Biased Reporter Supports Solar Subsidies Over Utility Customers
The recent Joe Dana story attacking Commissioner Nick Myers and his colleagues on the Arizona Corporation Commission for his defense of utility customers is just the latest example of the media’s blatant bias against policymakers who stand up for customers rather than the heavily-subsidized solar industry.
Dana’s argument that Myers is anti-solar, is ridiculous on its face. Since taking office in January, Myers and his fellow commissioners have supported deployment of over 500MW of solar generation and over 1000MW of battery storage, enough to power over 80,000 homes and businesses.
What Myers and his fellow Republican commissioners object to is the expensive and ongoing subsidization of the rooftop solar industry at the expense of utility customers who have to pay more each month to subsidize rooftop solar.
A recent report1 by the Energy Information Administration acknowledged that federal subsidies for renewable energy producers, including rooftop solar, more than doubled between 2016 and 2022, from $7.4 billion in 2016 to a staggering $15.6 billion in 2022.
These massive federal subsidies, which cost taxpayers billions each year, do not even include state subsidies, which, in Arizona, require customers to pay more for energy generated from rooftop solar.
In August, Myers proposed to reduce how much utility customers are required to pay rooftop solar customers for the energy they export to the grid. The current rate is set by the Commission and is much higher than the actual value of the electricity, which means that utility customers are paying more for electricity than they need to.
Myers’ amendment would have saved utility customers millions of dollars each year in lower electricity costs and would not have affected current rooftop solar customers at all. In spite of this, the rooftop solar industry opposed the Myers proposal, and now, this same industry is using its shill to undermine the Commission to keep their subsidies in place.
A review of Dana’s stories reveals a clear pattern: consistent advocacy for the national solar industry, and advocacy against policy makers who want to keep costs low for customers. One has to wonder, why is Dana so biased in favor of one specific industry rather than customers? Why are most of his stories so focused on such narrow issues? And what is his relationship with representatives of the solar industry who advocate for the solar industry at the Commission?
If Dana were truly interested in a good story, he would celebrate an Arizona elected official dedicated to maintaining reliability and low costs for Arizona customers who is under attack by powerful out-of-state corporations willing to manipulate the media and elected officials to keep their payouts coming.
Fortunately for Arizona residents, Myers and his colleagues at the Commission will continue to stand up for customers rather than be intimidated by out-of-state interest groups and their allies in the media.
Arizona residents should be grateful.