The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) decision on November 14 to impose a monthly fee on future rooftop solar homeowners left many observers wondering whether it was:
A. A David vs. Goliath moment where the solar industry stood up to and defeated a utility giant that used all of its resources (human and financial) in an attempt to thwart a challenge to its business model;
B. An important victory for the utility in reforming Arizona’s net metering policy to benefit all customers;
C. None of the above.
The five-month buildup to Thursday’s decision focused on net metering – the process whereby a utility compensates a rooftop solar customer for the electricity they produce and send to the grid. The Arizona case was at the forefront of a national fight by utilities to change net metering policies, and as such attracted national and international attention to see what would happen here.
Along the way there were plenty of causalities ranging from individual reputations to corporate brands--too many to count or mention.
There were even a few “shining moments”:
- Examples of good reporting emerged in a series of articles by the Arizona Republic that exposed the behind the scenes misconduct by APS in secretly funding an anti-solar PR campaign and political candidates for Corporation Commission.
- Commissioner Bob Burns calling out the questionable and dishonest PR campaign tactics that polluted the airwaves.
- Long-time ACC staffer Steve Olea being recognized during the hearing as an “Arizona treasure” for his expertise and ability to make the complex understandable for all.
In the end, net metering remained unchanged--solar customers who send electricity onto the grid and later recall that same energy to power a light or household appliance will not see their rates change.
But beginning in 2014, new solar customers will be charged a fee for access to and maintenance and operation of the grid infrastructure. This is the so-called “cost-shift tax."
As the sun rose in the east Friday morning Nov. 15, overcast skies blocked its electricity-producing rays over most of Arizona. Perhaps that was symbolic, as the solar and utility industry were still struggling with analyzing the ACC decision and its impact on their respective business models moving forward.
Lost in the aftermath though was the impact on the solar end-user and the non-user. Polling data seem to suggest that despite millions of dollars of TV ads meant to drive a wedge between the two groups, their support for solar remains strong. A Nov. 6 and 7 poll by Republican pollster Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies found that 81 percent of 300 likely Maricopa County voters rejected the APS solar tax.
This opinion trend is somewhat surprising in that it comes despite the electorate having been subjected to a massive APS marketing campaign touting its 60 years track record in support of solar and its billion dollar investment (ratepayers' money) on solar projects statewide as evidence of APS' alleged credibility and trustworthiness in calling for the solar tax. It would appear the APS brand had been sullied by the utility's own doing – the company’s funding of an anti-solar message by its proxies and APS’s public denial of any involvement in that messaging.
As the sun set Friday the winners and losers were not so easily definable, but one thing was clear: the damage done by APS's anti-solar campaign to its relationship with the solar community (the equipment producers and their customers)--and for that matter, with their non-solar customers as well who demonstrated through polling that they saw right through the wedge-issue tactics--is one that will not easily be repaired.
Jim Arwood
Communications Director
Arizona Solar Center
Question: The decision by the Arizona Corporation Commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, allowed for a new fee of about $5 a month for rooftop customers, which will be in effect until the next rate case by APS. Did anybody win as a result of this decision? Any losers?
