooftop solar is still fairly expensive to the average consumer. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars in up front cost to purchase a full system for your home. Cost is one of the main reasons why the vast majority of consumers opt for a lease arrangement

Rooftop solar companies and policy makers figured out early on that they needed to create an incentive for consumers to move toward expensive solar. Thus, net metering was established.

You’ve probably heard about selling your solar energy back to the grid or spinning your meter backwards. This is an arrangement in which a customer who is generating electricity from their solar panels is sending any excess electricity back to the grid for distribution to other energy users. This practice reduces the energy cost to the solar customer by creating a credit. Utility companies have been crediting consumers at a retail rate rather than a wholesale rate. That retail rate is above the true market value of electricity and is actually a cost to utility companies which have to operate and maintain the grid. Those costs are ultimately shifted over to non-solar users who pick up the tab for not having solar.

Here’s a video put out by a electric cooperative that helps explains the cost shifting.

As you can guess, this was driven by policy makers who wanted to create an incentive for consumers to transition to cleaner solar energy generation and away from a dependency of fossil fuels – a laudable goal.

But there’s also a political motive in driving consumers to solar. As part of the leasing arrangement, some rooftop solar companies sell the excess energy back to the utility companies at the higher retail rate and pocket the difference above the wholesale rate and why shouldn’t they?

The rooftop solar industry found a way to “rent seek” and use public policy to protect the practice – even at a cost to the broader energy market

This reminds me of another moment in Arizona history when the Arizona legislature passed a law creating a tax credit for those who purchased or converted their vehicles to run on alternative fuels. Almost overnight, an industry of alt-fuel conversion companies sprung up in Arizona. Thousands sought conversions and these companies benefited from the special law. What was supposed to cost Arizona taxpayers $10 Millions ended up costing $200 Million. It was a major public policy failure that demonstrated the law of unintended consequences at the cost of Arizona taxpayers.

Here in Arizona over the last two years, the rooftop solar industry and utility companies have been engaged in a heated battle over the economics of solar energy and net metering policy. Ultimately, the Arizona Corporation Commission decides on any changes to policy which may include an adjustment in the rate that ratepayers sell back their solar electricity to the grid.

Rooftop solar companies like SolarCity have insisted that any reduction in the net metering rate will take the incentive away from consumers to go solar therefore hurting the Arizona rooftop solar industry. APS argues that non-solar ratepayers are paying the cost to maintain the entire grid while solar-users are being subsidized.

Corporation Commissioners have tried to broker a compromise with industry leaders. Meantime, the politics of this battle continue to play out as challenger candidates threaten to replace current commissioners and special interest groups promise to engage in the 2016 election.

The problem with net metering may all be resolved by this summer as other proposals emerge. One indication of a solution may be seen over the next few weeks as one smaller Arizona utility offers an alternative to how it bills residential ratepayers. That alternative is called “demand charges” and I’ll explain in a later post how it provides a workaround to the problem of net metering.

AG Mark Brnovich Files Petition to Remove Commissioner Bitter Smith From Office


Phoenix, AZ – Attorney General Mark Brnovich today filed a Petition for Special Action to remove Arizona Corporation Commissioner (“Commissioner”) Susan Bitter Smith from office. The Petition filed this morning in the Arizona Supreme Court is the result of an ongoing investigation regarding an alleged violation of a conflict of interest statute. The Attorney General’s Office alleges Bitter Smith is ineligible to hold office because of her conflict of interest as a registered lobbyist and executive for a trade association of cable companies regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission (“Commission”).

“Arizonans deserve fair and impartial regulators,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “We filed this case today to protect the integrity of the Commission and to restore the faith of Arizona voters in the electoral process. Arizona law clearly prohibits a Commissioner from receiving substantial compensation from companies regulated by the Commission.”

On September 2, 2015, the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) launched an investigation into Bitter Smith after receiving a formal complaint against her. The AGO investigation found Bitter Smith receives over $150,000 per year for her trade association work, on top of her $79,500 salary as a Commissioner.  Arizona State Statute 40-101 prohibits Commissioners from being employed by or holding an official relationship to companies regulated by the Commission. The law also prohibits Commissioners from having a financial interest in regulated companies. Section 40-101 promotes ethics in government and prevents conflicts of interest.

Bitter Smith is the executive director and designated lobbyist for the Southwest Cable Communications Association, a trade association for cable companies in Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. She is also registered as a lobbyist for two affiliates of Cox Communications. The other members of the trade association regulated by the Commission are affiliates of Comcast, Suddenlink, and Time Warner.  Bitter Smith’s salary constitutes 40-percent of SWCCA’s budget. She works as a “CEO” over all of SWCCA’s operational aspects and as its designated and only lobbyist.

The Commission regulates many public utilities in Arizona, including local telephone providers. Because cable companies or their affiliates offer telephone service, often as part of a “bundle” with television and Internet, they are regulated by the Commission. Commissioners are representatives of the people, elected to office with specific constitutional and statutory duties. They must be free of conflicts both at the point of election and during tenure in office. Bitter Smith’s conflicts existed at the time of her election in 2012 and continue to exist today, therefore, she cannot remedy them and must be removed from office.

For a copy of the Petition for Special Action, CLICK HERE.

For a look at the exhibits attached to the Petition, CLICK HERE.

Gary Kiehne Speaks at Americans for Prosperity Event in Rural Arizona

October 3, 2015…Today, Gary Kiehne, the Republican and conservative, grassroots candidate for Congress in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, is a featured speaker at the Americans for Prosperity “Help Stop the Clean Power Plan” Rally in Joseph City, AZ.

Kiehne, a cattleman and successful small business owner, released the following comments in advance of the AFP rally:

“Here in rural Arizona and across this state and nation, we continue to suffer as a result of the continuous overreach from the EPA.  The latest regulations released in the Clean Power Plan in August take things one step further by increasing the emissions regulations.  These expectations serve up three punches in a row to our state.  First, killing hundreds of jobs across Arizona’s rural 1st Congressional District, home to several coal fired plants.  Second, taking a sledgehammer to the natural resource that produces nearly 40% of our electricity in the state.  And third, these new regulations are going to hit Arizonans where it hurts the most, in our wallets.

With no plans at the ready to replace the jobs we’ll lose, the electricity we’ll miss and increase economic growth to help our citizens afford higher energy costs, we’ve got to stand up and fight back against this overreaching EPA.  As a small business owner in oil and gas exploration and production, ranching and the hotel industry, I know how hard it is to comply with the messy red tape regulations stemming from the federal government, and I’ve had enough.  That’s why I’m running for Congress, to rein in the continued overreach coming out of Washington, DC and return decision making to Arizonans and our local communities.”

To keep up with Kiehne for Congress, please follow us on
Facebook and Twitter.

Net Metering Tax Credits Discriminate

Recent legislation providing solar tax credits for residential homeowners has allowed billionaires, corporations, and Wall Street financiers to profit at the expense of working class Americans.  Solar corporations leasing panels to home owners, rather than selling, have reaped the financial benefit of solar tax credits intended for home owners to the tune of hundreds of millions.  These tax credits to solar companies have boosted dividends for their shareholders at taxpayers’ expense, while panel-leasing home owners get no immediate financial benefit.

meterWorse.  Solar tax credits discriminate against lower income communities.  Group housing, where many lower income families reside, cannot install residential solar panels, and are therefore not eligible from the get-go for these special tax credits.

Arizona is subsidizing the solar industry with $1.2 billion on residential solar, and not a dime goes to the state’s lowest income sectors – yet, another reason not to have discriminatory solar tax credits.

Further, after residential panels are installed at huge costs to taxpayers, the system of net metering goes to work, also discriminating against the working class.  Owners of solar panels can buy power from the grid as needed, or ship surplus power back to the grid when they produce more than they use.  Under net metering, solar panel owners, however, avoid paying for the service and repairs to maintain the grid.  These costs to maintain the grid are then shifted to non-solar users, placing a higher financial burden on this group, resulting in a disproportionate share of the burden falling on the aforementioned lower income sectors.

In Arizona, taxpayer subsidized solar panel ownership has led to the adding of “environmental programs cost adjustment factor” and renewable energy fees on utility bills, raising financial burdens for all non-solar users, lower income families included.  For example, the city of Scottsdale has a median family income of over $92,000.  Just in the past 5 years, they have had over 1,200 solar installations, which are eligible for state and federal subsidies.  In contrast, an area in south Phoenix with 29,000 residents and an average income of $41,000 has only 45 residential solar installations.  This is just an example, but the statistics are undeniable:  Taxpayer subsidies go to wealthier communities by a factor of 26 times more than lower income communities.

Regressive solar tax credits should end immediately.  Why have we chosen one industry over another?  And worse, we’ve chosen a discriminatory industry that keeps lower income communities down by unfairly forcing them to pay for others solar installation and operation.  Under any sun, these policies are just plain wrong.

Joe Galli

Former Executive Director – North Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce

MBQF Launches Public Opinion Survey Service – Electric Deregulation Top Issue for Maiden Release


Public Policy and Public Education Objective of Service

(Scottsdale, AZ) — MBQF Consulting founder and CEO Mike Noble today announced his objective to provide a quarterly service to inform and enlighten Arizonans on the public policy issues being debated in Arizona and around the Nation. Noble, who is not representing or retained by either side of Arizona’s Electric Deregulation debate being considered by the Arizona Corporation Commission, indicated that future topics would concern issues being considered by the Arizona legislature, the Congress of the United States, as well as multiple ballot initiatives.

“Arizona voters are some of the most engaged in the nation,” Noble said. “By helping identify voters public policy attitudes to decision makers and key stakeholders, we are ensuring their concerns are more clearly understood. It helps enhance the quality of discourse in our state and brings more people to the table.”

MBQF surveyed 516 high efficacy Arizona voters between August 5th and 7th, 2013. Voters were given a summary explanation of the deregulation issue, and then asked whether they supported, opposed or were undecided about electric deregulation. Issue explanations were randomized to present the question in a different order to each half of respondents.

Among Arizona high efficacy voters, 32% of respondents say they support deregulation, 41% say they oppose it, and 27% remain undecided. Republicans are split nearly evenly, with 35% supporting deregulation to 38% who oppose it, and 27% still undecided. Just 26% of Democrats support deregulation, while 45% oppose and 28% remain undecided.   Independent voters showed 34% support, 42% oppose and 24% remain undecided.

“A lesson we take from this is that no side in this debate has really gained any huge dominance over the other,” said Noble. “As is so frequently the case, influence rests with the undecided voters, and that puts all the more pressure on the companies and the stakeholders in this debate to develop new and more convincing arguments to reach Arizona citizens.”

For more information about this survey, or a summary of topline data and wording, please contact Mike Noble at the number above. Included in this survey were 516 autodial responses with rotating samples to ensure issue fairness. The Margin of Error for this survey is +/-4.3% at the 95% confidence level.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen –
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

APS’ First Solar, Erecting a Barrier to Solar Energy Choice in Arizona

APS knows that Arizonans love solar, but it doesn’t want its customers to have the choice to produce their own electricity and lower their electricity bills.

That’s why APS has chosen First Solar – the one solar company that could never give consumers choice — as its wolf in sheep’s clothing, deploying the company to make APS’s monopoly arguments for them.

Let’s take a look at where First Solar is coming from when it attacks rooftop solar. Unlike rooftop solar companies, which provide solar electricity to individual homeowners, First Solar does utility-scale projects for utilities like APS, whose former CEO William J. Post sits on First Solar’s board of directors.

In its 2012 Annual Report, First Solar lays out in black and white that the success of rooftop solar could compromise First Solar’s ability to execute on their own long term strategic plans:

“We face numerous difficulties…including the following…Difficulty in competing against competitors who may gain in profitability and financial strength over time by successfully participating in the global rooftop PV solar market…”(p. 19). 

And that rooftop PV solar market is driven by consumer demand. The more homeowners are empowered to go solar, the stiffer the competition First Solar and APS face.

First Solar may face another difficulty: it has set aside a whopping $271.2 million to cover the costs of replacing defective modules it made in 2008 and 2009, according to public filings. But APS doesn’t need to be concerned about First Solar’s technology failing because the utility can just pass that cost on to the ratepayers as well. In fact, the more money ratepayers spend to build and fix APS infrastructure, the more money APS makes since it earns a guaranteed rate of return on all its expenditures—whether they promote what consumers want, or not. It’s good to be a monopoly.

It’s no surprise that First Solar CEO Jim Hughes, a 10-year veteran of Enron who led the infamous company’s global assets division during the height of the its accounting scandal but who reportedly escaped as an “unindicted co-conspirator”, opines that net energy metering, the policy that gives customers fair credit for the solar electricity they provide to the grid, and ultimately, to their nearest neighbors, is unfair.

Neither APS nor First Solar want Arizonans to be able to build their own solar projects, because if customers don’t have any choice among competitive solar companies, it makes it easier for utilities to build solar farms and pass on the entire expense to ratepayers. It’s not difficult to imagine APS putting heavy pressure on First Solar to step up to the mic. But that’s just another reason not to believe either of them.

Arizona’s APS could take a lesson from Hawaii’s HECO

I couldn’t help but notice a recent article in the HonoluluStar Advertiser recognizing shifting plates in the energy marketplace, in particular, how the Hawaiian Electric Co. is addressing technological and the consumer-based changes in energy production. How the politics of what’s happening in a blue state like Hawaii relates to the politics in a red state like Arizona is anyone’s guess but some marketplace factors are universal regardless of the political climate.

Here are a few observations on the potentially tectonic plate-shifting changes taking place in the Hawaiian Islands. Keep in mind, Hawaii is unique in that it is isolated from the broader US electric grid and therefore all electrical production, transmission and distribution is self-contained. (It’s not as if they can tap into the grid of adjacent states.)

First, Hawaiian Electric Co. (HECO) presumed it would remain the sole producer of electric power on the Islands. HECO has underestimated customer demand for newer self-sustainable technologies and lessening reliance on its big utility production. During a recent announcement by the Hawaiian Public Utilities Commission (PUC) it chastised the utility monopoly for failing to prepare for renewable energy changes. “Most startling was the assertion that “HECO companies lack a strategic and sustainable business model to address technological changes and increasing customer expectations,’” noted the Star Advertiser.

Here in Arizona, APS seems to be experiencing the same identity crisis as HECO as energy consumers take self-sustainable energy matters into their own hands through independent solar energy production. Realizing the diversification of energy production into the hands of consumers can’t help but force a paradigm shift of APS’ big monopoly mindset away from sole producer to more of an energy distributor.

As the Star Advertiser describes HECO: “Going forward, the hope is for a collaborative, open discussion on how to make the “decoupling tariff” program less onerous for consumers, and on how the utility should transition to become primarily an energy distributor rather than a producer.” The decoupling tariff relates to fees and rates consumers pay as Hawaii transitions to renewable energy technologies – technologies that consumers themselves are pursuing independent of HECO.

Finally, much like our own Arizona Corporation Commission, the Hawaiian PUC is standing up for customers by insisting that utilities and utility shareholders should have to earn profits through a sound performance and an emphasis on customer service. As Commissioner Michael Champley stated in the PUC statement, “Attractive financial returns are not a utility entitlement. Instead, excellent utility performance with affordable rates and superior customer service should drive utility financial performance.” It would behoove APS’ corporate leadership to take this same advice when approaching the Arizona Corporation Commission over rate and policy changes.

Like Hawaii, Arizona’s energy marketplace is also changing to one that is driven by innovative consumer choices, independent production and self-sustainable technology. It’s time big utility monopolies like APS realize the ground is shifting and they are no longer the only major player in Arizona’s changing energy market.