Earlier this month, a new Arizona Public Service rate hike went into effect and one senior advocacy group said those on a fixed income may struggle to now pay their energy bills.

According to the utility, the average residential customer will see an expected bill increase of about 8%, which translates to about $10.50 a month. They said it is all in an effort to continue to provide Arizonans with reliable and resilient power and make "critical investments" in their system.

Aimee Cvancara, associate state director of AARP Arizona, contended the possible effects could be significant.

"Folks who are on a fixed income, whether that is a retirement income or even a working income with limited mobility, it is difficult to absorb a $10 to $12 cost in your monthly bill that was unanticipated," Cvancara pointed out. "Particularly because it's not the only increase that folks are seeing right now."

Cvancara emphasized consumers are feeling the weight of increased prices on everything, from groceries to gas, rent and now power. Arizona Public Service rooftop solar customers could also see an additional $2 to $3 a month on their bills but the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association and Attorney General Kris Mayes are both demanding for a rehearing on the case with the Arizona Corporation Commission to challenge the rate hike.

Cvancara noted moving forward, a significant concern for Arizona consumers is going to be something called the system reliability benefit mechanism, which allows Arizona Public Service to recover costs between rate cases for new, utility-owned generation resources.

"This is a new thing for APS customers," Cvancara explained. "It is going to allow the utility to file for up to 3% rate increase and they can do that five times before they have to file for another rate increase."

Some ratepayers and environmental groups oppose the system reliability benefit mechanism, as they argued it will only raise rates and increase demand for fossil fuels. Cvancara said the Arizona Corporation Commission should always strive to balance investments for reliable energy versus the cost consumers will face.

President Joe Biden has entered a "lame-duck" period, prompting a Michigan political science expert to analyze his potential actions before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.

Outgoing presidents typically work on a smooth transition while the president-elect fills key positions. As Biden nears the end of his term, he has approved long-range missiles for Ukraine to strike inside Russia, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy.

Jordan Cash, assistant professor of political theory and constitutional democracy at Michigan State University, examined the possible reasons behind Biden's actions.

"He's trying to find some way to push Ukraine and Russia to a certain end point in the war," Cash explained. "Perhaps to get a final foreign policy victory to vindicate his administration at the end, or perhaps because he fears the way President-elect Trump is going to approach the Ukraine war."

Most political experts agree with Congress divided, it is unlikely much will be accomplished before the new session starts in January. However, they said it wouldn't be surprising if Biden takes other bold or controversial actions as he prepares to leave office.

Cash pointed out while lame-duck periods can have advantages, such as settling electoral disputes or confirming votes, they also come with risks. He warned an extended lame-duck phase, which is typical in the United States, can encourage an outgoing president to make partisan decisions, potentially leading to actions driven more by political motivations than the public good.

"Bill Clinton commuted several dozen sentences, including for Mark Rich, who had been convicted of tax fraud but whose wife was a major Democratic donor," Cash recounted. "President-elect Trump commuted a bunch of sentences including pardoning his former adviser Steve Bannon."

The term "lame duck" originally referred to a financial trader on the London Stock Exchange in the 18th century who defaulted on debts. It was later adapted to describe politicians with reduced influence or authority.


get more stories like this via email

House lawmakers have passed a bill advocates said will be harmful to nonprofits in New York and nationwide.

House Resolution 9495 passed with a 219-184 vote after failing to get a two-thirds majority in the chamber last week. The bill gives the Treasury Secretary power to rescind tax-exempt status for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." On its first vote, it had strong bipartisan support.

Jeff Ordower, U.S. Lead for the group 350 Action, said President-elect Donald Trump's rhetoric about "the enemy within" makes this bill's return troubling.

"They are trying to consolidate the number of tools in their toolbox," Ordower contended. "So they can move quickly to call some people the enemy within and shut down organizations that are supporting causes that are unpopular, supporting causes that are fighting corporate power, fighting structural racism."

Voting in favor of the bill were 15 Democrats, including Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. It could be due to its other provision giving tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Ordower noted it is the result of a push by groups who want Israel and Gaza's status quo before Oct. 7 restored, which aid organizations could jeopardize.

Beyond public concern, some experts feel the bill's primary goal is helping President-elect Trump consolidate power within the Executive Branch. Ordower pointed out it is one of the many battles with the second Trump Administration about what defines a healthy and sustainable democracy.

"What we need in order to really have a good fight that defends civil society, that leads us towards and continues some of the ways that are flourishing democracy is to have lots and lots of groups that are able to push their agendas, and not just groups with particular ideologies or point of views doing that," Ordower stressed.

Ordower is surprised by lawmaker's persistence to pass this bill given wars occurring across the world, as well as ongoing economic, climate and immigration issues at home. Some 150 groups including the ACLU signed a letter to House lawmakers urging them to oppose the measure.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce outlined six key priorities for lawmakers ahead of the legislative session in January.

Rather than releasing detailed policy positions, the Chamber emphasized broad focus areas, including workforce, education, economic growth, infrastructure, quality of place and community health.

Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne, House Minority Leader, responded to the Chamber's priorities, highlighting the need to address child care as a factor in economic development.

"We talk about economic development with things that impact economic development here in the state. Child care is really one of those," GiaQuinta contended.

The organization stressed the critical role of affordable child care in workforce development, citing a report estimating Indiana loses $4.2 billion annually, including $1.7 billion in tax revenue due to child care challenges. High costs force some parents out of the workforce, straining the state's economy.

Statehouse leaders acknowledged the issue but differ on solutions. Democrats argued child care deserves more state investment, while Republican leaders believe the private sector should play a larger role.

Todd Huston, R-Fishers, Speaker of the House, said businesses should not expect the state to solve their child care problems entirely.

"They've done a lot of different things to try to support families and young families. We will continue to do that," Huston stated. "But I think we also have to set a level of expectations that we're not going to; the state's not going to be funding all universal pre-K."

The Chamber plans to release detailed policy proposals in January, aiming to guide lawmakers toward strategies to strengthen Indiana's economy and workforce.


get more stories like this via email