For more than a decade, Daniel Tait has argued that the Alabama Public Service Commission was structurally compromised.
Not merely imperfect.
Compromised.
He said the PSC failed to act as an independent check on Alabama Power. He criticized its transparency. He argued that consumers were paying the price for a flawed regulatory design.
In one statement, Tait said, “The PSC’s role is to be the judge between the power company and the general public, and that’s a failure on the PSC to do that as well.”
In another, he argued that the commission had been “changing Alabama Power’s fuel prices for years all while denying the public any say whatsoever.”
These were not disagreements over a single rate decision.
They were structural indictments.
The problem, he insisted, was not just who sat on the commission.
It was the structure itself.
But at Tuesday’s public hearing on converting the three commissioners from elected to appointed, he emerged as an outspoken defender of the very system he once argued was structurally compromised.
Now, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has introduced the Alabama Affordability Protection Plan — legislation that would fundamentally change how the PSC is governed.
It would end statewide PSC elections.
It would impose professional qualification standards.
It would require Senate confirmation.
It would prohibit ratepayer-funded lobbying.
It would mandate annual public reporting.
In other words, it attempts to address the very structural concerns critics have raised for years.
Yet at that same hearing, Tait warned that the proposal amounts to:
“Legalizing bribery.”
That is not measured skepticism.
That is a declaration that reform itself is corrupt.
And it forces a question that cannot be avoided.
If the elected structure has failed consumers for years, why is preserving that structure suddenly the only safeguard against corruption?
You cannot spend a decade arguing that the foundation is cracked — and then insist that redesigning it will bring the house down.
When the Money Grows, the Stakes Change
In 2020, Energy Alabama operated on approximately $39,000.
Today, it spends roughly $886,000.
That is a 2,172 percent increase in four years.
At least $435,000 has flowed through nonprofit intermediaries based in San Francisco — Tides Center and Multiplier.
Energy Alabama has disclosed no Alabama-based donors.
None of this is illegal.
None of it is unusual in modern advocacy.
But scale changes influence.
An organization that once operated on a modest local budget now functions as a nearly $1 million advocacy enterprise within national nonprofit networks.
Energy regulation in Alabama governs billions in infrastructure expansion and cost allocation. When the money surrounding a policy fight multiplies, the intensity and strategy of that fight multiply with it.
Money does not automatically reveal motive.
But it does reveal alignment.
And alignment matters when structural power is at stake.
Reversals Require Explanation
Policy positions can evolve. They should when evidence changes.
But this is not a subtle recalibration.
For years, the argument was that the PSC’s elected structure produced outcomes harmful to consumers. Now the argument is that altering that structure would entrench corruption.
Both positions cannot stand without reconciliation.
If elections distort regulatory integrity, reform is consistent.
If elections protect consumers, then the decade-long structural indictment must be reconsidered.
Especially when significant resources are mobilized to defeat a bipartisan effort at institutional change.
Skepticism in that moment is not partisan.
It is responsible citizenship.
History Has Seen This Before
Alabama’s political history offers a simple lesson: institutions are often condemned as corrupt — until preserving them serves someone’s immediate interest. Power has a way of reshaping principle. That is why structural debates demand steady arguments, not shifting ones.
The Hard Truth
Energy Alabama’s growth from $39,000 to $886,000 in four years is not incidental.
Neither is the rhetorical shift from “the structure is broken” to “the structure must be preserved.”
You cannot spend a decade arguing that a structure is captured, opaque and harmful to consumers — and then declare that altering that same structure is “legalized bribery.” That is not evolution. It is contradiction. And when nearly a million dollars in advocacy muscle mobilizes to protect what was once condemned, skepticism is not hostility. It is accountability. Alabama families deserve clarity. They deserve consistency. And they deserve to know whether this fight is about reform — or about control.
