Kevin Thompson’s Outside Consulting Becomes Central Issue in Arizona Corporation Commission Race
Arizona voters ask: Should elected utility regulators maintain private consulting businesses with clients whose interests intersect with the Commission’s work?
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
Grab a cup of coffee, get comfortable, and settle in. This isn’t a quick article. It’s a deep dive into one of Arizona’s most powerful, and least understood, elected bodies.
As the general election begins, this report previews what is likely to become one of the Democrats’ central lines of attack against Arizona Corporation Commissioner Kevin Thompson: whether elected utility regulators should be permitted to maintain private consulting businesses with clients connected to industries affected by the Commission’s work.
But this story is bigger than one candidate.
We’ll explain, in plain English, what the ACC actually does, why it matters to every Arizona ratepayer, what the current ethics rules require, where critics say those rules fall short, and what reforms could strengthen transparency and restore public confidence in the Commission.
Whether you ultimately believe the current system works or believe Arizona needs stronger ethics safeguards, our goal is to give you the facts, the context, and the competing arguments so you can make up your own mind.
Let’s dive in.
Nick Myers is out. Kevin Thompson survived the primary. As the general election begins, Democrats are expected to make Thompson’s outside consulting business a central line of attack.
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) race may ultimately hinge on a larger question than one candidate: Should Arizona’s ethics rules be rewritten to prevent elected utility regulators from maintaining private consulting clients connected to the industries they regulate?
Democrats will try to turn what was largely an insider regulatory controversy into a broader argument about transparency, campaign money, and public trust.
Thompson maintains that his outside work complies with Arizona law and does not involve matters before the Commission.
Critics say, compliance with the minimum requirements of an ethics code, however, is not the same as avoiding the appearance of a conflict.
That distinction matters as Arizona confronts historic growth in electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, and hyperscale data centers.
The central question is straightforward: Should one of Arizona’s utility regulators simultaneously operate a private consulting business serving companies whose interests intersect with energy infrastructure, regulated utilities, government procurement, and public policy?
Thompson Discloses Data Center Client at Regulators’ Conference
The latest scrutiny began after Thompson publicly acknowledged that he currently consults for a data center company while participating in a panel at the Western Conference of Public Service Commissioners Annual Meeting.
During a panel titled “Does the Shifting Federal Landscape Change How We Find the Public Interest?”, Thompson disclosed: “For full transparency, I have a client that’s a data center.”
He then discussed the growing electricity demand created by data centers and the challenges communities and utilities face serving those facilities.
The remark renewed attention on Thompson’s consulting business, Broadmore Consulting, and longstanding questions over whether elected utility regulators should maintain private relationships with companies closely connected to the Commission’s work.
State 48 News previously detailed Thompson’s consulting business and the companies identified as Broadmore clients in a May 2025 report.
Data Centers and the “Who Pays” Question
Many Arizonans have little idea what the Arizona Corporation Commission actually does.
The ACC is one of the state’s most powerful constitutional offices. Unlike most states where utility regulators are appointed, Arizona voters elect all five commissioners statewide.
Commissioners approve or deny rate increases, oversee billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, decide how costs are recovered from customers, regulate transmission projects, and set policies that shape Arizona’s electric grid.
Those decisions directly affect the monthly bills paid by millions of residents.
As Arizona experiences rapid population growth alongside semiconductor manufacturing, AI expansion, and large-scale data center development, the Commission’s decisions have grown more consequential. A single vote can determine whether residential customers help finance infrastructure built primarily to serve major technology companies.
Arizona has become a fast-growing destination for data centers. Individual facilities can draw hundreds of megawatts—enough electricity to power entire cities. Meeting that demand requires new generation, transmission lines, and substations.
The critical questions are no longer theoretical: Who pays for the infrastructure? What financial guarantees should developers provide? Should data centers bring their own generation or pay rates that fully reflect their extraordinary demand?
Data centers have become a raw, emotional issue in communities across the state.
It was in this charged environment that Thompson discussed the industry’s power needs—and disclosed that he is paid privately by a company operating in the same industry.
State 48 News had already reported on Thompson’s consulting business in 2025. At that time, Broadmore Consulting’s website publicly listed several clients, including EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure, a developer of hyperscale data center campuses with a major facility in Mesa.
After the conference disclosure, Thompson confirmed to reporters that EdgeCore is the client he referenced. He said his consulting work for the company does not involve Arizona. According to Thompson, the assignments have included researching California’s electrical system, reviewing Virginia regulations on underground transmission lines, and advising on easement issues in Nevada.
“I do not perform any consulting work for this client in the state of Arizona,” Thompson said. “None of these projects have involved work in Arizona and I am not authorized by the client to, nor would I, work on projects in Arizona and certainly nothing that would come before the Commission.”
The absence of a direct Arizona case does not eliminate the appearance issue. An Arizona commissioner responsible for utility regulation is privately advising a major data center developer on electrical systems, transmission rules, and utility-related easements in other states. That overlap sits at the center of the controversy.
Broadmore Consulting is a family business. Kevin Thompson is the principal owner. His sister, Katharine Fredriksen, is the firm’s other principal and also serves as a policy advisor to Commissioner Rachel Walden.
State 48 News contacted Thompson for additional comment. He did not respond.
Consulting Clients, Political Consistency and the Family Connection
In March 2025, the Energy and Policy Institute released a report alleging that Commissioner Kevin Thompson “works with clients whose interests too closely align with his work on the commission.”
Thompson has built his political identity as a conservative regulator opposed to ESG mandates, Net Zero policies and government efforts to reshape energy production and consumption. Yet Broadmore Consulting has represented companies that publicly promote sustainability, carbon reduction, smart-city infrastructure and other priorities frequently rejected by the conservative voters Thompson courts.
The clearest example is EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure, the data center developer Thompson identified as his client. EdgeCore publicly emphasizes energy efficiency, environmental stewardship, carbon reduction and Net Zero-aligned sustainability goals.
That does not establish that Thompson personally supports every corporate policy adopted by EdgeCore. Consultants are often retained for limited assignments, and there is no public evidence that Thompson used his ACC position to advance EdgeCore’s sustainability agenda.
But the political contradiction is legitimate.
Thompson campaigns against ESG and Net Zero policies while receiving private consulting income from a company that publicly embraces those objectives. Conservative voters are entitled to know what services he performed, whether the work involved electricity infrastructure or utility relationships, and how he separates those private interests from his public responsibilities.
Broadmore has also identified Citelum as a client. The company specializes in public lighting, connected infrastructure, energy efficiency and smart-city technology, including electric-vehicle infrastructure, traffic systems, public Wi-Fi and urban monitoring systems.
Smart-city development has become controversial among conservative voters concerned about centralized data collection, surveillance, climate mandates and government efforts to influence transportation and energy use. There is no evidence that Thompson’s work for Citelum involved surveillance, Arizona policy or a matter before the Corporation Commission. Still, the relationship reinforces the need for fuller disclosure about the nature of Broadmore’s work.
The issue is not whether Thompson can be held responsible for every position taken by a client. The issue is whether his public political message is consistent with his private business relationships and whether voters have enough information to make that judgment.
That transparency question is heightened by Broadmore’s family structure.
Broadmore Consulting is operated by Thompson and his sister, Katharine Fredriksen. Fredriksen also serves as a policy advisor to Commissioner Rachel Walden and previously advised former Commission Chairman Jim O’Connor.
One Broadmore principal is therefore an elected commissioner, while the other works as a senior policy advisor inside the same regulatory agency.
Fredriksen also has extensive experience in the energy industry, including service as a senior executive responsible for health, safety and environmental affairs at Consol Energy. There is no public evidence that she used her ACC position to benefit Broadmore or one of its clients.
The concern is institutional, not personal: Can the Commission maintain the appearance of independence when two principals of the same private consulting company simultaneously occupy influential positions inside the agency?
The public should not be required to rely solely on assurances that internal boundaries are being respected.
The Ethics Code and Its Limits
The Arizona Corporation Commission’s Code of Ethics does not prohibit commissioners from maintaining outside employment. Instead, it requires commissioners to disclose financial interests, avoid conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when appropriate.
Rule 4.1 requires commissioners to disqualify themselves from matters that could affect their financial interests or future employment.
Rule 5.1 requires annual financial disclosures.
Rule 5.4 requires commissioners working as independent contractors to provide the Commission’s ethics officer with an updated client list at least monthly.
Those client lists, however, are not public.
That is the central weakness in the current system.
Thompson may have disclosed every client internally. He may have consulted Commission ethics counsel before accepting each engagement. He may have complied fully with every existing rule.
Even so, Arizona voters cannot independently review his client list, determine the scope of his consulting work or assess whether any client has interests that intersect with matters before the Commission.
Ultimately, the public is being asked to trust a process it cannot independently verify.
Thompson’s Defense
Thompson maintains that he has complied with all applicable ethics and financial disclosure requirements.
“If a matter involving any of my clients were to come before the Commission and create a conflict of interest under Arizona law, I would comply with all applicable statutory requirements, including disclosure and recusal where appropriate,” Thompson said.
He has also said he consulted Commission ethics counsel regarding his outside consulting work.
Thompson previously recused himself from a matter involving a consulting client that had performed limited engineering work connected to a regulated utility, describing the decision as an abundance-of-caution measure.
His disclosure during the Western Conference of Public Service Commissioners is also central to his defense. Thompson voluntarily disclosed that he represented a data center client, later identified as EdgeCore Digital Infrastructure, and said his consulting work was limited to projects outside Arizona.
Those facts weigh in his favor.
But a voluntary disclosure during a conference discussion is not the same as a permanent, public and independently reviewable ethics system. The broader question is not simply whether Thompson complied with the Commission’s current rules. It is whether those rules provide sufficient transparency to preserve public confidence in elected utility regulators who maintain private consulting businesses.
Utility-Connected Donations Raise Ethics Questions at the Arizona Corporation Commission
An Arizona Capitol Times review found Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson accepted 212 contributions from people tied to utilities, energy companies, lobbying firms, developers, and law firms—including registered ACC lobbyists.
Since 2021, Myers’ campaign reported more than $15,000 from those categories; Thompson’s accepted more than $23,000. The ACC both regulates and acts as a quasi-judicial body, approving rates, infrastructure projects, and line-siting applications that directly affect those donors’ financial interests.
The Commission’s Code of Ethics prohibits contributions from any regulated public service corporation and from any person or entity in a generic docket or rulemaking who is a registered ACC lobbyist (or represented by one). Prohibited donations must be returned; if not, the commissioner must disclose them and may have to recuse. Commissioners are also directed to be particularly mindful of contributions from regulated entities or their affiliates and to disclose potential conflicts, including at the start of related open meetings.
Both Myers and Thompson accepted money from 10 individuals registered as ACC lobbyists who have represented interests connected to Arizona Water Company, Arizona Public Service, EPCOR, and the American Gas Association. Opponents received far less: Jonathon Hill $3,315, Clara Pratte $2,296, and Ralph Heap $1,105.
NextEra and pending projects. Eighteen NextEra employees donated to Myers and 19 to Thompson in fall 2025, many at the Clean Elections maximum. NextEra has solar and battery projects in Arizona that require ACC line-siting approval, including the Vulcan Energy Center interconnection under review at the time.
The Picacho rate case. The CEO of JW Water, which acquired Picacho Water and Sewer, donated $220 each to Myers and Thompson in August 2025. The ACC later approved a 22 percent water-rate increase and a 154 percent wastewater-rate increase. Myers voted yes; Thompson voted no. Neither disclosed the donations nor recused.
Commissioners respond. Both deny influence. Thompson said: “I am my own man. I follow my convictions and do what I think is right for ratepayers and our utilities.” Myers noted that Clean Elections bars corporate money: “It is fair to say that I have never taken any money from the entities that we regulate.” Both said they do not personally track every contribution—an explanation that sits uneasily with a code that places the duty to identify conflicts on the commissioners themselves.
The larger problem. The investigation establishes no quid pro quo. It does establish a transparency problem. Clusters of donations from utility executives, registered lobbyists, and employees of companies with business before the Commission create the appearance that regulated interests enjoy access ordinary ratepayers do not.
Diane Brown of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group, who helped develop the ethics code, put it plainly: even small contributions, when compounded from parties that stand to gain, elevate the potential for impropriety and erode public confidence.
This is not the first time Commissioner Kevin Thompson has faced ethics scrutiny. In February 2023, consumer advocate Abhay Padgaonkar filed a formal ethics complaint after Thompson traveled to New York to meet with financial institutions that invest in Arizona utilities. The complaint alleged those meetings could compromise Thompson’s impartiality because the firms had financial interests affected by Arizona Corporation Commission decisions. Thompson denied any wrongdoing, stating he did not discuss pending Commission matters during the trip. In March 2023, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted 3-1 (with Thompson recusing himself) to dismiss the complaint after a closed-door discussion with Commission attorneys.
The Commission largely polices itself.
Who Regulates the Regulators? Is It Time for Ethics Reform at the Arizona Corporation Commission?
Nick Myers lost. Thompson advanced to the general election alongside state Rep. Ralph Heap.1 Myers’ defeat shows voters were willing to remove a sitting commissioner despite the usual advantages of incumbency.
Critics and ethics advocates have long argued the Commission’s framework relies too heavily on confidential disclosures, voluntary recusals, and internal enforcement. They have called for stronger measures, including public disclosure of outside clients and the nature of the work, tighter limits on contributions from regulated utilities and their executives or lobbyists, independent review of ethics complaints, written explanations for recusals, and clearer penalties.
No evidence has emerged that Commissioner Kevin Thompson has violated Arizona law, secretly represented a client in an Arizona case, or used his office to secure a specific private benefit.
Yet the Commission’s own code requires commissioners to promote confidence in the agency’s integrity and impartiality. Thompson regulates utilities while privately consulting for a data-center company whose business depends on large amounts of electricity and utility infrastructure. His consulting work has listed clients connected to engineering, sustainability, ESG, DEI, smart-city development, and government procurement. His sister and business partner works as a policy advisor inside the Commission. Candidates continue to accept contributions from individuals tied to the industries they regulate.
Taken together, the pattern of industry-linked donations, the earlier complaint, the self-policing structure, and the private consulting relationships leave an unresolved question for voters: whether the existing ethics system is strong enough to protect public trust in an agency with this much power over rates and infrastructure.
The primary is over. The ethics debate is not.
In the interest of full disclosure, former LD29 Republican Chair Lisa Everett filed a complaint with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission questioning whether Rep. Ralph Heap’s reported spending accurately reflected the apparent number of campaign signs in the field. Everett acknowledged she had no direct evidence of a campaign finance violation, relying instead on the “eyeball test.” As of the latest public reporting, no finding has concluded that Heap violated campaign finance laws.