Opinion: Tucson should reject TEP's 25-year franchise agreement

Proposition 421 asks voters to grant Tucson Electric Power another 25-year franchise to use Tucson's public rights-of-way, with few meaningful limits or oversight.

Even setting aside TEP’s long record of neglecting how those rights-of-way look, TEP is gouging Southern Arizona ratepayers to maximize returns for its Canadian parent, Fortis. It’s our job to recognize it and push back.

Prop. 421 discourages that pushback by promising the City $2 million a year — funding TEP can end on 180 days' notice. It's the same dynamic TEP's funding creates with nonprofits and chambers across Tucson: even when no strings are attached, the fear of losing money keeps them from challenging the company.

Consider the Southern Arizona Chamber of Commerce, where TEP has representation on the board. High electricity rates hurt every business in the region, so surely the Chamber opposed at least one rate hike, right? There’s no evidence of public opposition — even as it vigorously opposed far smaller City fee increases for police and firefighters and other priorities. Meanwhile, Kroger and Freeport-McMoRan fight TEP on their own.

We should not let Fortis build that same dependence into City government. Tucson should never have to weigh challenging utility carelessness and excess against losing money for City programs.

Whether Prop. 421 passes or fails, those programs deserve independent, reliable funding. Any Fortis contribution should be treated like the temporary COVID funds — a nice-to-have, not the foundation of essential programs.

Other cities show how. Boulder, Colorado, and Ann Arbor, Michigan, are roughly one-fifth Tucson's size, yet they have challenged their electric utilities on rates and emissions . Their programs don't depend on voluntary contributions from the utilities they're trying to hold accountable.

Closer to home, Flagstaff funds its Sustainability Division primarily through an Environmental Management Fee assessed on utility bills, including water and trash. Tucson already charges a smaller fee for Storm to Shade. Mayor and Council could create a stronger independent office like Boulder's or Ann Arbor's .

We need new ideas — urgently. TEP projects roughly $3.2 billion in capital spending from 2026 through 2030, and Fortis has identified up to $2 billion more for Project Blue. That might mean more rate hikes and fights over who pays. The City should keep leading those fights, not have to worry about angering Fortis.

Tucson should also be a solar city. Instead, solar’s share of TEP's generation is falling while TEP fights at the Arizona Corporation Commission for lower solar export rates. Fortis earns no return on generation owned by others — and roughly 95% of the solar TEP takes credit for is owned by others. That is a major problem for one of America's sunniest cities.

Mesa’s city-owned electric utility still offers net metering. TEP, meanwhile, pays you 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour for your excess solar power, then sells it to your neighbor for 17 cents. You should be able to sell it directly to your neighbor at a price that saves you both money. TEP’s influence at the ACC and the Legislature stands in the way of a freer, more competitive and innovative market that would lower rates.

Finally, I am tired of misleading warnings that rejecting Prop. 421 could threaten reliability. TEP routinely makes emergency repairs without waiting for permit offices to open; City records show it received an after-the-fact permit for an emergency transformer replacement in September 2026. The reliability scare is nonsense.

TEP has not earned the right to avoid voters for 25 more years. Give it five or ten. Proponents say an opt-out means it isn’t really 25 years, but an opt-out is no substitute for having to face the public. We can get a better agreement — one that doesn’t leave the City compromised.