RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Remember to vote NO on amendment 1 regardless of party affiliation. This was written by the utility companies to prevent the development is solar I in The Sunshine State.

Michael1948

I hope there are enough people like yourself who realize just what a scam this proposed amendment is. They use the Public Service Comm to raise our rates and use this tactic to eliminate competition for energy.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

I haven't seen such blatant disregard for consumers in years.

FlyingTiger Loc: Tortola, BVI

Then you must have missed something called Obamacare. A blatant disregard for consumers based on lies. Can't top that.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Power Utilities pay lip service to Solar, because it really threatens their bottom line.

ayersrl Loc: Palm Beach Gardens,Fl

Just re-read Amendment 1 for the fourth or fifth time. Am trying to understand how establishing "a right under Florida's constitution for consumers to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their use" is preventing the development of solar energy. Seems to be the opposite. Or are you worried that unless they can have a complete and captive group of consumers, the power companies won't invest in solar?

Michael1948

The problem is hidden behind their double negative statement in latter section of the 1st paragraph, reading in part: "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."

In other words, they want to be able to pass along whatever costs they determine are required to maintain backup power and grid costs that you may, or may not, require when converting to solar. So, if you decide to go completely off grid and become totally self sufficient for power needs, they will still be able to charge you fees to maintain their grid. Therefore, no matter how feasible solar power becomes, they will still be charging you for something you may choose to not use. Once this is in the Constitution there will be no Legislative option to reverse it, with the safe assumption that they decide to use it to block solar capability. And that is their clear intent.

It was highlighted by PolitiFact Florida with this statement: "It gives utility companies the right to impose new fees on all solar customers to compensate for the loss of revenue when solar customers don't buy their power, making solar sales and leasing less economical."

This amendment proposal was initiated completely by power companies and funded by them to the tune of $22 million dollars. That's money from our utility fees used to further their interests, not ours. That says more than anything else to me. Apparently this was used in Nevada to kill solar power initiatives there as well. They're counting on Florida's voters to be as gullible as Nevada, so why not try here too?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Because Florida Power will not buy back the energy generated and put into the grid from residential solar and not credit the homeowner with the cost of the power. The meter cab be programmed not to recognize power generated as being different from power consumed.

Michael1948

It also benefits the power companies by preventing solar from lessening overall power demand. Decreased demand doesn't simply decrease their revenue, it also helps defer the continual increase in the number of power plants needed, which is a cost assessed to citizens. Now, the energy companies are trying to assess fees to cover the costs of building additional power plants before they are actually initiated. Just one of the many ways they ensure having assets like $22 million to cover this amendment initiative instead of trying to lower our power bills.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

WTF does that have to do with the topic Mr. Troll?

ayersrl Loc: Palm Beach Gardens,Fl

How are costs being passed on to me when the amendment states that it "ensure(s) 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."

ayersrl Loc: Palm Beach Gardens,Fl

I believe we already had a proposal dealing with buy back of power and also dealing prohibiting an increase in taxable value due to amount paid to purchase and install solar panels on private homes.

ayersrl Loc: Palm Beach Gardens,Fl

You believe that the decrease in demand will let the power company delay in building new generating facilities and that the loss in revenue will be overridden by the savings in construction?

Michael1948

Regarding your first comment - As I said, they use a double negative saying that customers who choose to NOT go solar can NOT be responsible for maintaining the cost of the grid and power generation. Therefore, those costs have to be passed along to the rest of us since the Amendment prohibits those who don't use solar from paying. In other words, say 1 million customers currently share the cost of power generation and 10% opt out and actually choose to generate power on their own. Who pays for the loss of 10% of their customer base that is currently paying? Under their plan, we all pay, regardless of whether we choose to go solar or not.

Your second comment about the current provision for solar generation buy-back and no increase in tax valuation only applies to commercial customers. In other words, commercial customers can get a break for using solar, while private customers won't be able to under this Amendment.

Regarding the third comment: You must be aware that there are several countries in the world that are energy independent. A huge portion of their energy needs are solar and renewable energy rather than our current power generation system. Yes, the decrease in demand has actually allowed them to take power plants offline. Power companies don't like that prospect. It's not good for their business model, though it might be beneficial to us.

But feel free to support the amendment if it's beneficial in your mind. I actually own Southern Company stock, so my personal interests would be served by the amendment. But I'm looking at efforts that will take our nation in a better direction than one dictated by corporate profits. Like I said before, the $22 million they spent for this came from our pockets.

Their website, until a week or so back, actually had a tape of one of their consultants in this effort bragging about what they were doing. He noted how easily it could be done here in Florida and how it had worked to the power companies' interests in Nevada by shutting out solar initiatives. Of course that was scrubbed from the website after it was known publicly. I think that covers all I need to say on this photography forum. Thanks for your interest, regardless of your choice.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

That means we will not credit consumers who have made the investment in residential solar for excess power generated which would penalize those who have not made similar investments.

California is #1, generating 7378 Megawatts
Florida is #18, generating 133 Mw

Both states have roughly the same number of "sunny" days per year. But, because Florida Power and Duke Energy are not comitted to conservation, and see Solar as a threat to their profit model, the initiative was cooked up to stifle solar installation in Florida, and to guarantee the Utilites have a monopoly.

Jimmy Buffet says no, which is all the justification you should need.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/24/reject-amendment-1s-sneak-attack-solar-power/92689364/