How Florida's electricity utilities are manipulating voters to oppose solar
electrek.co
electrek.co
If you're in Florida and you want a solar future, vote NO on Amendment 1. It's a backhanded trick that pretends to give consumers rights that they already have while sneaking in language making it much easier for the power company to raise rates especially on people installing partial solar (grid tie) systems.
Even if you're too disgusted with the whole affair to vote for which monkey will swing from the Executive branch for the next term, it's worth going to the polls in FL just to nix Amendment 1.
My roof was damaged from hurricane Matthew, and I'm drooling over the new SolarCity/Tesla solar roof, but it looks that won't be an option for us in Florida anytime soon, especially if this amendment passes.
From their side, it is just decreased consumption. Sure, it hurts their profits and bottom line but how will they even enforce this BS?
1. Some people install grid-connected solar. This being Florida, they cover 100% of their average electrical usage via the solar. This causes their power bill to go to zero, so they no longer contribute to the cost of maintaining the power lines that they benefit from.
2. The cost of grid maintenance is shifted to the non-solar customers. With the rising cost of power for consumers, more people install solar. Prices for consumers continue to rise.
3. Eventually there are very few people actually paying for power, even though everybody remains connected to the grid and expecting to get power at night. The power company is forced to buy daytime power that goes unused -- they need to burn it off somehow! The few paying customers have to cover the cost of that, plus the entire cost of the grid.
4. At some point, non-solar people are forced to disconnect. If they can't install solar, they will just have to move away. They can't afford to support everybody else and the grid.
5. There is no revenue. Costs are crazy high. The power company can not pay for employees or fuel. They start to let stuff break and shut down. The grid-connected solar users find that power is often unavailable during the night.
6. The state government issues an emergency order to take control of the power company in some way. There is a huge bailout.
We have this in Australia where we are charged a daily rate just to be connected to the grid.
The death spiral isn't obvious at first. It can take some time to really get going. In the short term, there will even be the occasional benefit for the utilities, such as avoiding an upgrade. The death spiral is still there though, even if it gets off to a slow start.
In any case, it just makes sense that:
1. all customers should pay a fair share to support the grid, even if they are exclusively selling power
2. pay for solar-generated power should be according to current (this moment right now) value, at wholesale rates, discounted due to fluctuations and the inability of the utility to choose when they buy it
If the utilities are really concerned about this they can honestly approach the citizenry and try to work out a solution. If none can be reached, perhaps its a signal that an emergency power grid isn't something that should be in the hands of a profit seeking oligarchy in the first place.
I wish they had some kind of "follow the money" thing included in the ballot. Like, no matter how many wrongly named shell companies you go through, the actual source of the money should be right there on the ballot so voters know who is truly driving these amendments.
Super tricky though, it won't surprise me at all if this thing passes. This is yet another case where the average human is just not intelligent enough to keep up with the marketing strategies of the most intelligent.
"Fossil fuel and other monopoly utility-aligned groups backing Yes on 1 for the Sun"
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/energyandpolicy/pages/...
I agree with the power companies in that the payment of the grid switch is $15,000 and should be borne by the homeowner. If you are forcing your neighbor to subsidize your solar power installation and subsequent reduction in costs through higher costs for those without solar, when the power company installs the switch on everyone's house they will be bankrupt. Yes, it would be nice if the solar power could be reduced in cost, but forcing others to bear the burden does not seem fair, especially if you are unable to make the initial investment for solar.
Look at the actual text of what is on the ballot here:
>> This amendment establishes a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
It's pretty tricky. Tell me you honestly don't think that a huge amount of people are going to vote yes on that thing.
I know what you're talking about with that one! Going to quote myself from earlier on it...
>"The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible."
It isn't that people are stupid - it's that these things are worded in such a way to make it as confusing as possible for people to understand. Or to purposefully mislead, such as the bit you quote.
I don't disagree with that. Calling someone stupid who is mislead by this type of thing isn't really fair. It's very very tricky and you really need to do research ahead of time in order to make the correct vote. If you don't know who is bankrolling it, or how other groups feel about it, it would be quite difficult to vote "correctly" just based on what you're reading in the voter booth.
I might have not given that first sentence a lot of thought at first, but by the second sentence my alarms would be going off. It's vague, weasely, and open-ended. But the first sentence is convincing enough that I might never get to the second sentence.
In the end, I don't know that it will trick voters, but it just seems so poorly written as to border on unprofessional. But I am not a lawyer.
The first sentence I interpret as: The power company (mostly Florida Power and Light, but there are some smaller utility companies that largely resell FPL, like Lake Worth Utilities [1]) cannot restrict or prevent property owners from installing solar power. The second sentence I interpret as: the government can restrict or prevent property owners from installing solar power (in the same way it restricts homeowners with building permits and building codes), but subsidies for solar power will be ended.
Not having followed the story [2] I'm inclined to vote "yes" on this (why should I pay for my neighbor's solar installation?) and don't see what's so bad about it. At some point, if solar is going to compete with traditional power sources, it will have to do so on its own terms without subsidies [3].
What do you see that's so insidious in the amendment?
[1] I had them when I lived in Lake Worth. Power cost twice as much, and it took forever to restore power after a hurricane. I refer to it as Lake Worthless Power.
[2] I've stopped listening to the news. It's horrible fear mongering on all sides (a pox on the 24-hour news cycle!). If something important happens, it will filter into my view. My stress levels have dropped dramatically.
[3] Much like electric cars. One subsidy they get is avoiding the gas tax, which goes towards maintenance of roads (on the theory that those who use more gas use more of the roads, and it's generally taxed at the geographical location of use). At some point, that has to change.
This bill is about entrenched utilities not wanting to compete - not about solar subsidies.
Also, I believe this reasonable confusion answers @dragthor's question... :-)
1) it already duplicates existing law and protections, so no real reason to have this;
2) net-metering will go away.
I can see the reasoning for 1 and it's debatable if it's good enough to vote "no." I'll vote "present" on this one.
For 2, I think it really comes down to what is considered a "subsidy." In my mind, it's the installation subsidy---that is, it costs (I'm making this up as I haven't actually researched this) $20,000 to do a solar installation for a home, yet "the government" will rebate $15,000 of it (through tax breaks or an outright check---does it matter how it's done?). I don't see "net metering" as a subsidy though---you are generating a product (in the form of excess electricity) and are selling it to the power company. But having read the "fabulous" article, I just see "this will end net-metering!" without any proof.
On the power company's side, running a grid is hard. They don't just run "all the generators" at 100% all the time because doing so would harm the transmission equipment; excess load is excess heat and over time damages the equipment, so the power companies try very hard to keep the generation matching the load (generally they run a bit high to cover demand spikes but not so high as to do damage to the equipment---it's a fine line). Net metering makes this a bit harder to manage. Traditional sources are more consistent in output and can be controlled better than solar, which is dependent upon too many different conditions over the day [1].
If there's proof that "net-metering" is considered a "subsidy" by the proponents (or the power companies) and then, maybe, I'd vote "no." But the current "net-metering is going away!" fear mongering is not helping here.
[1] Especially here in Florida. It can be party cloudy and still raining. It can be clear, then two hours later overcast with a torrential downpour, then partly cloudy an hour later. You're a power company that needs to maintain power generation to within 5% of load, now do that with unpredictable power supply.
I think the Sun Sentinel editorial might do a better job of summarizing what's going on [1]. Net metering was put in place in 2008, but this Amendment 1 would change the wording of the constitution, opening the possibility for a challenge to the 2008 law on grounds it conflicts with the phrasing in the amendment.
To the question of whether net-metering is a de-facto subsidy... Many states, including Vermont [2], Nevada [3], Mississippi [4], Minnesota [5], and Maine [6], have independently found that net-metering provides a benefit to all ratepayers.
I hope this helps clarify your questions - please consider voting no on Amendment 1 and throwing your support behind Floridians for Solar Choice, who are trying to legalize solar leasing arrangements like the ones sold by Solar City/Tesla. [7]
[1] http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-...
[2] http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2013ExternalReports/28558...
[3] http://puc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/pucnvgov/Content/About/Media...
[4] http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Net%20Mete...
[5] http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MN-Value-of-Solar...
[6] http://www.nrcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPUCValueofSo...
I haven't read up on the Tesla roof tiles, but I can only see that being viable (at least here in Florida) if they at least break even over, say, thirty years (outer range of roof replacement) with the occasional hurricane (say, one every five years or so). And how do you clean the things? We had our roof washed several months ago, but that's because my SO thought the roof just looked unsightly [2]. But having to wash the roof (say, yearly just to keep up the efficiency) will definitely cut into the ROI of the system.
They might very well work out financially in Arizona and New Mexico though (more sun, less rain and a simple brushing off of any sand might suffice).
[1] Yes, it's a decade old, but it goes into details about power generation I don't think many people realize. Running a power grid is not easy and it's all too easy to screw up.
[2] Tile roof, which tends to hold up a bit better under hurricanes.
If you don't think solar is going to be a valuable part of our nation's energy infrastructure, then by all means, vote yes on this.
But, if you do think that solar has a valuable place in the future of our nation's energy production, then I'm not sure why you would want to place the burden of upgrading the power grid to support solar 100% on the backs of the small minority who are using solar right now. It would create a chicken and the egg situation where no one would want to install solar because of all the extra fees you'd have to pay to get the grid upgraded. And, the only way to bring those costs down is by sharing them with more people, but you never get that because the fees are too high. You'd never achieve critical mass for your solar installs.
That is my understanding but I could be 100% wrong. It's impossible to get real information on exactly what this amendment would do. Most of my info is from the ballotpedia site: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_P...
If that argument doesn't convince you with its logic, just look at the Audio recording leak on the ballotpedia page. That should basically tell you that the opponents are right: "The campaign was based upon the argument that Amendment 1 was designed and funded by utility companies to deceive voters into thinking it was a pro-solar measure, when, in fact, it was written to benefit utility companies and inhibit solar expansion.". Why would you vote YES on that?