Local opinion: Tucson needs strong infrastructure, bu that doesn't mean Fortis should own our electric future

The recent op‑ed by Larry Lucero, Frank Grijalva and Sharon Bronson, writing on behalf of the Southern Arizona Energy Alliance, makes an important point about the need for reliable electric infrastructure. On that, most Tucsonans agree. What their piece does not acknowledge is that supporting infrastructure upgrades is not the same thing as supporting continued private, foreign ownership of our electric utility.

Those are two separate questions, and Tucson should treat them separately.

No one disputes that our summers are hotter, our population is growing, and our hospitals, schools, and businesses depend on a resilient grid. The Vine Substation and the Midtown Reliability Project are not controversial because people oppose reliability. They are controversial because TEP has a long history of presenting neighborhoods with predetermined plans and then calling the process “partnership.”

The authors praise the City Council for approving the project and describe the vote as an example of cooperation. But cooperation requires equal footing. What Tucson has instead is a private monopoly utility owned by Fortis Inc. of Canada, whose first legal obligation is to maximize shareholder profit. That obligation comes before minimizing rates, before accelerating renewable energy, and before responding to community concerns about overhead lines in established neighborhoods.

Fortis is not a local company. It is a multinational holding corporation that reported more than a billion dollars in profit last year. A significant portion of that profit came from Tucson ratepayers and left Arizona entirely. That is the context missing from the Alliance’s op‑ed.

The authors also urge voters to approve a new franchise agreement, describing it as a set of “common‑sense rules.” What they do not say is that a franchise agreement is not a vote on infrastructure. It is a vote on whether Fortis continues to control our electric system for decades to come. Supporting infrastructure does not require supporting Fortis.

Tucson already operates one of the most complex utilities in the Southwest: Tucson Water. It is publicly owned, publicly accountable, and nationally respected for long‑term planning and conservation leadership. If we can manage water in the Sonoran Desert, we can manage electricity.

We also have a successful example just up the road. The Salt River Project, a publicly owned utility, delivers electricity to millions of Arizonans at rates consistently lower than TEP’s. SRP reinvests revenue into the system instead of sending profits to distant shareholders. That is what public ownership makes possible.

The Alliance’s op‑ed argues that when the City treats TEP as a partner, “the entire community wins.” But the community does not win when profits leave Arizona. The community does not win when ratepayers shoulder the cost of capital projects while shareholders receive guaranteed returns. The community does not win when a monopoly utility’s priorities are shaped in boardrooms thousands of miles away.

Tucson deserves a real conversation about whether public ownership of TEP would deliver lower rates, more accountability, and a faster transition to clean energy. That conversation should be grounded in data, transparency, and the public interest, not in public‑relations language that treats infrastructure needs and corporate ownership as if they are the same issue.

We need a reliable grid. We need modern infrastructure. But we also need to ask who should own the system that powers our homes, our hospitals and our future.

Infrastructure matters. Ownership matters too. Tucson should not confuse the two.