Roberts: Bob Burns goes after APS (again, that is)

Nice to see that Bob Burns isn’t giving up on his efforts to ensure that the Arizona Corporation Commission isn’t a wholly owned subsidiary of a certain power company.

Burns -- the only commissioner curious about whether APS secretly spent millions to buy itself a pair of regulators in 2014 -- is proposing that the panel adopt rules so that we can see who in the future is trying to buy influence on the commission.

And, oh yeah, he’s giving APS and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., until March 24 to produce records he subpoenaed last September – records that should show us whether the state’s most powerful utility in 2014 quietly put $3.2 million into a "dark money" campaign to elect Doug Little and Tom Forese, who now is the commission’s chairman.

“I look forward to their full compliance with the subpoenas and participation in the development of new rules governing transparency and disclosure needed to prevent undue influence by regulated monopolies and intervenors,” Burns wrote.

Yeah, and I look forward to APS’s continued stonewall tactics, aimed at ensuring that never do those subpoenaed records ever, ever, EVER come to light.

Pinnacle West actually sued Burns in an effort to wiggle out of opening its books. The lawsuit has been on hold for reasons that escape me, given that APS/Pinnacle West CEO Don Brandt is never going to willingly turn over the records.

ROBERTS: Burns standing tough on APS investigation

The commission as a whole could put an end to the dispute by simply ordering Pinnacle West to produce the records. But, of course, it won’t.

In the waning hours of last year’s election, Pinnacle West spent $4 million (publicly, this time) to ensure that Boyd Dunn would join Andy Tobin and Burns in winning spots on the commission -- or more accurately, to ensure that Tom Chabin and Bill Mundell would not. (Solar City, meanwhile, spent $3.6 million to support Burns and Mundell.)

Given that the deck is now well and truly stacked, I wondered whether Burns would fight on in the name of truth, justice and information for all who might wonder why APS needs an 8 percent rate increase, including the ability to impose a mandatory demand fee on its residential customers.

What Burns wants (he's onto them!)

In addition to pursuing records that might tell us whether at least two commissioners might have a conflict in voting on APS’s rate hike request, Burns is proposing badly needed transparency for the future.

Specifically, he wants the commission to require that regulated monopolies and intervenors who appear before the commission (read: solar companies) disclose their spending on commissioners, commission candidates and commission staffers.

ROBERTS: APS must be celebrating its new Corporation Commission

“Obviously such contributions can lead to undue influence over ACC personnel and thereby undermine the objectivity and independence of our fourth branch of government …,” he wrote. “In the worst cases, such contributions can lead to ‘regulatory capture’ in which ACC commissioners act as biased proxies for the regulated monopolies and other stakeholders who are financially backing them. These dangers warrant immediate, in-depth study and solutions created through robust new transparency and disclosure rules.”

Among the types of spending that Burns is targeting: “contributions to support civic events.”

“Contributions used to claim good corporate citizenship can be deftly used to wrest influence that undermines consumer interests,” Burns wrote, “and there is no paper trail now that allows such influence or potential for influence to be exposed.”

Uh-oh, APS, I think he’s onto you.