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.

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 wh**ever 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 k**l solar power initiatives there as well. They're counting on Florida's v**ers to be as gullible as Nevada, so why not try here too?

The following real medical professional associations do not support smoking pot as an effective medicine: The American and Florida Medical Associations, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Glaucoma Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Epilepsy Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. How is it possible that all of these medical professionals are wrong and the pro-pot lobby is right? In Florida, where it is on the fall b****t, pot is already available to the very sick and dying... does not need to be available to the general public.