Arizona Official Dares Mayor Villaraigosa To Boycott The State's Energy Supply To L.A.

By Dennis Romero, Tuesday, May. 18 2010 @ 2:26P

An Arizona public utilities official on Tuesday dared Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to follow through with the city's economic boycott of Arizona by giving up the 25 percent of L.A's power he says the city gets from the desert state.

In a letter obtained by the Weekly, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce writes to Villaraigosa to express that he was "dismayed" by the boycott over the state's controversial immigration law and noted that "twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona." (We sort of told you so on that one).

Then pierce got fierce:

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Ouch.

Actually, the city's boycott deftly sidestepped the issue of L.A.'s dependence on Arizona energy. It bans city travel to the state, prohibits new contracts with Arizona-based businesses, and requires a review of existing contracts with firms in the state.

However, L.A.'s energy ties to Arizona involve plants where the city has partial ownership and transmission lines that fall under complex, multi-jurisdictional agreements. What's more, at least one of the generating plants, we've been told, is on sovereign, Native American land.

So it seems like both sides here are all bark.

Checkmate.

Also, the clean, environmentally friendly, natural gas buses LA uses are made in Arizona. And let's see if LA boycotts the Lakers/Suns playoff. Think anyone burned their tickets in protest?

Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

http://www.azcc.gov/

Our mayor is an idiot of the highest order. The funny thing is that this guy (and his sycophants) though he was on the fast track to governor of CA and eventually the White House. Then he started fooling around with a local news anchor (while married) and made a dozen other blunders. He is now widely mocked and I don't know if he can get elected to anything outside of LA.

Too bad Arizona can't shut off the water going to California coming out of Lake Mead.

You want to bet that the Mayor of LA and any council people have yet to read the Arizona law?

(05-18-2010 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

I'll bet you the Arizona officials could find a couple Delta Smelt impacted by a transmission lines crossing a stream.

(05-18-2010 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

What would be the legal argument against it? I understand the contractual constraint but I'm not sure what legal argument could be made. If the power companies that supply the power are private entities or public owned by Arizona I would think they could supply whomever they want.

(05-19-2010 11:31 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You want to bet that the Mayor of LA and any council people have yet to read the Arizona law?

They probably didn't even read California law:

Quote:834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall
not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date
and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
© Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.


http://law.justia.com/california/codes/p...51.90.html

(05-18-2010 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

(05-19-2010 02:23 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

What would be the legal argument against it? I understand the contractual constraint but I'm not sure what legal argument could be made. If the power companies that supply the power are private entities or public owned by Arizona I would think they could supply whomever they want.

Complex multi-jurisdictional contracts could be reviewed just like LA wants to review theirs... that could take time. As for the legal argument... I'm certain the power lines cross land owned by the state. Maybe they need an environmental impact study.

(05-19-2010 02:23 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-18-2010 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Don't believe Arizona can legally or contractually shut off electricity to California. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from some state regulatory agency does an inspection and determines that the transmission lines pose some sort of environmental or safety hazard that means they have to cut back or stop the flow of juice, at least for a while. Probably starting around mid-summer, if this is still going on.

What would be the legal argument against it? I understand the contractual constraint but I'm not sure what legal argument could be made. If the power companies that supply the power are private entities or public owned by Arizona I would think they could supply whomever they want.

No, that's not how it works. Once you dedicate assets to public utility service, they cannot be undedicated. FERC takes the further position that once they are dedicated to interstate commerce, they much remain in interstate commerce. That would be an awfully high hill to climb in this case.

On the other hand, finding some safety violation and shutting things down for a while could happen pretty easily. I'm guessing most plants have deferred a bunch of maintenance; that's the norm. Just decide around July that they need to catch up on that.

(05-19-2010 10:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, that's not how it works. Once you dedicate assets to public utility service, they cannot be undedicated. FERC takes the further position that once they are dedicated to interstate commerce, they much remain in interstate commerce. That would be an awfully high hill to climb in this case.

Granted but is the law one of which that once the service is dedicated to a specific customer it can't be taken away? Or is it that the service must stay dedicated to interstate commerce, but the option is there to simply run it to another state?

Quote:On the other hand, finding some safety violation and shutting things down for a while could happen pretty easily. I'm guessing most plants have deferred a bunch of maintenance; that's the norm. Just decide around July that they need to catch up on that.

Sounds like a plan to me. California could use some more rolling blackouts.

(05-20-2010 07:35 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2010 10:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, that's not how it works. Once you dedicate assets to public utility service, they cannot be undedicated. FERC takes the further position that once they are dedicated to interstate commerce, they much remain in interstate commerce. That would be an awfully high hill to climb in this case.

Granted but is the law one of which that once the service is dedicated to a specific customer it can't be taken away? Or is it that the service must stay dedicated to interstate commerce, but the option is there to simply run it to another state?

Quote:On the other hand, finding some safety violation and shutting things down for a while could happen pretty easily. I'm guessing most plants have deferred a bunch of maintenance; that's the norm. Just decide around July that they need to catch up on that.

Sounds like a plan to me. California could use some more rolling blackouts.

While the option to send the power elsewhere may exist in theory, without transmission lines it does not exist in fact.

Guess what... The federal law is much HARSHER than the AZ law. The SCOTUS ruled that the Feds do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to question anyone about their citizenship status. BTW, Calderon, Roberta, and all the kissass Democrats who applauded Calderon at the JSOC today are on the same par of stupidity. Calderon Go Home. Dems are dieing on the vine.

Not only is there no motivation in the executive branch to enforce federal law, I believe dear leader virtually mandated that enforcement be stopped indefinitely.

(05-20-2010 09:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Not only is there no motivation in the executive branch to enforce federal law, I believe dear leader virtually mandated that enforcement be stopped indefinitely.

It's almost like the only laws they enforce are the tax laws.....oh, and the anti-discrimination laws (only a racist would arrest a Cambridge professor) Some day, somebody on Capitol Hill should break out the Constitution and give it a glance.

The IRS should go after the underground economy of the illegal aliens.

(05-20-2010 10:08 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-20-2010 09:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Not only is there no motivation in the executive branch to enforce federal law, I believe dear leader virtually mandated that enforcement be stopped indefinitely.

It's almost like the only laws they enforce are the tax laws.....oh, and the anti-discrimination laws (only a racist would arrest a Cambridge professor) Some day, somebody on Capitol Hill should break out the Constitution and give it a glance.

The IRS should go after the underground economy of the illegal aliens.

instead of 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce HC, how bout 16,000 new border patrol agents.